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


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

Comment Re:Ha! Russia. (Score 1) 165

Under the guidelines of conventional warfare it is easy to see China as weaker than the US and Russia.

The Chinese govt has no desire to get into a conventional or nuclear fight with anyone. Or waste time building up a massive and expensive conventional fighting force to directly compete with Russia or the US. Especially when there are better strategies.

The Chinese govt learned something when the US developed the first atomic weapons. At the time the US had a new weapon system that trumped everything that came before it. The US instantly had the ability to force any nation into defeat simply by the threat of what it could do. History has been shaped by the people who have developed superior weapons compared to what already existed.

So China is a country that graduates thousands of engineers every year of which some will have the genius to develop the next weapon that makes all existing weapons obsolete. And when that happens do you think the Chinese government will be 'nice' like the US was back in 1945? Or allow the rest of the world to catch up to make things fair again? Why get into a fist fight with Mike Tyson if you have a gun? It's a simple yet brilliant strategy.

Comment Re:Hello, China, reality calling (Score 1) 280

China's yuan is undervalued due to the Chinese govt pegging its value against the US dollar. A condition of China joining the WTO was that it had to float its currency within 7 years of joining. China joined in 2001. It has not floated its currency yet and it is 2010. I don't think it's a trivial matter that China is a member of the WTO and is a blatant currency manipulator.

What other country in the WTO can just change the value of its currency regardless of actual market conditions?

Comment This is not regular RDP (Score 2, Informative) 99

I actually read the article. The key difference between this chip and traditional thin clients or terminals is that the chip will allow multimedia playback locally on the TV. RemotFX allows for a better multimedia experience through a Terminal server desktop or application by re-directing the video/audio to the TV or device that initiates the remote session without requiring the application locally. With a regular RDP connection the Video/Audio plays in the remote session on the remote host and the output is piped through the RDP client. Which is why it is choppy and low quality even on a LAN connection.

The whole reason Microsoft has RemotFX is because multimedia content is one of the things Terminal server doesn't do well. Citrix has it own method for redirecting audio and video to the local PC. But that still requires the application to be on the local device which isn't always the case with thin-clients. RemoteFX won't require the application that plays the content to be on the local PC or TV.

Comment Re:Pro / cons (Score 1) 2424

You pay taxes and those taxes and those taxes are spent on "the common good": roads, schools, military, police, firebrigades...

Most taxes paid by Americans go towards paying off interest on bonds sold to other countries (mostly China). Taxes don't directly pay for anything in the US on the federal level. Taxes might directly pay for some small scale projects at the State or County level in the US. But in most cases States and Counties borrow money and pay interest on it as well.

Slashdot Top Deals

As in certain cults it is possible to kill a process if you know its true name. -- Ken Thompson and Dennis M. Ritchie