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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:dont count AMD out ZEN intel loses and ARM lose (Score 1) 85

That's the same thing that AMD has been saying for every new chip for the past decade. They haven't had a hit since the Althon 64, and that was 13 years ago. I'll believe it when I see it, until then, I'll expect Zen to be a repeat of the Bulldozer disaster. I'd like for it to turn out to be another Athlon 64, though: it's been a very long time since there has been any competition in the x86 market.

Comment Re: Sack of salt (Score 4, Informative) 103

Mostly because they typically report dynamic contrast ratios, which really are bullshit. In this case, they basically appear to be layering on an additional LCD panel whose sole job is to control the amount of light that gets through to the regular LCD. And sure enough, if you layer two LCD panels which each have a 1000:1 contrast ratio, then you get a 1000000:1 contrast ratio.

I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be practical apart from the increase in cost and thickness this would involve.

Comment Expensive (Score 3, Informative) 590

I'll ignore all the political aspects of this discussion and simply point out that this is a rather expensive proposition. I don't see a recent size estimate, but we know that the site increased from 10PB to 15PB between 2012 and 2014, so it's reasonable to estimate that it's around 23PB today.

How expensive is 23PB of storage, including the serves themselves? If we use BackBlaze's cost estimates (they build custom high-density chassis) of $0.036/GB, we get a figure of roughly $868k USD spread across 49x4U servers. Of course, that's just the hardware. The colocation space (including power and connectivity) would be at least $10,000 CAD per month.

Comment Look into Razer (Score 1) 315

The Razer Blade series is generally considered to be the closest direct replacement for the Mac Pro, being unibody aluminum laptops with a similar form factor and build quality. There are three options: The Razer Blade Stealth, which is a 12.5" ultrabook that is kind of like a retina macbook air, the Razer Blade, which is sort of like a 14" retina Macbook pro, and the Razer Blade Pro, which is sort of like a 17" retina Macbook Pro.

At this point, all three have thunderbolt three and support an external GPU, although the latter two feature pretty damned beefy discrete GPUs (the GTX 1060 and GTX 1080 respectively), so external GPUs are probably mostly of interest to the "stealth" model.

Comment Re:How can this be competitive? (Score 1) 121

Those satellites, assuming they're not serving ships and small islands, will also be routing data for the rest of the constellation. They're not just bouncing data back down on the same satellite, the data goes up from the client and travels from satellite to satellite until it hits a peering point.

Comment Re:Sonic Boom (Score 2) 202

$5,000 is the price of a business class seat on the routes they're talking about (not even first class), and it's a quarter the price of the Concorde. It just might be cheap enough to get a self-sustaining amount of traffic, which will provide an ongoing incentive to develop cheaper and cheaper planes. It's getting past that initial wall that's the problem, which the Concorde never did.

Sonic booms are resolved two ways. First, the same way that the Concorde did: use it on trans-continental flights. North America to Europe and Asia are the two obvious examples. Second, modern technology and computer simulation enables a reduction in the intensity of the sonic boom. What's available today is a decent reduction from the Concorde, although it's still nowhere near sufficient to enable supersonic flight over populated areas. But with a large fleet of supersonic aircraft flying, you get a powerful incentive to push that research forward.

Comment Re:Selling at a loss (Score 1) 220

Except they're not. LG's mobile division posted a $389.4M loss last quarter (and another loss the quarter before), HTC has posted a loss every quarter for years ($64M last quarter), OnePlus hasn't published any financial info since 2014 and so I would suspect is taking a loss, Xiaomi's sales are in freefall causing the company to drop 92% in value, and Motorola Mobility is now owned by Lenovo after bouncing around from owner to owner and is still losing money.

Of all the companies you mentioned, only Huawei is doing OK, and from a quick look through their latest annual report, they don't appear to break down their revenue to the level that you could say how much money their phones are making, and they don't break their expenses down by division at all.

With Samsung taking a massive hit, I'd suggest that Huawei may be the only company other than Apple making profit from smartphone manufacture. Most of the other companies have seen their market shares drop to insignificant numbers,

Comment Selling at a loss (Score 5, Interesting) 220

Samsung was the only Android handheld manufacturer making any actual profit (not a loss or breaking even), and the billions upon billions of dollars of costs for the Note 7 issues have wiped out years worth of profit for the things. That means that at this point, Apple is the only company actually making any significant profit in the industry.

So, is it really so bad to only have 12% of the market when you're the only ones making any money?

Slashdot Top Deals

"And remember: Evil will always prevail, because Good is dumb." -- Spaceballs