Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Of course it's easy for Mozilla... (Score 1) 227

How do you know? It's entirely possible that the same vulnerabilities exist in different software doing very similar things. How do you know it's in the rendering engine and not one of the common libraries they use, etc? You don't, because no one has made the exploits available to you.

Comment Re:Of course it's easy for Mozilla... (Score 1) 227

The real question is, if Mozilla has "already received" this information, why would they not share it with the other browser developers in the name of security?

Is one of Wikileaks' terms that they not disclose "secret information"? That would be pretty fucking hypocritical...

Comment Re:Why Are There No Huge Leaps Forward In CPU powe (Score 1) 474

Except my link already said just that:

"Starting in 2014, Intel introduced "Refresh" cycles after a tock in form of a smaller update to the microarchitecture. It is said that this is done because of the expanding times to the next tick... In March 2016 in a Form 10-K report, Intel announced that it had deprecated the Tick-Tock cycle in favor of a three-step "process-architecture-optimization" model..."

Did you even read it?

Comment Re:Breakthroughs are NOT plannable projects (Score 1) 474

Two excellent points in this comment - the obvious one about breakthroughs not being a planned project, and the other, also important: there just isn't a huge financial motivation for a company like Intel to make a chip an order of magnitude faster right now.

That's especially true if you look at the inevitable tradeoffs - if they could make a chip 10x faster using 10x more power, would they bother? Or 10x more power with 10x cost? Probably not, since the market would be so limited. These days - both in mobile devices/laptops and datacenters - most consumers would prefer a chip with the same performance and 1/10 the power usage and/or cost. Performance is only one of many optimizations being worked on, and today it's not really even the most important one.

Comment Re: Using SHA-1 in this day and age is just lazy (Score 1) 203

You know what, I think we are basically in agreement.

Stupid /. filter showed your response as being to mine when it was in fact a reply to the AC after mine. I am assuming your comment "you have yet to provide even a weak argument to the contrary." was not actually directed at my post, and if not, I apologize.

Comment Re: Using SHA-1 in this day and age is just lazy (Score 1) 203

Claiming an argument is a logical fallacy by appeal to authority does not *make* an argument, it (possibly) refutes one. You can not *make* an argument with it any more than an eraser can make a sentence.

On the other hand, invalidating a poor attempt to refute a real argument is in itself supporting the original argument. Thus I was making the argument. In the end the result of the last 3 posts is clearly that Linus has a point that should be considered.

One thing everyone can agree, on at least, is that you have contributed absolutely ZERO to the argument either way.

I don't see what is so hard to understand...

Comment Re:Something is missing (Score 1) 359

The article was very specific about that:

the company said that the total distance covered by its 96,000 trucks was reduced by 747,000km, and 190,000 litres of fuel had been saved

Though it basically contradicts that with:

it created an algorithm that eliminated left turns from drivers’ routes even if meant a longer journey

Interestingly, the quoted a Mythbusters experiment which confirmed the latter:

TV show Mythbusters tested the UPS theory by eliminating as many left turns from their route as possible. They found that an 8.3km journey became 30 percent longer (10.9km), but still consumed roughly 40 percent less fuel.

So, 2 conclusions:

1) you clearly did not RTFA.
2) the empyrical answer is "longer distance, less fuel".

And the OP's question remains - the why does the article claim distance was reduced as well?

Slashdot Top Deals

Have you reconsidered a computer career?

Working...