Forgot your password?

Comment: Misguided in so many ways... (Score 5, Insightful) 102

by picoboy (#42456827) Attached to: Intel's Attempt At A-La-Carte Television Hits Delays

Anyone else read the arrogant comment attributed to some unnamed source at Intel, stating that Intel was frustrated with "everyone doing a half-assed Google TV so it's going to do it themselves and do it right." ?

So, not surprisingly, Intel has now run into "delays" in securing agreements with content providers (in this case, the word "delay" means a quantity of time as large as forever). Why on earth would Intel believe that they have the consumer electronics clout to pull this off where Apple and Google continue to fail?

And who in their right mind at Intel decided to blast the media with their arrogant claims before they actually secured the elusive content agreements? Are they this completely incompetent as to think that Internet TV has anything at all to do with their fabulous semiconductor technology, instead of realizing it has everything to do with negotiation and leverage?

The kool-aid must run strong...

Comment: Re:Economies of scale (Score 1) 78

by picoboy (#42269805) Attached to: Intel Announces Atom S1200 SoC For High Density Servers

How can lots of slow processors be better than a few fast ones with virtualization on top?

A few points..

1. Most hyperscale server applications are memory and/or I/O bound, not CPU bound (and "memory bound" meaning frequent memory accesses, not memory size bound)

2. Typical applications are search, web serving and data mining. Anything that requires Apache or Hadoop where the processing is highly parallel (and memory or I/O bound...)

3. For those types of workloads, there are often frequent idle times for any individual CPU, so individual CPUs can frequently enter a low power state while only the active CPUs are operating full bore. It's more problematic for large, monolithic CPUs to be power efficient with these types of workloads.

4. Because the applications are typically I/O bound, hyperscale servers have (or will have) more sophisticated parallelized I/O subsystems that provide lower latency access to distributed datasets.

Hyperscale server = I/O engine
Hyperscale server != computation engine

Comment: correction (Score 2) 321

by picoboy (#38890351) Attached to: <em>Angry Birds</em> Boss Credits Piracy For Popularity Boost

"We took something from the music industry, which was to stop treating the customers as users, and start treating them as fans."

Here, I'll fix that for him...

"We took something from the INDIE music industry, which was to stop treating the customers as users, and start treating them as fans."

Comment: Re:Really nice looking and interesting phone for 1 (Score 1) 152

by picoboy (#38548420) Attached to: Before the iPhone, Apple's Stunning Phone From 1983

So, why do you think Apple is successful and Linux isn't?

Assuming you are referring to Linux as in "Linux on the desktop", it's because the masses prefer the friendly confines of a walled garden over the freedom to run a lot of half-baked free software. (Sorry, I had a bad day a few weeks ago when the latest kmail2 that ships with Ubuntu 11.10 ate all of my mail, prompting countless wasted hours reinstalling older software, restoring from backups, etc).

If you're referring to Linux in general, the reality is that Linux is actually way more successful than Apple, if you measure success in terms of deployed instances. I have no less than 9 embedded machines running Linux in my household if you include my and my wife's Android phones. Even if I chose iPhones over Android, the score would still be 7 to 2. I suspect even the households of Apple fan-people typically hold more Linux products than Apple products - they just don't realize it.

Comment: Re:Microsoft can't compete in the market... (Score 1) 386

by picoboy (#38070226) Attached to: Barnes &amp; Noble Names Microsoft's Disputed Android Patents

I know Slashdot thinks all patents are evil (along with copyrights, commercial software, paying for music, etc.), but there are legitimate patents, and companies do deserve compensation for their research and development.

No, you missed the point. Read the Groklaw article that is referenced by TFA.

"If, as Barnes & Noble claims, Microsoft and its allies are using them (the patents) primarily as a legal instrument, it can take the matter into the area where patent law and antitrust law meet." ...and all the text that follows.

This is no longer about Microsoft defending its patents, legitimate or not. This is now an antitrust case in which MIcrosoft is accused of overreaching the domain of its patents in an attempt to illegitimately control a parallel market.

Comment: Re:Hasn't this been done already? (Score 1) 138

by picoboy (#36089966) Attached to: Creating a "Force Field" Invisible Touch Interface

Try 39 years ago, at least. University of Illinois PLATO IV terminals connected to a Control Data mainframe. We used to do our physics and chemistry homework on these things, and I can tell you from personal experience that they worked great.

Comment: Re:Sod SATA (Score 1) 197

by picoboy (#35389568) Attached to: Intel Unveils SSDs With 6Gbit/Sec Throughput

Give us fucking SAS already.

Sadly, SAS SSDs will probably never be mainstream (i.e. cheap and ubiquitous). I'm assuming that's what you mean by "Give us fucking SAS already."

On one hand, Romley with its integrated SAS ports may help seed the market for SSDs using SAS protocol.

On the other hand, NVM Express ( is pushing SSD designs toward direct attach on PCIe. The reality is that Intel doesn't care about all the beautiful things that SAS brings, such as long cables, hot plugging and multiple initiators. They're happier just getting the intermediate protocol controller out of the way and pushing the protocol stack into software running on an x86, thereby reducing cost and keeping more margins for themselves.

Don't hold your breath for SAS, unless you want to pay enterprise storage prices.

Comment: Re:Incorrect headline (Score 1) 464

by picoboy (#34660348) Attached to: Scientifically, You Are Likely In the Slowest Line

In his example of three lines, there is still a 2/3 chance that you are not in the slowest line. So unless "one in three" has become "likely," the headline demonstrates a failure at basic maths.

Now redo the example with 5 or 10 checkout lines as is more typical at the big box stores, and let me know how it turns out.

I cannot conceive that anybody will require multiplications at the rate of 40,000 or even 4,000 per hour ... -- F. H. Wales (1936)