Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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

Comment Re:National level? (Score 1) 171

Part of the viability of claim-jumping is the notion of getting away with it. At least for the foreseeable future, there will be a lot of eyes on any given asteroid mining operation.

Exactly right. Compared to a claim in the middle of the desert/tundra/mountains in the days before TCP/IP, the amount if eyes on each claim will be simply staggering.

And thanks to the incredibly slow speeds in space, we'd probably have the hot land war that erupts over your asteroid theft over and done with before it ever reaches orbit. Because anything worth spending billions to send a miner out is certainly worth destroying millions of lives defending it!

Comment Re:On the other hand... (Score 1) 70

Right, what's the big deal here? With 10Mbps average, you can more than saturate a crappy mobile CPU chugging while loading a modern javascript webpage. You won't get any faster load times than on Wifi!

I know that I can't tell the difference between 10 and 100 Mbps for basic web browsing, or watching video. So long as you typically get 10 Mbps, is being "slower than other countries" all that bad?

Comment Re:still waiting... (Score 1) 85

Okay, so you have no idea how to compare performance? Let me show you how easy it is!

The GTX 960 is 60% faster than your GTX 560. Let me tell you how easy it was to figure this out:

1. TechPowerUp review shows GTX 680 7% faster than the GTX 960.

2. Older TechPowerUp review shows GTX 680 70% faster than the GTX 560 Ti.

GTX 960 is 100/107 the speed of the GTX 680 = 0.93

The GTX 680 is 100/59 the speed of the GTX 560 Ti = 1.7

1.7 * 0.93 is almost 60 percent improvement. And that's from a $190 card:

And if you must have more performance, this is over twice as fast as your GTX 560 Ti, and is only $300.

Now, quit your complaining. Both Nvidia and AMD are up against a wall because there's only been one process node shrink since 2011. 14nm is due next year, but until then they had to make magic happen with Maxwell (it's a more efficient architecture, making better use of available compute and memory resources to reduce costs).

That said, the GTX 680 is on the exact same process node as the GTX 960, and it cost $500 on release! So if they can offer nearly the same performance for $200 today, imagine what they can do in a year or two when they actually have a process shrink to work with!

Comment Re:MenuChoice and HAM (1992) (Score 2) 270

The other absolutely amazing thing they introduced in Windows 95 was the shortcut.

By forcing people to use them, you allowed any combination of multiple links to the same file in any location on your system. It made it so much easier for people to accept a concept like the Start Menu, while the actual programs were stored elsewhere.

It also had the upside of not making it easy to delete or lose files when clicking on or dragging items in the GUI.

Comment Re:no hardocp? (Score 1) 72

Yup, I always ignore Hothardware submissions. I'd mod you up, but they expired yesterday :(

[H]ardOCP has much better methods and much more thorough tests, since they actually try to find the best settings each video card can use. Techreport is also pretty good.

Hothardware used to be good about 10 years ago, but they lost their insight and depth.

Comment Re:Soon this will be impossible (Score 1) 229

Yes, but the point here is, they don't need our help to build "more efficient" supercomputers. If you design your chips to go wide and slow, you can build an efficient architecture on older process nodes. These are wide vector machines just like Intel is shipping; you can determine this from the claimed 140.8 GFLOPs:

1.1 Billion clocks * 2 FPU vector units * 16 cores * 4 instructions/vector unit = 140.8 GFLOPS. Not as wide as the 512-bit vector units in the latest Knights Landing, but really not that far behind.

Since the cost of the processors is invariably out-shined by the cost of the interconnect, which doesn't benefit as much from process shrinks, it's not such an issue dealing with the extra cost of large die processors. So the question is: if China already has supercomputer technology good enough to compete with the world, why can't we make a fast buck selling them more?

Comment Re:"Flash Module" != "SSD" (Score 1) 204

Essentially, PCIe is a darn sight faster than SATA, so when you hook up a flash drive to it, it goes at ludicrous speeds.

I see you've been reading the press release.

Do you believe ever piece of BS you read in PR? There's a buttload of crap where that one came from. It's the salesman's job to sell you fancy NEW MOAR BETTER CRAP, so I guess if it's working, he's gonna keep his job :D

Comment Re:Misleading story title... (Score 1) 204


And along those same lines, there's not a normal user on earth who can tell the difference between an SATA 6 drive, and the same drive running off PCIe. There's enough 4k I/O operations bandwidth on either interface to satisfy any desktop or light workstation user, but Samsung will tell you proudly how much faster the exact same drive controller and flash hooked up by PCIe!

But the industry has nowhere else to grow except lower prices for higher capacity, so we're all making the transition to M.2 and NVMe JUST TO BLOAT WORTHLESS BENCHMARKS!

Instead of letting NVMe be the thing of servers and high-end workstations, EVERYBODY GETS multi-Gigabit block transfers!

Pretty soon the things will be faster than ram at block transfers, but still too high a latency to actually replace it. But what use is that to anyone, when you're still limited bb the rest of your system that has to process the data?

Comment Re:As a recent buyer of a mid-2014 MBP (Score 2) 204

Basiclly, this is just a bulk transfer rate benchmark of the SSD.

Like most other SSDs, the fastest ones will not actually result in quicker real-world performance, because your brain cannot see the files load on screen any faster.

Enjoy your overpowered 4x PCIe crap. I'll be just fine here with my SATA6 SSD I've had for four years.

Comment Re:Intel chip better than Qualcomm? (Score 3, Interesting) 77

Exactly, people din't care about peak LTE speeds going over some insane 300 MBps level. As long as they can get a few MBps to load a webpage as fast as their moble processor (and limited ram) can handle it, they don't care about super-high speeds.

This is why Mediatek became a thing with nothing but 3G parts in China, and it's the same reason why Mediatek's (and Intel, and Samsung) early 4G entry to the market rings the death knell for Qualcomm.

That's why they have introduced the Snapdragon 410 - 4 Cortex A53 processors, a passable GPU with 720p support, and 150Mbps LTE! All selling at a bargain price competitive with all the other entry-level parts.

LTE is not a premium feature anymore, so unless Qualcomm comes up with some other must-have technology, they're going to have to transform their business to work better with commodity margins, or else do like everyone else and start making their own phones?

Comment Re:ha (Score 1) 149

The reason they could make this happen is because the EU passed a stupid law that says all cars have to be recycled. Before that happened, old cars were taken to the scrapyard to get payment for the salvageable parts, but now people have to pay a hundred quid (according to Clarkson) to have them recycled.

Hence, a sudden infusion of cars that would have otherwise been scrapped. It has no real-world bearing on th e cost of rail versus car transport, just an inconvenient problem created by the meddling EU.

Comment Re:There's more to it than that (Score 1) 332

But the thing that really kills any interest from me is that the article author expects that will continue to use 4:2:0 Chroma Subsampling. That to me makes the new increased colorspace worthless, as you won't actually be able to see any of it (small chroma resolution).

I remember being astounded that the original Blu-Ray spec carried-over the 4:2:0 from DVD, and once-again this mess will be propagated further. The smart move would be an upgrade to 4:2:2, which is supported by many high-end camera formats, and looks considerably better.

2 pints = 1 Cavort