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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Power savings (Score 1) 98

I don't know why you're attributing this. One of the leading firms for 3D stacking is Tezzaron, and they've been around for more than a decade. You can give credit to AMD for taking on the risk of 3D memory, but not for innovating it -- other companies did most of that work.

Comment: Re:Not much of a debate... (Score 1) 161

by non0score (#49587789) Attached to: Has the Native Vs. HTML5 Mobile Debate Changed?
Yes yes, I know your type. The ones that say "don't use anything the system was designed to be used, and only do things as if you're working in C". I.e. don't allocate all the time, don't modify the structure of the object after construction, make types easier to infer for JIT, etc.... That, or maybe you have 0 clue about what performance really means.

Comment: Re:Yes, Please!!! (Score 1) 161

by non0score (#49564281) Attached to: Has the Native Vs. HTML5 Mobile Debate Changed?
1) Mobile CPU/GPU is still 50X slower than desktop (i.e. your CSS transitions are 50X slower...hardware acceleration included).
2) Mobile RAM allowance is still 10X lower than desktop (i.e. less resources loaded, prefetching, more thrashing, less JITed code, less unboxing, etc...).
3) No native look and feel, so everything seems out of place.
4) Still takes 3 years to get anything through the JS committee, and god knows how long before browser adoption.
5) Users still can feel latency even if backend is optimized (queue post about X% drop in latency equates to Y% increase in app usage/engagement).
6) Did you know that FB was originally all HTML5 on mobile? Did you know solely because of that decision, they were at most two quarters away from going belly up -- until they shipped their mobile app which turned everything around?

The fact that you brought up desktop being your primary client goes to show how little regard you have for the problems on the mobile platform.

Comment: Re:Psychology lesson (Score 1) 271

by non0score (#49052027) Attached to: Peak Google: The Company's Time At the Top May Be Nearing Its End
The problem why people are disagreeing with you is precisely because you're failing at marketing yourself.

Yes, the revenues can fit an exponential curve (from inception to now). No, T==1, and is not being varied. But also, yes, costs also fit an exponential curve (except it's not being labelled as such). What you're arguing is the selective use of "exponential" to emphasize revenues over expenses, and you're not making THAT point clear. But this is also precisely why financial analysts care about things like return on equity, profit margin, net profit, net profit per share, etc.

Comment: Re:Tsk. And they wonder where employee loyalty wen (Score 2) 331

by non0score (#48976883) Attached to: Massive Layoff Underway At IBM
If IBM is so full of deadwood that they need to get rid of them, then that means there is probably deadwood everywhere. And if anything, there's one thing we know for certain: deadwood is very apt at keeping only deadwood around (read: nepotism, drinking buddies, you-are-one-of-us, etc).

Comment: Re:this is getting old (Score 1) 206

by non0score (#48814437) Attached to: China's Engineering Mega-Projects Dwarf the Great Wall
Except 1) the JSF is a piece of crap that underperforms relative to the older F-22 (yes, this is a specific example). 2) If the US renegs on its debts, you'll have bigger problems that what you're saying. It'd be the US vs the rest of the world, and I'm sure the US isn't going to win that one.

One good suit is worth a thousand resumes.