Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:AMD has played losing strategy for too long (Score 5, Insightful) 117

by Ecuador (#49492369) Attached to: AMD Withdraws From High-Density Server Business

They were even outright leaders for a while, but failed to capitalise on that.

Wow, that is the understatement of the century. AMD at one point did decide not to be a "mini Intel" and become a technology leader. Do you realize that while AMD had a far superior product for several years, Intel threw money (and threats - as was proved) to every retailer/integrator/etc out there to not carry AMD (and did other "interesting" things such as rig their industry standard compilers etc). Intel was allowed to use strong-arm tactics that "scream" anti-trust and after many years an almost bankrupt AMD was allowed to accept a small payment and Intel went scot-free.
If you have a product that is far ahead of the competition, you should be allowed to capitalize on that. If you are illegally not allowed by thepowerful players, there should be some sort of protection for that, before it is too late. But I guess the DoJ was sleeping at the wheel...
You have to remember, the Athlon was getting a firm lead on the P3 and Intel got out the P4 as a "response". The P4, the processor now universally known as the biggest "dog" by virtually everyone (even in its final and much, much improved incarnations), eventually abandoned even by intel to go back to a saner P3-derived architecture, was actually welcomed with laurels, both by (most of) the press and the integrators. AMD put all this R&D effort and they got nothing out of it, instead the were bleeding money for years, while Intel was making money with the current situation being a very weak AMD next to a behemoth. It is too bad for us, because the sole reason Intel CPUs are affordable is AMD - I won't remind you how much Intel charged per-CPU before there was competition. The sole reason Intel CPUs are this fast (or even that their consumer products are 64bit) is AMD. I only hope in some miracle for AMD to survive and get some competition going, otherwise there will be no-one left to keep Intel in check and consumers will pay for it...
So, yeah, the greatest industrial robbery of all time has been largely forgotten. AMD just "failed to capitalize", they were "obsessed with being a mini Intel"...

Comment: But the reports say... (Score 3, Informative) 319

by Ecuador (#49488261) Attached to: LA Schools Seeking Refund Over Botched iPad Plan

Pearson was Apple's subcontractor. Apple was supposed to get $780 out of every ipad (yep, you heard right, retail+ price) and Pearson $200. I haven't seen the contract, but if the various news sources is correct, it is Apple who is basically making the offer by bundling software of their choice...

Comment: Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score 1) 698

by Ecuador (#49478969) Attached to: 'We the People' Petition To Revoke Scientology's Tax Exempt Status

We are not giving the state authority to destroy religions it disagrees with. But to gain a tax exempt status you have to be an organization that does some sort of charity or at least some sort of public good. As far as I know other tax-exempt churches do try to make at least a show of "giving to the people" and of being inclusive. The Church of Scientology does not. Why should it be tax-exempt?

Comment: Re:Another slashvertisement (Score 1) 148

by Ecuador (#49463539) Attached to: Nearly Half of <em>Game of Thrones</em> Season 5 Leaks Online

I pride myself in the fact that I have never watched even a single episode of the show.

I can understand things like "I pride myself in the fact that I have not watched more than one episode of the show" or "more than half an episode of the show", but you are basically telling us that you are an idiot. Judging things as bad by how popular they are is not in any way better than judging things as good by how popular they are.
Are you at least consistent? I mean maybe the "idiot" comment was harsh, I could perhaps call you a person of "strange principles", if you have also never watched things like LOTR, Avengers, Toy Story and you actually liked /. beta.

Comment: Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO? (Score 3, Insightful) 58

by Ecuador (#49453039) Attached to: After EFF Effort, Infamous "Podcasting Patent" Invalidated

I don't think the problem is software patents. The problem is stupid patents. Like, I patent exactly the same thing everyone does, *but on a bicycle!*. The examiners seem to have completely forgotten the basic premise, which is that you cannot grant a patent to something that a person with an ordinary skill in the art could come up with based on prior art.
Of course to completely solve the problems a general patent reform would be required, which could address the software issue better among others, but even within the current framework things would be so much better if the USPTO applied some sanity.

Comment: Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO? (Score 3, Interesting) 58

by Ecuador (#49452399) Attached to: After EFF Effort, Infamous "Podcasting Patent" Invalidated

Yes, it seems to me that instead of paying for hundred of lawsuits on ridiculous patents perhaps somebody should start going after the USPTO instead? No idea if there is any legal way to do it, but since all problems start from the USPTO itself, that's where any effort should be concentrated...

