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


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:ISTR hearing something about that... (Score 2) 108

by Just Some Guy (#49515401) Attached to: New PCIe SSDs Load Games, Apps As Fast As Old SATA Drives

On a PC environment when you've got multiple browser windows open, IRC, email client, etc. getting constrained for IOPS is easier than expected.

An off-the-shelf SATA 840 EVO SDD hits 98,000 read IOPS, and all those tasks you mention added together wouldn't hit more than 1% of that. They're the very definition of network bound operations. The average email in my IMAP spool right now is 43KB and would take 11 4KB operations to completely read from or write to storage. Browsers site there idle 99.9% of the time. IRC? Not that I've ever seen.

Do it in a real world environment, and I'm willing to bet PCIe will show it's worth. I don't think that games will run any faster than the baseline results of no load, but I'm willing to guess it'll do better than the SATA equivalents.

I haven't bothered to look at their methodology but I tentatively agree with their conclusion: almost no desktop users would be able to tell the difference. I mean, even a HDD benching at 103 read IOPS seems spritely for most use cases. A SATA SSD working 950 times faster is as close to instantaneous as most desktop uses could ever hope for.

Comment: ISTR hearing something about that... (Score 3, Insightful) 108

by Just Some Guy (#49514925) Attached to: New PCIe SSDs Load Games, Apps As Fast As Old SATA Drives

A guy named Amdahl had something to say on the subject. SSDs excel at IOPS, but that buys you little if you're not IOPS-constrained.

Examples of things that eat operations as fast as you can throw them at 'em: databases, compilation, most server daemons.

Examples of things that couldn't care less: streaming large assets that are decompressed in realtime, like audio or video files. Loading a word processing document. Downloading a game patch. Encoding a DVD. Playing RAM-resident video games.

It should be a shock to roughly no one that buffing an underused part won't make the whole system faster. I couldn't mow my lawn any faster if the push mower had a big block V8, nor would overclocking my laptop make it show movies any faster.

TL;DR non-IO-bound things don't benefit from more IO.

Comment: Re:Idiotic (Score 1) 554

I remember when the Death Penalty was reinstated in the US.

The proponents, in the popular media, said that it was necessary for the drug war - and would only be used in extreme cases, for Drug Kingpins, and Serial Killers, where there was no doubt about guilt, because there was overwhelming evidence, and full confession.

As it turns out - this was absolutely not the case.


John Hawley Talks About UAV Controls (Video) 20

Posted by Roblimo
from the monocopter-bicopter-tricopter-quadcopter dept.
John 'Warthog9' Hawley was the boss sysadmin on before he jumped to Intel in April, 2014, as an open hardware technical evangelist. He last showed up on Slashdot in June, 2014, with his Dr. Who-inspired Robot K-9. Now he's talking about flight computers for quadcopters, specifically ones based on MinnowBoards. Last month (April 2015) he was speaking at the Embedded Linux Conference + Android Builders Summit. That's where he and Timothy Lord had this conversation about flight controllers for UAVs, which makes it a fitting sequel to yesterday's video, which was also about controlling drones with real-time Linux.

Embedded Linux Takes to the Skies (Video) 25

Posted by Roblimo
from the robot-drones-want-you-to-take-them-to-your-leader-(beep) dept.
This is an interview with Clay McClure. He makes his living designing 'custom Linux software solutions for technology start-ups in Atlanta and the San Francisco Bay area.' He also works on Embedded Linux for autonomous drones. Here's a link to slides from a talk he gave on exactly that topic: Flying Penguins - Embedded Linux Applications for autonomous UAVs, and that's far from all he has to say about making Linux-controlled drones. However, for some reason Timothy and Clay didn't talk about using drones for target practice. Perhaps they can discuss that another time.

NOTE: We urge you to read the transcript of this interview even if you prefer watching videos; it contains material we left out of the video due to sound problems.

Comment: Re:How much is his investment in the company makin (Score 3, Informative) 479

by j-turkey (#49486913) Attached to: Seattle CEO Cuts $1 Million Salary To $70K, Raises Employee Salaries
No, that is not tax evasion, I believe that you may be confused about the terminology (or are doing it on purpose for the sake of hyperbole, which is even more unhelpful). This is a case of setting up earnings to be tax advantaged (or tax avoidance), either deliberately or as an advantageous consequence of something that is potentially very good. There is a very real difference (see the article heading where it says "not to be confused with tax avoidance"). One is criminal, the other is sound money management. To put it another way, are you suggesting that you do not take any tax deductions?

Comment: Re:Are the two networks truly separated? (Score 1) 113

Exactly this. I'd like to think that there's an air gap (ahem) between the avionics and passenger networks, and that it's impossible to access the avionics system from the passenger compartment. I'd also like to think it doesn't rely on security through obscurity, like "we run our API server on port 81 instead of port 80, ha-HA!". Come on, Slashdot: we have to have at least one aerospace engineer in here, don't we?

Comment: Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score 1) 699

If your charity is providing shelter for the homeless, but they have to pay 10 bucks per night for the bunk-bed, you are not non-profit.

That test fails. What if it costs $50 per night for the bunk-bed and the rest is subsidized through external donations?

If your mega-church is providing "healing for the sick", but they have to pay $200 to enter, you are not a non-profit.

And if that $200 turns into renting clinic space and buying supplies to provide free medical care to poor children?

My point is that the answer to these questions is never simple, and if you think you've found a simple definition that neatly covers everything, it suggests you're likely missing something.

"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android