Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Misleading Article Summary (Score 1) 42

by dfghjk (#47958687) Attached to: Wanxiang May Give 2012's Fisker Karma a Relaunch

"The vehicle is purely electrically driven. It does have a petrol driven generator to top up the battery, but the engine is not involved in driving the wheels, so could easily be described as all-electric as you can rip out the engine and the car still drives."

Well you could rip out the batteries of a hybrid and it would still drive as well. Does that mean you could call a hybrid "all-gas"?

An electric drivetrain with a gas generator is a hybrid, not all-electric. It differs from other hybrid designs but that doesn't mean it isn't one.

Comment: Re:Oh god so what? (Score 1) 193

by dfghjk (#47708915) Attached to: C++14 Is Set In Stone

"If you don't have coding standards and a firm code review process to enforce them, you have already lost."

Haha. Processes are only as good as the people who implement them. Good code is the result of effort, not policy, and I've seen plenty of "lost" that came out of thorough coding standards and firm code review processes. Nothing overcomes crappy programmers.

Comment: Re:Alternative explanation (Score 1) 398

"It's tempting to imagine the internet as a giant blob of fungible bandwidth, but in reality it's just a big mess of cables some of which are higher capacity than others."

No, it's a giant blob of fungible bandwidth when you are talking about large ISPs and major media sites. It's not the dark ages.

Comment: Re:Another misleading headline (Score 3, Interesting) 236

by dfghjk (#47473927) Attached to: Nearly 25 Years Ago, IBM Helped Save Macintosh

At that time, Apple had plenty of RISC choices, all of which had better floating point performance than x86 and better performance overall. They could have chosen Alpha for its performance or MIPS as MS had done with the NT reference platform. They could have chosen SPARC or 88K and had more direct involvement with the future of their processors. Instead, they bought into IBM's claim that they would take over the x86 with equal performance at lower cost and lower power and got saddled with Motorola's processor design ineptitude.

It's a gross mischaracterization to say that IBM helped save the Macintosh. IBM led Apple to make a poor strategic decision that they had to rectify a decade later.

Comment: Re:Pairing? (Score 1) 236

by dfghjk (#47473823) Attached to: Nearly 25 Years Ago, IBM Helped Save Macintosh

THE goal of PowerPC was not to make it easy to emulate 68K and x86. It wasn't even A goal.

The goal of PowerPC was performance parity with x86 at much smaller die sizes and therefore much lower cost. All non-x86 architectures of the era targeted better performance at the same die sizes and costs as x86. What was unique with PowerPC was to be cheaper, that's all.

Comment: Re:What's the point? (Score 4, Informative) 129

by dfghjk (#47442605) Attached to: Nano-Pixels Hold Potential For Screens Far Denser Than Today's Best

20/20 vision is defined as 1 arc minute of resolving power. It is rare for anyone to achieve resolving power more than twice that.

1 arc minute translates to 87 dpi at 1 meter, although I have no idea why you mix inches and meters here. It is 95 dpi at 3 feet; 100 dpi is the commonly used number. People with 20/10 vision can resolve 190 dpi at 3 feet, 175 dpi at 1 meter.

No one living sees better than 300 dpi at 1 meter, so it is not likely to be the standard in ANY country, much less "most". 600 dpi for road sign legibility is even more absurd.

At 1km, 20/20 vision can resolve a "dot" about 29cm in size. That's 3.5 dots per METER. 1/2 meter letters would not be legible. 20/40 vision, a common driving standard, would be closer to 2 dots per meter, or the feature size you are quoting.

See http://www.safetysign.com/cont...

A road sign that should be legible at 1km should have a minimum letter size of 1.1 meters, not 0.5 meters.

2 dots per meter at 1km is 2 dots per mm, 50 dpi, at 1m not 600 dpi. In order to resolve text at that size someone would need 250 dpi of acuity which no one has.

Carewolf, everything you said was wrong. You may need a new calculator.