Comment: Makes no sense... (Score 1) 489

by Ecuador (#49440439) Attached to: Reason: How To Break the Internet (in a Bad Way)

Is TFA like the summary? What does ISP-level net neutrality have to do with promotions and product placement? The whole REASON (yeah, feeble attempt at a pun) there is a discussion about net neutrality is that ISPs should ONLY do the transferring of packets, regardless of what they are, since that is what we are paying them for. Should they be allowed to inject promotions and ads somehow? WHY? HOW?
The summary then goes on mentioning something about rock and roll that is even more irrelevant... Unless the summary is completely wrong of course and TFA is an insightful diatribe...

Comment: Re:"standard-essential patents” (Score 1) 83

by Ecuador (#49433503) Attached to: Patent Case Could Shift Power Balance In Tech Industry

Ok, if you give essential patents for free, won't you also have to give insignificant patents (e.g. slide to unlock) for free? I know Apple is not much related to this regardless the summary, but they, for example wanted to charge others something like $20 for insignificant design patents, when at the same time they wanted to get basic communications ones almost free...

Comment: Good luck with that (Score 1) 623

I mean, for centuries there has been a movement to reform the spelling of English itself, to make it sort of consistent and thus easier to learn. Even though the movement was backed by important people and it was certainly not nearly a "departure" as a whole new language would be, it never gained any traction.
So, even forgetting about the unfeasibility and just starting to tackle your questions we do come to some moot points. E.g. "what characteristics would a new language need?" The main one is usefulness - what you will gain by learning it. So, a brand new language is the least useful. Then, other questions like "How could the language be made as easy as possible to learn coming from any linguistic background?" have no real answer, unless you optimize at least for some linguistic background. Do you want to make it a bit easier to East Asians, or you'd rather aim westerners better?

Comment: 747s with lasers! (Score 2) 370

by Ecuador (#49420919) Attached to: How the Pentagon Wasted $10 Billion On Military Projects

The Airborne Laser, envisioned as a fleet of converted Boeing 747s that would fire laser beams to destroy enemy missiles soon after launch, before they could release decoys.

It turned out that the lasers could not be fired over sufficient distances, so the planes would have to fly within or near an enemy’s borders continuously. That would leave the 747s all but defenseless against antiaircraft missiles. The program was canceled in 2012, after a decade of testing.

The problem would have gone smoothly if they had used tried technology. For example, instead of 747s they should have gone with DC-10s, as they have successfully been converted in the past even for interstellar travel. And you could always go with sharks of course... No missile deployment stands any chance against a sharknado... with lasers...

Comment: Re:Too many pixels = slooooooow (Score 1) 263

by Ecuador (#49418355) Attached to: LG Accidentally Leaks Apple iMac 8K Is Coming Later This Year

People think I sit relatively close to my main 27" screen and I just measured and I am at a distance of about 58 cm (almost 23 inches for the metric-impaired people). If I went any closer and tried to watch something full-screen, I would have to turn my head right and left to track things. Don't get me wrong, I love monitor real-estate, so I have a second monitor (portrait mode) next to the main one, but I do indeed turn my head to see it. So 20 inches for a 30" monitor is a bit pushing it, therefore I really doubt whether you could actually put that 40" monitor at that same 20 inches distance and call it a usable desktop. Sure, it would be nice for the "Imax" experience, but I think that if you want your display to cover that sort of angle of vision where you have to turn around, you might as well just get separate monitors and become more productive since they will allow you to group things together / better organize...

Comment: Re:call the library ? (Score 2) 246

by Ecuador (#49415151) Attached to: Watching a "Swatting" Slowly Unfold

Or just check where the call originated from? AFAIK all legitimate 911 calls have a location that is provided by the cell phone network to the 911 center. If the call is some sort of anonymous VOIP call that you can't verify where it originated from, DO NOT send the SWAT without figuring out what's going on...

Comment: Re:Jury Nullification? (Score 1) 197

Assuming a jury that is against the ban (which is not that certain anyway), the jury traditionally gets specific instructions from the judge. The judge will of course explain them it is not a matter of what they believe, only a matter of whether they think the defendant violated the law. There is little chance a jury would "revolt". A federal law is needed to stop this ridiculous protectionism. Car salesmen do not add value, they only add cost and woe.

Behind every great computer sits a skinny little geek.