Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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:in other news: settled science (Score 1) 264

by Urkki (#49055873) Attached to: NASA: Increasing Carbon Emissions Risk Megadroughts

Carbon dioxide is about the furthest thing from toxic it is possible to get

Umm... Actually carbon dioxide is pretty deadly. 10% carbon dioxide in breathing air starts to kill people, even if there's normal level of oxygen. And this can actually happen, for example in mines (this is why canaries were used, as they're more sensitive to high CO2 levels than humans). Carbon Dioxide can kill in exceptional but realistic concentrations, so it's not very far from being toxic.

Comment: Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for (Score 1) 458

by Urkki (#48945503) Attached to: Most Americans Support Government Action On Climate Change

Ask them what they willing to actually SACRIFICE to fix it and I bet you'll get a very different answer.

That's one point of having representatives, who can work on what needs to be sacrificed by everybody. A voter doesn't need to decide or even have knowledge to decide themselves. All they need to do is pick a candidate they think will do the best job at that (and everything else).

Comment: Re:Coding vs. literacy (Score 1) 212

by Urkki (#48929951) Attached to: Why Coding Is Not the New Literacy

If you imagine quotes around first and second paragraphs, does that put the pompousness into different light? The style was indeed intentional, though I would not call it pompous.

About you setting up straw men about "writing everything from scratch". Nobody does that. By that criteria nobody in the world understands IT. If I really meant that as useful standard, wouldn't it be a humble admission, not arrogance?

Comment: Re:Coding vs. literacy (Score 2) 212

by Urkki (#48911467) Attached to: Why Coding Is Not the New Literacy

You probably failed to read the last paragraph, or then I just wrote it too poorly to be understood.

That being said, I do understand how the browser, the OS, the ./ servers and databases, and the network in between work well enough, that none of it is a mystery to me. I think having this understanding is a good thing. I don't know if it is possible to have this understanding without being able to program at least a tiny bit. This sounds roughly analogous to being able to enjoy a good book vs. being able to write a good book (vs. just getting a movie made from the book...).

Comment: Coding vs. literacy (Score 3, Interesting) 212

by Urkki (#48910991) Attached to: Why Coding Is Not the New Literacy

Hmm. If you can't read, you are restricted to looking at pictures. If there is someone to read for you, then you can hear the parts of text they choose to read for you, otherwise you are pretty much restricted to children's picture books. A lot of what happens in the world is simply a mystery to you.

If you can't program, you are restricted to using existing features in the way they are implemented. If there is someone to help you, then they can write a piece of code for you to do whatever mundane task (be it VBA, shell script, a feature or a complete application), otherwise you are pretty much restricted to clicking at links, icons and menus. A lot of what happens in the computer is a mystery to you.

Hmm. Not convinced, myself.

Comment: Re:Boom. Boom. Boom. Another one bite's the dust.. (Score 1) 121

by Urkki (#48854153) Attached to: Astronomers Record Mystery Radio Signals From 5.5 Billion Light Years Away

A massive spinning magnetron gradually slowing down until centrifugal force can't keep it from collapsing into a black hole anymore.

If you te going to make that much popcorn, you probably should not use microwave owen anyway. Use a kettle, it's cheaper, tastes better, and easier to get seasoning and butter just right.

Comment: Re:Planets? (Score 1) 170

by Urkki (#48840141) Attached to: Analysis Suggests Solar System Contains Massive Trans-Neptunian Objects

At that range, you have to wonder enough time has elapsed since the formation of the solar system for them to have "cleared the neighborhood" around their orbits.

If they are detected by looking at how they herd the minor bodies in the outer solar system, then I think it is safe to say they are indeed planets.

Comment: Re:Pullin' a Gates? (Score 2) 449

by Urkki (#48715279) Attached to: How We'll Program 1000 Cores - and Get Linus Ranting, Again

It already is wrong...

Linux Workstation: 16cores = way faster builds than 4 cores.

Did the 4 core CPU have 1/4th of the transistor count of the 16 core CPU? Then I'd expect it to be much slower of course. Point of Linus was, a 4 core CPU with same transistor count (used for more cache, better out-of-order execution logic, more virtual registers, and so on), as 16 core CPU will be faster on almost every task. So cores beyond 4 (the number Linus threw as the ballpark count) make sense only, if you really can not spend any more transistors in making those 4 cores faster, but still have die space to spare.

Comment: Re:Pullin' a Gates? (Score 5, Insightful) 449

by Urkki (#48715255) Attached to: How We'll Program 1000 Cores - and Get Linus Ranting, Again

Why not? Currently Firefox has problems rendering (loading) two pages simultaneously, although it should be able to handle tens, using several cores.
Same with Evince (which is crap anyway), it cannot do anything in parallel, should be able to use tens of cores.
Javascript? Although the language is the worst I have seen since APL, a smart compiler could at least in some cases parallelize it (maybe with speculative execution or like).
And so on.

It will turn out to be as wrong as "640k".

Javascript is generally used in event driven manner, so it will perform quite well on a single core. Firefox having trouble loading multiple pages simultaneously should still be IO-bound, not CPU-bound, and if the engine has trouble, then it's an SW architecture problem where more cores will not really help.

Point of Linus was, taking a 6 core CPU, and replacing 2 cores with more cache and more transistors per core should make almost anything on Desktop run faster.

"There is no statute of limitations on stupidity." -- Randomly produced by a computer program called Markov3.

Working...