Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Polls on the front page of Slashdot? Is the world coming to an end?! Nope; read more about it. ×

Comment: Re:albeit costing three times as much (Score 2) 103

by Kjella (#49823883) Attached to: Intel Releases Broadwell Desktop CPUs: Core i7-5775C and i5-5675C

I've never understood what market wants a powerful CPU paired with a meddling and power crippled yet still expensive GPU though, except in a laptop where it's all you got. Pretty much every benchmark shows that if you want gaming performance, put almost all your money in the graphics card. I mean the high end processor is $366, you can get a $64 Intel G3260 and pair it with a $299 Radeon 290X for less that'll be a much, much better gaming machine though it'll use 200W more when you're playing.

Now if you really want that powerful CPU for non-gaming purposes that's fine, but then you can buy an i7-4790K and save the rest towards buying a real graphics card. I mean seriously, you're spending $300+ and the benchmarks are if you can play at 720p low quality between your number crunching? It does not compute. And it's a total waste if you decide that 720p is not enough, the integrated graphics will then be dead weight, which seems more likely to happen if 60-80% of your budget went to buying the CPU as opposed to buying an APU where you spent 60-80% on the GPU in the first place.

Comment: This is just in time to be bypassed entirely (Score 0) 160 the also-announced plans for wireless charging and docking. (okay sorta)

It'll be a while before the wireless docking and charging can replace wired connections, BUT, I think it's soon enough that this situation may somewhat resemble the slow uptake of Blu-Ray over DVD due to streaming becoming feasible.

Comment: Re:Subscription or no? (Score 2) 356

by Kjella (#49815689) Attached to: Windows 10 Release Date: July 29th

What's in it for Microsoft, when the upgrades are free? They've had six years to make improvements that users might pay for and they're just going to hand them over for free. Why? They're not making profit on the hardware the way Apple does, selling software is their core business. Part of getting a new machine is also getting the latest OS, if you already have Win10 on your 2.8 GHz i7-860 w/DDR3 and 16x PCIe 2.0 and add a new graphics card and some more RAM you have a pretty solid platform to play with. It's not like they massively improve each year anymore.

I think it's about control. Users have repeatedly refused to get on boards Microsoft's failtrains like ME, Vista and Win8 staying on the last good version for years. I think it's everybody on the Win10 train and when they pull another stunt there's nowhere to get off, if you want to stay supported you'll be upgrading to the latest 10.x release whether you want to or not. Unlike the OS service packs are only supported for a short while and in this new model it's not even clear if consumers will get that or if it's just one update stream of security patches and "upgrades" all rolled into one.

Comment: Re:Same performance different Memory Capacity (Score 4, Insightful) 152

$650 is "sensibly priced" for a gaming card? That's almost double the cost of a current-gen console and you still have to buy the rest of the computer.

And you're playing at most 1920x1080x60 Hz, from what I understand often less. This is the kind of card you want if you're looking for 2560x1440x144 Hz or 3840x2160x60 Hz gaming on say an Acer XB270HU or XB280HK, pushing at least 4x as many pixels. For games that only run at 30 fps or 720p/900p make that 6x-8x as many pixels. Sure, it's like comparing a soccer mom car to a $100k+ sports car, it's not "sensibly" priced. It has terrible MPG with a 250W power consumption. But when you put the pedal to the metal, it's seriously fast.

The Titan X was clearly a "because we're the fastest, charge double" card. I guess you're always looking at it from your point of view and saying the others are the insane ones, "Paying a $1000 for a graphics card? That's crazy, I'll settle for a $650 GTX 980 Ti". Next guy says "Paying $650 for a graphics card? That's crazy, it'll settle for a $199 GTX 960" and so on. Basically you spend relative to your interest and the amount of money you can comfortably spend. Don't go to a five star luxury resort if the budget says a hostel, but if you can afford the resort do it. YOLO and all that.

Comment: Re:A tax break isn't s subsidy (Score 1) 352

by swillden (#49811273) Attached to: How Elon Musk's Growing Empire is Fueled By Government Subsidies

Actually corporate taxes result in higher wages as they are a write off for the company and reducing the corporate tax to zero would mean less incentive to pay high wages as those wages can be profits instead.

This is a rather silly argument. Money out is money out, whether it's paid in taxes or in salaries, or in capital expenditures. Companies are always going to seek to minimize their expenses to the degree possible, and the fact that increasing an employee's salary by $1 comes at a marginal cost of only 80 cents doesn't make the company any more anxious to spend that 80 cents, and more than it makes the company want to spend more on raw materials, or real estate, or property taxes, or paper clips.

With lower wages and higher taxes on consumers the company is going to lose revenue as people won't have money to spend

There's no reason to expect wages to decline without corporate taxes. Most likely the new equilibrium point will be that wages will be slightly higher in the exact amount needed to cover the additional taxes paid by the employees.

But now the employee will know the tax they're paying.

remember that taxes on consumers is always paid by employers in one way or another.

You have that exactly backwards. Taxes are all ultimately paid by people, because only people actually produce or consume.

Of course on the plus side, we can all incorporate and reduce our tax burden.

Wouldn't work. Any money you take out of the corporation to live on, or any money the corporation spends on you (housing, vehicle, food, etc.) is personal income, and would be taxed as such. About the only thing you could achieve this way is to defer taxes on savings. But they'd still get taxed eventually.

