Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:They are still damn overpriced (Score 1) 241

Make that PowerPC, not POWER.

Yes, that's true, but note that the PPC601 was fully instruction set-compatible with POWER. The very first PowerPCs really deserved the name. It went downhill from there. POWER is still around, but PowerPC is still a joke today.

Had Motorola focussed on giving Apple what it needed in terms of low power CPUs, as well as trying to proliferate the portable markets, PPC would have been the hit that ARM today is.

It's not clear that PPC could ever have been as good as ARM. Certainly when Motorola was making PPC-based phones, ARM was faster for the same power... because POWER ain't exactly svelte, and thus PowerPC is not POWER, and zzz. The real punch in the PPC chips was in the coprocessors, and those can be tied to most any ISA.

Comment Re:This can be a good thing (Score 1) 151

I would love to see someone else copy Apple in one regard. Make less choices for the customer. There doesn't need to be 10 different desktop models, and 10 different laptop models. Apple has 3 desktops (mini, iMac and Mac Pro), while allowing the user to choose a few basic options like amount of RAM, hard drive space, and processor speed.

This is actually more confusing and not less, especially where the processor is soldered; there actually are more models of machine, but the model number doesn't appear on the front of the machine. It only appears on a sticker on its bottom or rear.

With Dell, and other PC manufacturers, there's tons of different models, nobody really knows how to compare one to the other, and you never know how old the current model is, and when the new model is coming out.

Who cares? You buy a new computer when you need a new computer, not when there's a new shiny. Only if selling your computers is based solely on how shiny it is will someone buy a new one every year whether they need it or not. Those people are always a minority, and in this economy, there's less of them than ever. That's why Apple's making its money selling handhelds. Lots of those purchases are subsidized.

Comment Re:Well... (Score 1) 254

He mentioned a plan for drones to be weaponized that took six years to complete.

How many others mentioned that in 2003?

Practically every nerd I know. Every R/C pilot or even driver. Every actual pilot. Every member of the military. Everyone and their fucking mom has noticed that if you packed it with explosives or put a gun in it, a flying toy would be a weapon. And when I noticed that video games were capable of simulating multiple physics-based aircraft in combat simultaneously, I knew for certain that sooner or later, we'd have aircraft flying combat missions autonomously.

Comment Re:If there's no human fall back, I'll never trust (Score 1) 610

I had a car that didn't have a tape deck and only five buttons for the radio. ...

Ah, but did it have tubes? And a single speaker in the middle of the dash? Was it covered with real chrome?

My car for which you could say yes for all of that also had a transmission with five buttons. Wicked cool for smoke starts.

Comment Re:Technology is hard and dangerous (Score 1) 610

This is why the pinnacle of automotive engineering is the late-model (long-wheelbase) W126 Mercedes. All but the 3 liter diesel engines and the euro V8 are a bit shit, but there's loads of room for swaps. Driver airbag was standard and passenger available, and it's a big car yet it has crumple zones. Airbag cars have pretensioners. Yet, the diesels are mechanically regulated and the fuel cut is controlled by a vacuum switch on the back of the ignition lock. The e-brake is a completely separate cable-based drum brake inside the rear brake rotor hat. It's also Mercedes' first car made of 100% HSS*, so it's overly rigid in spite of being a thousand pounds lighter than its predecessor or successor.

* Diesels have Aluminum bonnet and boot lids

Comment Re:Technology is hard and dangerous (Score 1) 610

(The metal is so much thicker on those old cars, we had to use a sledge hammer instead of a normal body work hammer to take the dent back out).

No, you needed to use an oxyacetylene torch to bring the metal to a cherry red, which removes the work hardening from the accident. Then you work the damage in reverse, starting at the outside and working towards the point of impact.

But again, if we were IN the truck when that happened we probably would have not fared so well.

The car's crumple zone and the truck's mass would have protected you, as evinced by the small dent in the truck.

Comment Re:Technology is hard and dangerous (Score 4, Informative) 610

Yah I had a jammy throttle in a RX7 I used to drive. Whenever the gas pedal started to get sticky it'd be time to pop the hood and spray it with some WD40.

WD means "water displacer", not lubricant. Should have used a lubricant, not a water displacer. I like silicone products for the engine top, but sometimes I'll just use a general purpose grease.

Comment Re:They are still damn overpriced (Score 0) 241

I'm no Apple fan-boi - I run linux on the Mac that Apple gave me (I was sworn into not insulting them as part of the agreement, which did mean I had to bite my lip a few times, as I hate OSX) - but I did, and still do, like their build quality. I also liked their choice of CPU - the POWER architecture - sigh.

The problem with your idea is that Apple hasn't actually had superior build quality since the Macintosh II series. They're just the same Foxconn-built PC motherboards as everyone else's, with some slightly different components. They have slightly better cases. Big whoop. And POWER is gone, and it was a dumb idea to begin with. It was only because Apple couldn't figure out how to emulate 68k on x86, which others were already doing, and doing well.

Comment Re:Also bird brains (Score 1) 202

Some do, like owls. Some don't, like pigeons.

Some do, like owls. Some don't, like practically every other bird on the planet. Yet for some reason, they are used as examples of animals with forward-facing eyes. Sure, they can SEE in front of them, but not as well as they can see to the sides. They can perceive a moving object there, or an oncoming object, which is enough to know to turn your head to get a better view of what you're about to crash into. If birds actually had forward-facing eyes, they would look at you with both of them instead of with just one of them, which is what they actually do.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Old age and treachery will beat youth and skill every time." -- a coffee cup

Working...