Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:How soon until x86 is dropped? (Score 1) 105 105

I'm not sure I've heard anyone suggest ARM is superior. It happens to be fulfilling a good niche as an architecture that provides decent performance per watt. But you're not seeing anyone wanting to use it in areas where power isn't a concern.

I suspect ARM will eventually be the architecture that's supplanted, not ix86 or ix86-64. Intel's getting good at producing low power ix86 family CPUs - I have one in my tablet, and the mobile space isn't really wedded to any architecture, but the desktop space is.

Comment Re:Not downsizing nuclear (Score 1) 462 462

"It would not ... as most CO2 is produced by cars, house heating and industry."
Since renewables only generate electricity we can ignore all none electrical sources as far as nuclear and renewables. Unless you want to count the tiny number of passive solar heating installations.
If you look at this graphic http://energytransition.de/fil...
You will see that France gets around 10% from hydro. You will also see that France still gets some power from coal which is baseload power is is ideal to replace with nuclear. The natural gas is probably split between base load and peaking load. Replacing the base load with nuclear is again a simple matter the peaking is a more difficult issue which is why I suggested that France should convert their hydro from a base load to a peaking source aka as pumped storage. The power stored would come from a combination of both renewables and nuclear.
As to your comment about where the majority of CO2 comes from do you have any sources?
My research shows that home heating in france is more often than not electrical heating. https://www.justlanded.com/eng...

Do you have any real data or just insults?

Comment Re:Update Clashes (Score 1) 299 299

You know, it kinda makes sense, but given that I've had months where I've been unable to play a specific game or two (without turning off various features that severely degrade performance) because "the latest driver" from AMD/ATI has had one issue or another, with no bug fixes available short of running the unsupported beta version, the idea of being forced to upgrade a driver that is currently not causing any problems is a definitely negative to me.

It'd be one thing if display card drivers were always being updated to fix bugs/security holes, but in practice, 99% of the updates I see are actually to support new cards (which isn't something I need or want a software update for), or to fiddle with the hardware optimization in theory to improve performance (which might be useful, but there's no reason to force such an update on people.)

Windows Update needs the ability to "pin" versions much as apt-get does. For security updates, fine, force them, but if an update is solely there to "improve performance" - or will have no affect whatsoever, it absolutely needs to be blockable.

Comment Re: Worst of both worlds (Score 4, Informative) 92 92

I seriously doubt that. I only have global sales number, not US specific, but there are many online retailers that are larger. Newegg had around $2.7 billion in revenue in 2013. The same year Amazon had $68 billion, Apple had $18 billion, Staples and Walmart both had around $10 billion in online sales. Sears (a company that every talks about as dieing) and QVC (yes the website for that crappy home marketing TV station) both had nearly $5 billion in revenue. Even among consumer electronics CDW and Best Buy had more online sales at over $3 billion each. And again, while these are global numbers, most of those companies are US based, with strong US sales.

Newegg is one of hundreds of online retailers of simular size. While it is a great company, it's adoption of bitcoin is by no means an indication that something has gone mainstream.

Source: http://www.wsj.com/news/intera...

Comment Re:How about this... (Score 1, Informative) 177 177

They might cut their bandwidth cost in half. Computational cost for each video will possibly increase

You'll be surprised what can be done with a codec like MPEG-1 if you have unlimited computational power. Much of the point of better codecs is to reduce the computational power needed to achieve a substantial reduction in bandwidth for a given level of quality. So while it'll likely increase, the amount is unlikely to be substantial, not even a doubling of processing power.

Comment Re:How about this... (Score 1) 177 177

Google has gone out of their way to invest in video codecs to ensure there are non-encumbered standards that are in the same ballpark as H.264. There will always be incentive to improve bandwidth by producing better codecs.

I suspect actually that patents are holding back codecs, not helping. Who wants to innovate in that space if you know that whatever you end up with is likely going to be crippled with other people's patents given you'll have to build on the work of others to make something affective?

Comment Re:They do it because of VR (Score 1) 177 177

I get the impression H.265 isn't good enough given what you suggest it needs to do. It's only a 50% reduction in bandwidth compared to H.264. The fact Carmack can just casually announce he's dropping support suggests that the industry itself didn't see it as much more than a convenience.

Comment Re:Possible but rather unlikely I think (Score 1) 252 252

but also because autonomous cars are more likely to be shared and constantly in use, rather than sitting in your driveway 90% of the time.

I'm not convinced of this one either. Possible but hardly a certainty. A lot of people don't really like to share cars and nobody rides the bus because they like it. I can see automated cars getting abused rather badly. Trash, bodily fluids, etc. People don't tend to respect property that isn't theirs. I really don't look forward to the prospect of taxing an automated taxi that smells of urine or worse.

And it doesn't work for the borrowers either. If people make their cars available for use when they don't need them, then that will mean that most cars will only be available for use during times of low demand, and will be occupied during time of high demand. With that availability, shared cars will barely dent the existing taxi and public transportation systems.

I have seen a ton of articles lately pushing the idea that once automated cars are reality that no one will need/want to own cars. I'm sorry, but taxis have been around since before the car was invented and they still only fill a minor role in our transportation needs. There are reasons for this, and automated cars don't address any of those issues.

When some people discover the truth, they just can't understand why everybody isn't eager to hear it.

Working...