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:gfx (Score 1) 499

by andrewcharles420 (#26775023) Attached to: Sacrificing Accuracy For Speed and Efficiency In Processors
I don't know about ATI/others, but NVIDIA graphics cards have only recently been able to do calculations in double precision (CUDA 2.0 was released ~August 2008). The current hardware implementation doesn't even take full advantage of the architecture (good explanation here:; that kind of accuracy seems not to have been needed before).

+ - Beware Office 2003 SP3-> 1

Submitted by
steppin_razor_LA writes "In the name of security, Office 2003 SP3 disables a number of features instead of fixing them. For example, Office 2003 SP3 breaks the ability to view TIFFs by removing the file association between them and the Microsoft Office Document Imaging. Corporate users are left with either trying to find a third party TIFF viewer or attempting to replace the removed file association and ignoring the security warnings.

From Microsoft: ".Tif files and .mdi files are no longer associated with Microsoft Office Document Imaging. Additionally, these files no longer open in Microsoft Office Document Imaging by default."

Additional information is available at:"

Link to Original Source
The Courts

+ - What does a download cost a record company?

Submitted by
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Why are the record companies being so secretive about their costs in connection with downloads? The RIAA is fighting hard to keep that information secret, even though a Judge ruled last November that defendants are entitled to try and prove that the damages the RIAA is looking for are unconstitutionally disproportionate to "actual damages". Obviously the expense data is needed to compute "actual damages". The issue takes on heightened importance from the revelation last week that the RIAA isn't just seeking $750-per-song-file, but $750 to $150,000 per song file, from file sharers, in a case where it actually got a jury to award $9250 per song file."

"Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit!" -- Looney Tunes, "What's Opera Doc?" (1957, Chuck Jones)