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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:What Does This Mean (Score 4, Insightful) 76

They are building custom hardware and a lot of it so they get a bit of special treatment from Intel.

You engineer the thermal paths and better control how you get rid of heat. You tweak the board layout for the best performance of the chipset and CPU and run closer tolerances on voltages and clock frequencies while keeping it small. Buying in bulk also lets you customize the chipset and CPU packaging to get you better performance/watt and higher density by eliminating all the "fluff" stuff you really don't want on the cloud machine. Who needs all those USB controllers, PCI-e busses, and sound cards you find in your average server chassis in a high density server farm that just take up space and suck power? Just give me a couple of NIC's, a SATA connection and a serial console and a way to reset an individual system and I have what I need to stand up an OS and grant somebody external access to it.

Comment Re:The question is (Score 1) 569

Where is that in the constitution?

Not there? Then it's up to the states who grant their charter.. I'm guessing few states will sign up for this for fear of running off business and economic activity to tax and the ones that would, are in serious trouble with businesses departing for greener pastures anyway (Here's looking at YOU CA and IL).

Comment Re:The question is (Score 1) 569

Oh sure... The only difference is that if the US company get's in too much trouble, the company just heads to bankruptcy court and reorganizes. If it's bad enough and the company has Union workers, the UAW will demand and get a government funded bail out of said company to keep the union membership employed under the guise of being "too big to fail"....

Comment Re:Only if you ignore the differences. (Score 1) 684

I don't agree, many of the problems are exactly or nearly exactly the same, many are worse on the moon, few are better. The advantage of the moon is that it's CHEAPER by virtue of being closer, has some gravity and would serve as a jumping off point for additional research of the moon which has value of it's own. The "unique" parts of the Mars environment could easily be replicated on the ground (or on the moon) as necessary to prove the technology is adaptable, but there is nothing that can replace real experience using a technology when you are dependent on it and far away from help.

But.... Hey, you are entitled to your opinion... I just think you are wrong in this case.

Comment Re:Only if you ignore the differences. (Score 1) 684

Then why go to Mars in the first place? Pick something else.

We've already established that it's NOT habitable and there is no point in being on Mars... Seriously... (sarcasm) Just aim yourself at the nearest star beyond ours and go have a look... Oh, we are not ready for that yet? Hmmm... Might it be just a bit to distant for us right now? Ok, just head to one of Saturn's moons with you proposed colony... Think big man.... (/sarcasm)

So you see no value in staying close to home and working out the bulk of our problems.... Ok...I think a crawl, walk, run progression is useful here, you apparently don't. I see some possible advantages to being on the moon, you apparently don't.

What now? Shall we settle this with a duel come high noon?

Comment Re:That's what Nokia, Moto, and Microsoft said (Score 1) 535

Not exactly...

Cars really ARE a low margin business where the possible sales volume is pretty low and the produce is very expensive. Cell phones are generally not the same kind of business, margins are pretty high per unit and the volume is a couple of times that of a cars.

In Q1 of 2014 it is estimated that just Apple sold over 60 million phones, during which the auto industry struggled to sell 10 million units industry wide. This makes the production rate of iPhones an order of magnitude higher than the entire auto industry's unit production.

Margins in cars are *extremely* low, especially given the huge NRE costs that get spread across 1/10th of the units. Building a car is a *huge* and complex undertaking which requires huge amounts of space, very expensive tooling and long supply chains. Automobiles require huge investments in materials and inventory over long terms because it takes a long time from when you start building a car to when it's paid for by the customer.

Cell phones are different. Building and assembly of the hardware is fairly easy and doesn't require huge amounts of space for the tooling or parts storage. You are spreading the NRE across 10X the number of units and the "industrial engineering" portion of the NRE is a LOT smaller for a cell phone. The logistics are easier, the device is smaller and it has a fewer parts by a long shot.