Comment: Re:Epic fail: someone always matches (Score 5, Informative) 128

by Kjella (#49811079) Attached to: China Unveils World's First Facial Recognition ATM

Uh, no. You're not trying to find a needle in a haystack, the ATM is trying to determine if the one person in front of the camera matches the one identity on file. it doesn't matter if there's 300.000 people who look enough like you to pass the check as long as the thief is one of the other 300+ million. You're weeding out the 99.9% who look nothing like you.

Comment: Re:Mental health workers? (Score 4, Insightful) 355

by Kjella (#49811035) Attached to: Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs To Computerization?

3. Maintenance and repair work. Repairs are almost never carried out by a machine. You can find a factory that is 100 percent automated and it actually still has human repair techs keeping the robots working.

The repair business is way down. Say 25 years ago small electronics repair was a big thing, radios, TVs, computers, stereos and so on. Except for warranty repair - which is suspect is more and more synonymous with warranty replacement or the replacement of complete subsystems - nobody really does that anymore. It went from replacing capacitors to replacing cards to just replacing the whole unit, while the skill level dropped from engineer to glorified delivery boy.

Nobody I know mends their clothes or socks or shoes anymore, they come cheaper off the assembly line. Really all the kinds of small household items I'd be more inclined to replace than start finding duct tape and glue. Maintenance is a little better, I still need people to paint walls but a quick search indicates robots want to take that job too.

More and more has embedded diagnostic sensors and service programs where you're really just following a list of instructions, granted the actual work is still done manually but by much lower skilled staff than before. The less electronics is involved, the more likely your job is safe. Also fixed items that you can't easily replace like electric wiring, water/sewage pipes or air conditioning. Make sure you need actual skills, not just swapping parts as otherwise it won't pay well or be very fun.

Comment: Re:Linux Mint 13 (Maya) MATE desktop demo (Score 1) 289

by Kjella (#49810679) Attached to: Windows 10 RTM In 6 Weeks

How do they do that? Have more users. How do they do that? Have more applications. How do they do that? Have more users. How do they do that? ***ERROR: Infinite loop detected. By that logic, nothing new should ever be successful.

The magic you're looking for is called "investments". I can't run an ad hoc burger shop from my home kitchen and make that a viable business by selling one burger, then two, three and so on. I'd have to find a location, get furniture and equipment, supplies, utility services, permits and staff so I can keep stable business hours and so on. On day one I'm in a net negative and I'll pretty quickly need a big turnaround to cover running costs and make a return on investment. The software business is the exception here where many have started with nothing and just written code without any real investment except time.

In practice that's how it is for many software projects too, if you want to launch an AAA game you can't write a little, sell a little and so on. You need to hire lots of people, give them enough time (= money) and make a big splash selling for more than you spent. Or something boring like accounting software, if you can't do the tax forms right it simply won't sell. That's generally how the world works, people want to buy finished products not buy the book while it's written or the movie while it's filmed. But that investment requires a return on investment.

Which brings us to open source, which sucks at that. Service and support is almost purely a "What have you done for me lately?" business, if it's the kind of software you'd buy support for in the first place. You have Kickstarter and other crowdfunding schemes, but you have no idea what and if anything really is going to be delivered at the end of the day. And there could be a lot of bad blood if someone does the heavy lifting while someone else gets paid off for exposing the functionality. Cooperation and money generally don't mix well. So that is why I think open source is often caught in this Catch-22, it's not that it's impossible to get out of but you'll get no reward for making the effort.

Comment: Re:Not a discovery (Score 1) 80

As I mentioned elsewhere, viewing security footage would be more relevant as it removes the knowledge that it's a virtual environ - and there's already an extensive collection of it.
Why would new insights come later as they already can and do interview professional burglars now who explain *actual* techniques?

Comment: Re:Not a discovery (Score 1) 80

at a pace that non-systematic, anecdotal experience

Running someone through a vr simulation is no faster as the recording needs to be analyzed and is *still* anecdotal vs watching them actually perform a crime without their knowing they are being watched. Just because it's machine recorded doesn't alter that. In fact, studying home and business security camera footage would be of greater value.

Psychologists were amongst the law enforcement people interviewing burglars previously, making it just as valid as this, making this a rehash. That the burglars behaved exactly as they did in the vr simulations is no surprise as in both cases they were asked to explain/do what they did to burglarize. Like I said, nothing new was learned or even done other than inserting a machine in lieu of the notepad. That in itself is not only not a novel idea, it's been done many times before.

The discovery here is that simulation may offer mechanisms that enable previously impossible areas of study, not the lessons about how burglars search homes.

"May" is not a discovery, it's a supposition and again, not itself a new one. Had the experiment done something unique and new (other than just inserting a machine) you might have a point. But frankly, it still cannot mean anything outside of how a person behaves in a simulation, as the person taking part cannot by definition act as if it were a real environment and so alters their response to a new situation from what would happen in real life. For example, if the situation were lethal there would be no terror at the prospect of actually dying or having to kill. All suppositions to the contrary are delusional.

Real programmers don't bring brown-bag lunches. If the vending machine doesn't sell it, they don't eat it. Vending machines don't sell quiche.