Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Because titan has ice, pluto isn't even a plane (Score 5, Interesting) 98 98

Technically the Pluto-Charon system is not a primary with a satellite, but a double system. The center of mass of the system is not within either body, but in the space between them. .

As I love to point out, the problem with this definition is that it also applies to the Sun-Jupiter system.

Comment: Re: Hate to be that guy, but Linux (Score 1) 512 512

This is caused by the default "swappiness" value of 60. Try setting it to 1 or running without a swap partition if you have enough RAM.


The default of 60 sacrifices UI responsiveness for program performance and having it continue to be the default setting even on every distro that is specifically aimed at desktop use is a bit baffling.

Comment: Re:SOLD! (Score 1) 211 211

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say. With 16:10 screens, 1920x1200 was a standard resolution. The pixel dimensions for a 16:9 screen of comparable size and resolution are only 1920x1080, which is fewer pixels vertically, not more pixels horizontally.

That 16:10 screens had more pixels than "related" 16:9 screens was an arbitrary decision most likely made for ease of production. Now that that the roles are reversed, with 16:9 being the standard and 16:10 the outlier, it is just as likely that horizontal resolution on a 16:9 model would would be decreased to make a 16:10 screen. Apple has done exactly that with one of their newest models.

A user who wants a particular size of laptop, and who is switching from 16:10 to 16:9, would have to take a model with a shorter screen, not a wider one. Otherwise, they end up with a wider, less portable laptop.

Laptop depth is just as important as width to portability, so there is no advantage to 16:10 here, just selective thinking on your part.

Comment: Re: Literally the only useful thing to me (Score 1) 211 211

some I/O heavy operations took 7 times longer because it wanted to hash every file.

This always throws me when using newer Windows. The computer appears to hang, eventually a UAC prompt appears, and only then does the file copy actually begin.

Seems glitchy, yet this is the expected behaviour!

Another pet peeve is that Windows aligns non-resolution independant program text to the subpixel grid before scaling it on a high DPI screen. The result is a blurry mess.

Comment: Re:Holy Cow (Score 1) 211 211

Years of research went into finding the most comfortable aspect ratio for TV viewing, which turned out to be 4:3. The same applies to computer monitors.

This is false. Monitors used 4:3 because TVs used 4:3. TVs used 4:3 because films used 4:3. Films used 4:3 because that's what was chosen as an interoperability standard in 1932.

It was an arbitrary decision.

4:3 fetishism is passe now that screen resolutions have surpassed your beloved 1600x1200 tube. Get over it.

Comment: Re:"metric ton" (Score 1) 371 371

Very few regions refer to it as a megagram, even though that is the official designation.

And why is that, exactly? Why adopt a term with a different meaning from another system of measurement into a system that is supposed to be all about simplicity and ease of unit conversions?

"Metric ton" is an oxymoron of the first rate.

Comment: Re:albeit costing three times as much (Score 2) 126 126

Yes, the AMD FX line has not had any updates since you last went shopping and it has gotten less and less competitive versus Intel's offerings, especially on single-threaded tasks and in work done per Watt. It was widely believed they were actually going to abandon that market segment entirely, but the new Zen architecture is now planned to to first appear as a revamped FX line.

Comment: Re:Will Technology Disrupt the Song? (Score 1) 158 158

After the last two albums, I find myself wishing for more metal to go with the prog.

Glad to see Opeth mentioned. Given all the intelligence, machismo, and aggression on this site I'm always disappointed to see that progressive metal rarely comes up in music discussions.

Counting in binary is just like counting in decimal -- if you are all thumbs. -- Glaser and Way