Comment: Re:What is the Dell CEO supposed to say? (Score 2) 173

by dfghjk (#47235799) Attached to: Dell Exec Calls HP's New 'Machine' Architecture 'Laughable'

- Swanson is not Dell's CEO
- Dell is under no obligation to comment, they could opt to do what all of HP's other competitors do
- Dell is privately held, it has no shareholders
- modern HP has proven incapable of delivering tech that leads
- other companies already ARE selling NV Ram technologies into storage markets, HP won't be getting royalties on this
- HP doesn't have to sell to Dell, but they have to sell to somebody. They won't establish anything as standard on their own
- Building a business on crappy products and loads of IP worked great for TI, they're just like Dell

Comment: Re:Dell can have no valid opinion on this. (Score 0, Flamebait) 173

by dfghjk (#47235763) Attached to: Dell Exec Calls HP's New 'Machine' Architecture 'Laughable'

"Dell is a reseller. They do not invest in any of the fundamental technologies like CPUs or Operating Systems. They have no design expertise in virtual machines like the JVM. They don't do chip design or fab. They have never been in any of these businesses."

They, in fact, have been in all those businesses. Dell did their own Unix and they supported both gcc and X11 development. They invested in CPU and chipset technology; several ex-Dell employees left to found Centaur. They work closely with all these technologies. They have to.

HP has the exact same corporate background as Dell; their old histories are irrelevant. HP was an instrumentation company once upon a time while Michael Dell was an Apple II hacker. So what?

Ignorant people should learn to keep their mouths shut.

Comment: Re:Point and shoot (Score 1) 129

by dfghjk (#46818291) Attached to: Lytro Illum Light-Field Camera Lets You Refocus Pictures Later

"Super depth of field" is meaningless without standardizing resolving power. A single pixel image has infinite depth of field after all.

A 40MP camera that renders a 4MP final image gains an inherent 3x increase in perceived depth of field just due to the lost resolving power of the anemic output resolution. When seen in this context, it's not really a cool product at all.

If you took at 40MP conventional sensor and stopped the lens down until diffraction limited the resulting sharpness to 4MP, you would have a soft images with "super depth of field". Can Lytro beat that? No. Can Lytro produce a sharper image when DOF requirements are lower? No. Conventional imaging can. Lytro allows you to refocus after the fact but what it requires is that you accept terrible resolution always. It is a crappy imager for people who don't know any better.

You have to compare what the the camera is capable of to what you could otherwise do with the same sensor and a conventional approach. Lytro isn't interested in that comparison at all.

Comment: Re:How are those kind of things patentable? (Score 1) 406

by dfghjk (#46463947) Attached to: Apple Demands $40 Per Samsung Phone For 5 Software Patents

"If Compaq had put a cellular radio in an iPaq, we would have had Windows Phones circa 2000, LONG before the iPhone."

We did have Windows phones long before the iPhone. We also had Palm phones and Symbian phones long before iPhone. There was an entire market full of such devices. Compaq was not needed to make that happen.

Those phones all had web browsers, too. Apple didn't invent that either, nor did Opera.

Apple's innovation with the iPhone was (a) a touchscreen keyboard that worked with your fingers, and (b) a platform that didn't crash daily. The form factor had already been done as had the basic UI. The iPhone wasn't even a smartphone at its introduction. It took another year before you could write apps for it.

Comment: Re:er, not really (Score 1) 406

by dfghjk (#46463881) Attached to: Apple Demands $40 Per Samsung Phone For 5 Software Patents

By the time the iPhone came out, there was no one competent at Palm (if there ever was any). Smartphones at Palm weren't created there anyway, they were bought in the Handspring acquisition.

"Head of UI team" at Palm is not a qualification nor would such a person recognize that they had been ripped off. They weren't involved in their own products to begin with.

Threaded text messaging was another Palm innovation stolen by Apple. Bet the head of UI didn't know that either.

Invest in physics -- own a piece of Dirac!

Working...