Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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:Bulk discount (Score 1) 221

by WillyDavidK (#30651888) Attached to: Apple Orders 10 Million Tablets?

The iPhone didn't sell well initially for a couple of reasons. Most individuals didn't think they needed smart phones. Most smart phone users didn't think the iPhone was a real smart phone. It took a while for people to realize the potential of the app store, and what the iPhone could do for them.

Sure, and then there's the fact that the iPhone didn't originally have a reasonable subsidy, meaning people had to pay a much higher price than they were used to paying for a subsidized phone. Oh, and the fact that the app store wasn't released until a year later with software 2.0.

Comment: Re:I remember (Score 1) 656

by WillyDavidK (#29666461) Attached to: Palm Ignores USB-IF Warning, Restores iTunes Sync

Palm [is] just being lazy, because they don't want to have to write and support their own sync code.

Well, by that logic, it could be argued that Apple is being lazy because they don't want to write and support full-featured APIs which can provide a comparable syncing experience to that of an iPod. It could also be argued that Apple deliberately does so, in an effort to coerce buyers into purchasing the iPod because of the better experience. Of course, it would be difficult to put Apple at fault for such action, as iTunes is their own program with which they are free to code as they like - unless, of course, iTunes manages to dominate market share (which I don't think it has, but I'm not sure), in which case they would possess a monopoly of the Music Player and Portable Music Device Syncing software market, and could be at fault for an anti-trust case or unfair competition. But all that really matters at this point is which company has more money.

Comment: Re:Who would use this? (Score 1) 179

by WillyDavidK (#29599825) Attached to: Intel Connects PCs To Devices Using Light
How about distributing the 25GB image accross 10 MLC SSD drives in a RAID 0 configuration and connecting them all to the computer via SATAII into a SAS card with 3 SAS-4xSATA adapters. With 10 drives, each distributed piece would be 2.5 GB, which should take about 12.5 seconds to transfer if each drive has a transfer speed of around 200MBps, followed by whatever amount of processing time was needed for the file to be rebuilt. It may be cumbersome and require a thick bundle of cables, but it is possible. Here's a similar experiment:

Comment: Re:Who would use this? (Score 1) 179

by WillyDavidK (#29599587) Attached to: Intel Connects PCs To Devices Using Light
You do realize spdif is only a protocal and exists in multiple forms, including optical as well as coaxial (there are even rare forms that use BNC or XLR, similar to SMPTE) , and only accounts for 2 data streams (generally audio). If you were going down that path the least you could have said is ADAT - at least that accounts for 8 streams instead of 2.

Comment: Re:make a real camera please (Score 0, Redundant) 216

by WillyDavidK (#29421331) Attached to: How the iPod Nano's Video Abilities Stack Up
He said an entry level DSLR, which is in the 600-800 dollar price range. At that price point you aren't necessarily dealing with semi-pro or even hobbyists, youre just dealing with someone who wants a high quality camera. They may actually NOT want a DSLR due to the complex controls and whatnot.

It is masked but always present. I don't know who built to it. It came before the first kernel.