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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment You mean like the one Qualcomm has now? (Score 1) 30

Wow, a research project that uses Ultrasound to scan fingerprints in 3D? This would be amazing if Qualcomm didn't have a near production version (Likely showing up in phones early next year around CES) that they were showing off at MWC months ago. I played with it here, it works, it does '3D', it scans beneath the surface, it is ultrasound based, etc etc. It also does other neat tricks that they aren't making public.

http://semiaccurate.com/2015/0...

So why is this 'new' one all the rage again?

              -Charlie

Comment Why Thunderbolt? (Score 3, Interesting) 123

Why would you want Thunderbolt again? It is a badly broken (IE doesn't actually do what is promised like channel bonding and a few other things that are sort of fixed in VERY recent silicon), costs far too much, forces the use of painfully expensive active cables, and only passes PCIe or video. This last bit is problematic because if you want any functionality on the other end of the cable, you need to add full controllers there too, think expensive and wasteful of power. In essence you are hot-plugging controllers with the cable, and while it works in theory....

TB is a badly broken spec from day one, it was meant as a control point for Intel to force the use of it's silicon in phones.mobile by replacing USB with something only it could provide. Needless to say the market saw through this and didn't adopt it in droves, sans the few that drank from the Intel money hose. The second the hose was shut off, so was the design wins.

The main reason that USB3 had such a slow start was because Intel was desperate to kill it to promote TB. Since Intel had control over the USB3 cert process, things went might slow for technical minutia that would easily pass by previous spec certs. Coincidence? Nope.

TB is a bad idea on technical, cost, lock-in, and many many other reasons, not working correctly ever being a key one there. Delivered silicon is a joke, there is and always will be one supplier, and progress is glacial. USB3.1 on the other hand beats it like a drum in every regard other than single channel throughput.

Why do I want to pay for this in my next laptop again?

                  -Charlie

Comment Patents (Score 0, Troll) 217

Until they stop playing games with hidden and required patents, their talk is just BS. They have shown they have no intent to change that model time and time again, this round is no different. You can open source something that requires a DX call but if you don't open source DX and threaten anyone who does with patent suits, is there a point? It is hollow BS for all the same reasons. Don't buy the PR meant to distract, the underlying mechanics are still the same. They are antagonistic to open source and that won't change at a level deeper than the public messaging.

          -Charlie

Comment Not so fast (Score 1) 405

Before you say such things, you might want to look up the legal morass surrounging mail servers under your direct control and those not. Start with Megaupload and then follow links to the less public ones. There are DAMN good reason to keep your mail server on premises be it home or business, if you don't understand why you might want to educate yourself before giving advice.

                -Charlie

Comment Speaking as a Comcast victim (Score 1) 405

I too am a Comcast victim, business class, and I have a mail server on their static IPs. This has been the case for years and while I have seen occasional blocking during inter-company spats, nothing blaket like you are seeing. It could just be the range you are on or it could be something else. What I am trying to say is that it is not those big three blanket blocking Comcast IPs.

I would see if Comcast can give you another set of statics in another range. That may help.

                    -Charlie

Comment Re:Touch Server (Score 1) 681

It's OK, this version will change all those commands to equally long but completely different commands. According to their internal surveys, that should help sales out by giving administrators a sense of accomplishment in learning a new command set. What could go wrong?

              -Charlie

Comment Re:Touch Server (Score 2) 681

Ha! I get the joke there, you made a funny. Windows in the datacenter, har har.

          -Charlie

P.S. For those who don't get my joke, you should look up the marketshare data of Windows in the datacenter. No not the BS "Sales of OSes on servers" that MS commissions from Gartner, Forrester, and all the others who know where the checks come from, but share by installed socket. If you have access, look at it over the last 6-7 years, it is brutal. Make sure you get installed rather than sales, MS keeps commissioning reports that somehow manage to not count Google, Facebook, Baidu, Tencent etc etc's servers. Not sure why though. :)

Comment I can see why this would work (Score 3, Interesting) 365

Gosh, why not? I can see someone looking at their MBA saying, "It works perfectly, has a great OS, awesome battery life, and does everything I could ask for and does it fast. I need to dump this for a barely functional device with an actively antagonistic OS sold by a company unable to secure a wet paper bag or make software that works acceptably. All this for far less battery life and far more money. I wish I had 2 MBAs to trade in!",

Back to the real world....

Did I mention that the day after the S3's release I was at a press event on a bus full of journalists. Anand has his S3 and in less than 24 hours it broke. The entire bus full of tech journos all concluded it was better that way.

That said, some people do like it. Microsoft traded in an absolute monopoly lock on the desktop to cater to 10% of their base. Clever that MS management, clever.

                                -Charlie

Comment The economics are wonderful (Score 2) 241

Gee, a $1000 GPU that runs 7x as fast a 1/8th of an $1500 CPU. It woud be good idea if you didn't need that CPU to run it, but just barely so. If you cheap out on the CPU and only spend ~$750 on it, assuminng there is no slowdown on the GPU because of it, then the economics break. And people wonder why GPU compute on databases isn't catching on.

Then there is the power use aka TCO/running costs to think about. And everything mentioned above. And.... This study has all he hallmarks of an Nvidia research project who's targets are financial analysts rather than potential customers. The science is fine but that is not the intent.

            -Charlie

PLUG IT IN!!!

Working...