Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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:This is an effective strategy... (Score 1) 52

by PopeRatzo (#49516607) Attached to: Netflix Is Betting On Exclusive Programming

When net neutrality splits the Comcast network from the Comcast/NBC/Universal content, and Netflix has to compete for bandwidth on a level playing field, the money to create original content is going to dry up quickly.

Don't you have that exactly backwards? "Net Neutrality" has been the default. The new neutrality laws don't create a level playing field, they preserve it. Why would Net Neutrality and having Comcast separated from the content creators make it harder for Netflix? They're already paying for bandwidth. And Netflix users are already paying for bandwidth. And with the incestuous relationship severed, what would Comcast's incentive to screw with Netflix be?

Or do you believe we've reached peak bandwidth?

Comment: Re:Golddiggers of 1933, Out of the Past (Score 1) 52

by PopeRatzo (#49516535) Attached to: Netflix Is Betting On Exclusive Programming

Oh shit. I just realized I made a grievous error, in attributing the "Trouble Man" soundtrack to Curtis Mayfield instead of its true creator, Marvin Gaye. Curtis Mayfield did the soundtrack for "Superfly" (which by the way, is also unavailable to stream from Netflix, those bastards). If you are unfamiliar with the Trouble Man soundtrack, go check it out on Youtube right now. You will come away understanding why Pharrell Williams is a punk ripoff.

I just stuck myself in the leg with a pen knife to atone for this terrible mis-attribution.

Comment: Golddiggers of 1933, Out of the Past (Score 2, Interesting) 52

by PopeRatzo (#49516493) Attached to: Netflix Is Betting On Exclusive Programming

It's probably a good thing that companies like Netflix are making good original programming, but I've noticed that their catalog of classic films has shrunk significantly.

What I really want is a service like Netflix that is more Spotify-like, with an enormous catalog of old films, classic foreign films, art films, shorts, animation, etc.

I guess the fact that copyright trolls are scrambling to take old movies out of the public domain and congress has seen fit to extend copyright to ridiculous lengths makes that a problem. So even though I subscribe to Netflix, I find myself looking to torrent sites and the Internet Archive to scratch my film noir, King Vidor, Vittorio De Sica and Busby Berkely itch. Because sometimes Jack Lemmon and Catherine Deneuve in "The April Fools" or Lee J Cobb in John Boorman's "Point Blank" is just what the movie doctor ordered. Sometimes, a creepy-as-hell Richard Widmark in the 1953 Sam Fuller classic, "Pickup on South Street" is preferable to watching Ryan Gosling try to create an expression on his face.

Hell, a little while ago, I just wanted to sit back and enjoy the 1973 blaxploitation classic, "The Mack" and learned that Netflix doesn't have it available for streaming (but you can get a DVD if you still use that legacy format). I mean, what the fuck. Who's gonna mess with physical media and snail mail just to watch a movie? Not only that, but they don't carry "Trouble Man" at all, and that has one of the greatest soundtracks ever by Curtis Mayfield.

In case you aren't familiar with cinematic masterpiece "The Mack", here's the scene where Goldy and Pretty Tony face off. Check the very young Richard Pryor:

I'm spoiled because back in my university days, I worked as a projectionist at a revival house for seven years and got the most thorough education in film history one could ever hope for. But some of you younger folks might not know what came before The Avengers and Fast and Furious 7, and that makes me sad. Hell, the 1970s were a veritable golden age for independent films and hardly anybody gets to see those movies today. Even the "classic movie" channels on cable only play the same top forty old movies over and over again, never digging deep into back catalogs. There is so much cinema to be discovered. Don't fear the black and white or silent.

Comment: Re:SSDs (Score 1) 78

by hairyfeet (#49515845) Attached to: New PCIe SSDs Load Games, Apps As Fast As Old SATA Drives

I can back this up, as I have a couple of "gamer" customers (which you can replace "gamer" with "must spend stupid amounts of money trying to stay atop the leaderboards") and when they brought in these new "top o' the line" SSDs I ran a few informal tests, boot times, game load times, basic shit....honestly you couldn't tell without a stopwatch, the new ones were so close to the 2 year old SSD I have in the shop it wasn't even funny.

I have to wonder if we are getting to the point the drive speed just isn't a factor, that the other components like CPU, GPU, and RAM will be bottlenecking before the drive, because no matter how faster you get the data off the drive you still gotta process it.

Comment: Re:ISTR hearing something about that... (Score 1) 79

by Just Some Guy (#49515401) Attached to: New PCIe SSDs Load Games, Apps As Fast As Old SATA Drives

On a PC environment when you've got multiple browser windows open, IRC, email client, etc. getting constrained for IOPS is easier than expected.

An off-the-shelf SATA 840 EVO SDD hits 98,000 read IOPS, and all those tasks you mention added together wouldn't hit more than 1% of that. They're the very definition of network bound operations. The average email in my IMAP spool right now is 43KB and would take 11 4KB operations to completely read from or write to storage. Browsers site there idle 99.9% of the time. IRC? Not that I've ever seen.

Do it in a real world environment, and I'm willing to bet PCIe will show it's worth. I don't think that games will run any faster than the baseline results of no load, but I'm willing to guess it'll do better than the SATA equivalents.

I haven't bothered to look at their methodology but I tentatively agree with their conclusion: almost no desktop users would be able to tell the difference. I mean, even a HDD benching at 103 read IOPS seems spritely for most use cases. A SATA SSD working 950 times faster is as close to instantaneous as most desktop uses could ever hope for.

Comment: ISTR hearing something about that... (Score 2, Insightful) 79

by Just Some Guy (#49514925) Attached to: New PCIe SSDs Load Games, Apps As Fast As Old SATA Drives

A guy named Amdahl had something to say on the subject. SSDs excel at IOPS, but that buys you little if you're not IOPS-constrained.

Examples of things that eat operations as fast as you can throw them at 'em: databases, compilation, most server daemons.

Examples of things that couldn't care less: streaming large assets that are decompressed in realtime, like audio or video files. Loading a word processing document. Downloading a game patch. Encoding a DVD. Playing RAM-resident video games.

It should be a shock to roughly no one that buffing an underused part won't make the whole system faster. I couldn't mow my lawn any faster if the push mower had a big block V8, nor would overclocking my laptop make it show movies any faster.

TL;DR non-IO-bound things don't benefit from more IO.

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.