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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Power efficiency is good in some places, not al (Score 3, Interesting) 305

I can't imagine that there will simply be zero demand for fast, or faster, chips, regardless of the power efficiency. Some applications just demand it. If Intel won't do it, then someone else will, whether that's AMD or some new competitor in China or wherever.

On the other hand, there's certainly a market for more efficiency, especially in mobile devices, so I can certainly see lines of chips designed for that heading in the way described.

Comment Re:dont be so sure (Score 1) 343

I live in a nice suburban neighborhood, and I sure don't recall having seen any panthers, black or otherwise, outside my polling stations (in a generally pro-Republican district) the last few federal elections or so.

Now, I did see a few Jaguars, but I don't remember the color offhand. Maybe maroon-ish? Dark grey? :)

Comment Re:Fundamentals (Score 4, Insightful) 343

Clearly we weren't conducting full mass surveillance prior to 9/11, so we need to do so. Otherwise the terrorists win.

We also didn't have anyone locked up in Guantanamo, so we need to double, no, TRIPLE Guantanamo. Anyone who says otherwise obviously is a terrorist sympathizer.

And we're not doing this for our sake - it's for the children. Won't someone think of the children?

/sarcasm

Comment Re:drivel - nothing will change (Score 2) 168

The senators speaking here are pretty consistently against corporate abuse, and have been pro-consumer, nevermind reasonably tech-astute (especially the Oregon senators). They're not the ones you should be slamming for taking bribes and doing nothing - these people actually walk the walk.

The problem is that they're a minority in the senate, both in terms of being pro-consumer/anti-abuse, and in being part of the minority party. Contrast them to the Republicans that are busy decrying Net Neutrality, Title II, etc. And in fairness, not all republicans in congress are, and there's more than few corporate shills on the democratic side, but if we're talking about the loudest voices in each group, it's clear where the preferences tend to lie.

And that's something that's important to remember - not that one party is good or bad, or to claim that one is pure and the isn't, but that it's absolutely NOT fair to just tar every single legislator with the same brush, and claim they're all the same. Some of them are CLEARLY better than others, and by refusing to recognize that, we're punishing the good along with the bad. We need to reward the good behavior, and punish the bad ones.

Comment Re:Very naught, naught boy (Score 4, Informative) 168

You're certainly welcome to be cynical, but let's take a look at the list of names here:

Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)

Several of these people have been talking about internet and technology issues for some time, and rather astutely (the Oregon senators), or have taken a very pro-consumer stance against abuse by corporations (Warren, Sanders). None of them are none for being shills or fair-weather friends on this sort of thing, and they've proven more than willing to put action and effort behind their words.

Now if you really want to be cynical, bemoan the fact that they don't have enough power at present to accomplish anything versus the majority of (mostly Republican, though not all) legislators who are all too happy to suck up to Comcast/etc and proclaim idiotic things like "Net Neutrality hurts competition" or ranting about how Title II will stifle innovation when we're already getting left in the dust on connection speed by most of the developed world.

Comment Re:No use fighting it (Score 4, Insightful) 137

Contrast it with music. Is there really a problem with music piracy anymore? Not that I'm aware of at least. There's lots of options, between various digital stores (iTunes, Amazon) and various streaming services that cover a very wide catalog. About the only thing I can't get easily is something like foreign bands that are unknown in the USA, and even that's getting better. Maybe if I was looking for very specific live performances or something, I dunno - but certainly not something the average person is going to run into in a typical month or even year.

Contrast that to movies and TV shows, of which some are available, but it's still highly segregated, they regularly yank stuff out of the catalog to create artificial scarcity, etc. They still haven't gotten with the idea fully. It may be better than it was five years ago, but that's not saying much.

Comment No use fighting it (Score 5, Interesting) 137

"You can't stop the signal, Mal. Everything goes somewhere, and I go everywhere." They're never going to stop piracy. It's like trying to play whack-a-mole. Movie companies would do a much better job if they stopped trying to squash any sort of piracy, and focused more on providing what people want, in the form they want, when they want it, at a convenient price. Some people will always pirate, sure, but 99% of people aren't going to ever bother if they can get what they're looking for conveniently and without paying through the nose for it.

Comment Re:Volunteering leaving is a bad thing. (Score 1) 217

Depending on the expected severance package (which can vary with the laws in each state, and the contract you're on - I'm not sure about California or Yahoo in this case) it can be worth sticking around, but you're right on the vast majority of cases. I've worked at places that were on the downward slide (back when I was still a minor peon who couldn't influence any of that), and it was utterly miserable. Problems proliferate, and morale goes into the toilet, which makes going to work each day and dealing with your miserable coworkers a nightmarish experience. The ones who can get out easily almost certainly do, and the company isn't backfilling those positions (and if they are, nobody worth a damn wants to take them), and the extra load gets dumped on whoever's left - if people are even bothering not to halfass it in the first place.

So barring some damn nice severance, that is codified in law, and expecting that the company won't go under totally (in which case you might get left with nothing, law/contract or not), it's definitely best to have your escape plan ready to go.

Comment Editing Comments (Score 2) 1825

One suggestion would be to allow a limited window of time where you can edit your comment. It doesn't need to be anything long, even 5 minutes or so would suffice, mostly to allow for typo correction that slips past.

Alternately, have those posts be pending for 2 minutes/5 minutes/whatever so no one else can see them, but you can still edit them until that point is up? Even with the preview function, I know there's tons of typos/etc that slip through, especially when posting from an autocorrecting mobile device.

Comment Re:The Bake Sale Model (Score 1) 285

And that's part of the core of the problem.The standard market mechanisms break down far too easily when it comes to something that is not only life or death, but also immediate. At a minimum, health insurance should not be for-profit, because the profit motives there are decidedly negative towards a good system that works to serve the community. We can try to pass laws to prevent those negative outcomes, but it's like choosing to ride a tiger while passing laws that tell the tiger it can't eat you. The tiger is still busy looking for any way it can to eat you once it thinks it can get away with it. We'd be much better riding a horse - or even a donkey. Sure, a donkey is obnoxious and ornery, and possibly lazy, but its ultimate purpose is not to eat you.

It's much the same with single-payer government insurance versus for-profit insurance. Sure, government run insurance won't be the most efficient or fast, but a for-profit company isn't looking to funnel those efficiencies to you the consumer, it's going to go to profits whereever they can manage it.

Comment Re:Hardly a new concept (Score 4, Informative) 269

Yes - a strong currency is good for the consumers buying imported goods. It's bad for companies trying to export goods to overseas. Devaluing the currency is one of the measures that a country trying to kickstart its economy might take, to increase exports and tourism, and to boost domestic consumption by making imports more expensive. This is also why you see accusations of currency manipulation when the ratio is deliberately kept low for long periods of time, since market forces will tend to push towards a stable equilibrium of currency price.

Apple is in an interesting position here since it's both an importer and exporter, but it sounds like the balance of those accounts is still negative to Apple when the dollar is strong. It's probably a little more complex than that too, since you've got both the Yuan-Dollar and Dollar-Other currency (Euro, Pound, etc) ratios to consider.

Slashdot Top Deals

On a paper submitted by a physicist colleague: "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." -- Wolfgang Pauli

Working...