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


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: Look around you (Score 2) 95

by rkcth (#49105089) Attached to: Humans' Big Brains Linked To a Small Stretch of DNA

While I slightly disagree with his comment, I think it just needs to be phrased differently. When we say "smart" we may mean depth of knowledge in one or more subjects, or able to grasp new things quickly, but there is a much greater diversity in useful intellect. My father is not what most people would call "smart", he's not great at learning new things, has a below average grasp of math, doesn't read or enrich his mind, etc. yet he can look at a problem in the real world and find a solution to it in a few moments. He can't always articulate it well to others, but it's astonishing to see. He will often build something with 1 person as efficiently as 2, because he comes up with contraptions for anything you'd need another person for. He rarely uses brawn, he uses simple machines, jigs and more. He's so much smarter than I am in those areas. I can sit down and read a book on a subject and remember everything I read, and often be able to do that thing immediately afterwards. I bought books with all my income growing up, I taught myself programming and started a software company, but I will never be as good as my father at seeing a problem and solving it rapidly without the help of others and without the use of costly devices. He's "smarter" than me in that area. If IQ tests tested for that he'd be in the top 1%, Id be in the bottom 10%. There are many gifts we all have and devaluing others gifts, because they differ from our own by calling them dumb, shows just how much more you need to grow.

Comment: Re: *cough* bullshit *cough* (Score 4, Informative) 183

by rkcth (#48957459) Attached to: The "Cool Brick" Can Cool Off an Entire Room Using Nothing But Water

It's not bullshit. Many commercial buildings in hot dry climate use evaporative chilers. You can also get devices that do it indoors. The issue with doing it indoors, is that once the air becomes saturated with moisture it stops working. Plus the room gets wet and cold, which is not a good environment, it leads to mold and mildew. Indoor evaporative coolers are best used in places that you only want to cook on rare occasions, that are very dry, and are located far from a window.

Comment: Re: Which proves it - they do in fact pass savings (Score 1) 631

by rkcth (#48257935) Attached to: Why CurrentC Will Beat Out Apple Pay

Cash is not free for businesses. It takes longer so it uses more labor, the cash must be counted and reconciled. It has to be picked up by an armored car and deposited at a bank, and banks charge businesses to process the cash. Then they get coin rolls and small bills, which banks charge busineses for.

Comment: Re:What is the best way to buy some in bulk? (Score 2) 944

by rkcth (#45784619) Attached to: 60% of Americans Unaware of Looming Incandescent Bulb Phase Out

You are not correct, electricity is NOT the most expensive way to generate heat, IF you do it through a heat pump (which generates 3X the heat per dollar of baseboard which is cheaper than all other forms of heat, and a heat pump fed by geothermal, ie ground source is best of all for the majority of the US except the deep south). Resistance based heat on the other hand is often the most expensive source of heat, though if I'm not mistaken oil based heat is pretty close in much of the country (electric baseboard heat is nearly 100% efficient and oil is 80% or less). I'm studying HVAC at the moment though my background is in computer science and I love the geeky side of the field. I am strongly considering converting a huge commercial building and my own home to goethermal (ground sourced heat pump) due to the incredible efficiencies.

Comment: Re: and so meanwhile... (Score 1) 245

by rkcth (#44921387) Attached to: Will Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn Stay With MySQL?

I switched from MySQL to PostgreSQL and converted a 50,000 line program to boot. We used schemes to match the way MySQL uses databases (schemes are much closer to MySQL databases than the thing called databases are). Also I use phong admin so I don't use the SQL commands you mentioned. What an inefficient use of time!

Comment: Cudafy.net (Score 1) 198

by rkcth (#44334345) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Is the Most Painless Intro To GPU Programming?

I was in the same boat, I have an image processing algorithm that can take up to 10 seconds on an older mid-range CPU, its for the processing of product photos into high quality "perfect" production ready photos. I am also a C# programmer, and when looking into options I came across CUDAfy.net. it lets you code in C# and uses ILSpy to take your compiled C# and turn in into CUDA C which is then compiled. This is then cached so production machines only need to include the cache. I just spent all day today recoding my algorithm and while I found it a little complicated to get started (mostly since I didn't understand how threads and "blocks" work initially, I got my algorithm ported in a day (well the main part, some of the little cleanup, probably another day or two to be 100% ported). I think that's pretty dang good especially since my original algorithm was not even run in parallel. Also I timed it and its taking 0.3 seconds, so that's about a 33X speedup so far, I figure the remaining code will bring that down to about 20X. I'm using a GTX 650 TI Boost card which cost under $200. CUDAfy.net can also work with OpenCL though I haven't tested that aspect out yet. Overall if you want the most painless shift from C# to GPU coding I would recommend checking out CUDAfy.net Its free and licensed under LGPL so you can use it in commercial code.

Force needed to accelerate 2.2lbs of cookies = 1 Fig-newton to 1 meter per second