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


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - 6 month subscription of Pandora One at 46% off. ×

Comment Well of course, because Linux is OpenGL (Score 1) 27

And AMD can't handle OpenGL. I don't know why, I'm not sure what's so hard, I'm not sure if there's a monster that guards the OpenGL specs in the AMD office or something, but they have sucked at GL for over a decade, and show no signs of getting any better. They can't claim it is because of an API limitation either. For whatever you want to say about the mess that is OpenGL, nVidia makes their GL drivers dead even with their DX drivers. You can use either rendering path and can't tell the difference in features or speed.

That is also why I'm real skeptical that Vulkan is going to do anything for AMD. While they are heavily involved in the development, they are involved with OpenGL's development too (ATi was a voting member on the ARB and is a promoter with Khronos Group). Given that Vulkan is heavily GL based, originally being named glNext, I worry that AMD will suck at performance with it as well.

Comment I'll believe it when I see it (Score 2) 27

Not the driver, that's out, but that they are going to change how they do drivers. They've said that numerous times before, and always the situation is the same. They are very slow at getting actual release drivers out (they are forever beta versions) and their OpenGL performance and support is garbage (to the point that HFSS would fail to run on systems with AMD cards).

So AMD: Less talk, more good drivers. I want to support you, I really do, but I've been burned too many times.

Comment Re:Those who can, program. (Score 1) 69

Programming, my boy, is to science what accounting is to calculus. I don't think you have even the beginning of a glimmer of understanding of what science is.

Not entirely true - I can assure you that, on a daily basis, I apply the scientific method to figuring out how to talk to undocumented "black boxes" (whether hardware, OS features, or just how to safely use buggy libraries I can't avoid or rewrite).

That said, your statement holds largely true in a bit different light than how you meant it...

In mathematics, you can spend a career mentally masturbating over your favorite "hard" problem, and retire after decades with nothing to show for it. In programming, if you work on a problem for five years, you'd damned well better get world-changing results, or find a new job.

Comment Re:exaggerate much (Score 2, Funny) 162

No. It's a million times worse than this article could ever possibly suggest. Unrepairable products are worse than Hitler and they will cause a plague of giant, unkillable kitten-eating spiders to build hidden nests in your home and workplace to covertly drain your blood little-by-little when you're distracted -- possibly by the crippling fear that your gadgets might break and you might have to buy the new improved one for yourself. The only thing worse than unrepairable products is people who exaggerate.

Comment iFixit is NOT unbiased (Score 1, Troll) 162

The declarations of someone who is complaining that others are making it harder for him to make a buck need to be taken with a large grain of salt. iFixit for all their merits sells spare parts & repair kits. It is thus clearly in their own interest for everyone else to make it profitable for them to sell their products. iFixit would be very profitable if all phone manufacturers did everything they could to make it easier for them to sell their repair kits & repair/upgrade instead of replacing.

Their contention that do-it yourself repairmen are better for the environment it is completely unsupported. iFixit does not recover the broken parts that their clients are replacing and old parts are typically tossed in the trash. Manufacturer repair shops like Apple's have recycling policies that do recycle broken parts as well as old devices that people turn in when upgrading.

When iFixit starts systematically recovering the old parts when they sell replacement kits AND shows in some meaningful way that they are responsibly recycling them as well as Apple has shown to do, then they can talk about how environmentally virtuous they are - not before.

Comment And what does that cost for gigabit routing? (Score 1) 88

The problem PFSense has as compared to consumer routers is that running on normal Intel CPUs it needs more CPU power (and thus cost) to be able to forward a given amount of traffic. Plus all the NICs and such are separate silicon. Boradcom makes little all-in-one chips that have a couple of ARM cores that have acceleration for routing and so on. Also they have things like an ethernet switch and ethernet PHYs on the chip so they needn't be added. Have a look at a BCM4709A for an example that is popular in routers.

PFSense is good but it is not the most economical thing if you are talking features matching a consumer router, meaning gig routing, multiple ports, and wifi, you can have your costs go up a fair bit. Particularly if you also then want it to be fairly small and low power. If you hop over to PFSense's site it would cost about $575 for a SG-2440 with WiFi which would give features roughly on par with a consumer router.

While I'd much rather have that over a consumer router, a consumer router is in fact what I have because I didn't want to spend a ton of money for a home router.

Comment Re:The judge issued a verdict ahead of trial? (Score 3, Interesting) 199

There are three parties in the US now:
* The Left, not materially represented in Congress, but Bernie Sanders is an example of a Left politician.
* The Right, not materially represented in Congress, but Ben Carson is an example of a Right politician.
* The Donor Party, which includes the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans in government (at least at the federal level), and which gets great and responsive representation.

Our government is very attentive and responsive to the best interest of the constituents who sent them to office. The problem is those constituents are the big money donors, not the people who are voting Democrat or Republican.

It's structurally possible to fix this though primary elections, and by "primary-ing out" incumbents. But we, the voters, need to start caring more about evicting the Donor Party guys than about whether Left or Right win. The Donor Party games us every year by calling the non-Donor Party guys "extremists" for daring to represent what the people actually want. Can we stop caring about how the mainstream media describes candidates? I'm doubtful, but it's possible.

Comment Re:I find swatting (Score 1) 229

I find swatting ... Endlessly amusing. I find it amusing because it exposes a fundamental flaw in telecom systems.

You're quite mistaken there. It isn't a "fundamental flaw in telecom systems," it is a flaw in the social system. Fortunately there is an excellent patch for this issue. The problem is that it isn't used enough. If the patch was applied more regularly the problem would be likely to pretty much disappear. Will you be volunteering to demonstrate?

Comment Re:What purpose does registration serve? (Score 1) 191

It was established legal tradition in Britain for some time before the US war for independence that people were allowed to own guns because, even though hunting was illegal, guns weren't only for hunting, they could be used to defend one's home. It was common in the colonies (where everyone had guns, and hunting was legal) that every man was required to bring his gun to church on Sunday, in case a group of men with guns was required for any purpose. These guns were expected to be serviceable military weapons - a tradition going back to the late medieval period, where every man was required to own a weapon of war in case that was needed (and swords were very cheaply available after the plague, so real military weapons, not farm implements, were expected).

There are still several modern nations in which every man of age is required to own a modern military rifle (issued by the government). This idea that somehow the "right to keep and bear arms" excludes modern military small arms is a very modern contrivance, and not at all the intent of the Second Amendment. Heck, not just small arms - even 100 years ago cannon were typically bought for the town by the wealthy, and taken off to war when needed.

It's a very simple idea with centuries of legal tradition behind it: a free man has the right to own a gun, and not just for hunting, but actual military small arms. Totalitarian states disarm their subjects to prevent uprisings. Free societies have an armed populace to keep the government nervous about uprisings. It really is that fundamental.

Were there fewer fools, knaves would starve. - Anonymous