So, where Apple does have the $$ to do anything it wants, including taking over the automobile industry if they wanted, the critique of Apple by automobile experts is valid. It's just that Apple could afford to BUY any expertise it needed to make it work if it chooses to.

Comment Re:GM & Ford (Score 0) 535

take care of your stuff and it will last

Not that iPhone thing in your pocket... You can bet Apple will make a better iOS release that makes that shiny new toy run like a tired worn out dog in about 3 years. It may not be worn out, it's just no longer usable for the new software load with the wiz bang shiny new features that everybody wants.

Of course you can go like me, running that Windows CE device into the ground and finally giving up on it after 7 years... But folks are going to call you a luddite for sure...

Comment Re:Not a real story (Score 1) 361

I disagree but hey, we DON'T really know what this kid was doing in English class as only one side of the story is out. Who knows, he could have been doing a live count down followed by yelling "boom" when the alarm went off for all you and I know. All I can say is that the school and police cannot discuss the events in detail without written permission from this kid's guardian, who has refused to give consent.

So, perhaps your imagination is a bit limited, you have a bias to distrust authority, or you have made your own set of assumptions for political reasons and don't wish to revisit them, but there ARE possible scenarios here where this whole think played out properly and everybody followed the process as they should. Even ones where the kid didn't do or say anything really wrong but just did something stupid and naïve.

Comment Re:It's not just about going to Mars (Score 1) 684

They are not that different considering how far out of habitable they both are. I would consider the moon less habitable, given that there is literally NOTHING there in the vacuum of space over Mars where it's just really thin atmosphere. They are both dusty, it's hard to land large objects on them, they are both going to require a pressurized habitat, to grow their own food and manage their own CO2 and O2 levels, recycle waste water and be self contained. We will need portable energy supplies, contingency medical options and processes and procedures to deal with emergencies. We will need to develop and deploy communications networks and learn to deal with significant latency. Then there is the necessity of a heavy lift ability and economically viable ways of getting to and from orbit with people and materials.

Yes they are different destinations, but if you look at the difficulties they both present, it is a similar problem with one destination being in the backyard and the other being on another cotenant..

Comment Re:It's not just about going to Mars (Score 5, Interesting) 684

It's about going everywhere else. The tech developed going to Mars will undoubtedly be useful when going other places. You crawl before you walk, you walk before you run.

Then go to the moon first.... Colonize it where the technology can be perfected in a place where help is perhaps a week away and not at least a year away like Mars would be a lot of the time. IMHO we will kill less people this way and still get much of the same technologies developed we will need to keep expanding our reach. Take smaller steps. It's not as glamorous because we've been there before, but it gets us into technology development.

Comment Re: No one is asking YOU (Score 1) 684

Both are necessary in balance or NOTHING gets done...

All leftists and you get emotional decisions that lack technical vision and proper engineering... Left to themselves, leftists are going to go out with a half baked solution that *might* work if they are lucky because the attempt is the reward and the possible success is valued above all.

Righties when left alone, never take risks, never try anything new, never leave their comfort zones until they are *sure* it will work. They figure, engineer, test and re-test until their resources and schedule are exhausted and always choose the least risky, less reward route.

It takes both types....

Comment Re: No one is asking YOU (Score 0) 684

Leftists/realists didn't make the world we live in today. The only thing they're good at is whining, bitching, moaning, and complaining.

Actually, the "leftist" mentality is more about emotions and less about the cold hard reality. The revel in the pride and accomplishment that "going to Mars" would bring them and look at the folks who are talking about how many problems have to be overcome as the complainers....

It's cold, it's distant, landing mass on the surface safely is really difficult, there are no natural resources to utilize once we are there etc, pale in comparison to the "We went there and left footprints" (and piles of useless garbage), at least to the leftist... They are about instant gratification, and not into all the hard slogging that it takes to accomplish their goal... But they are the dreamers that push the righties out of their comfort zones, encourage them to take risks. Both are necessary.

May all your PUSHes be POPped.