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

 



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:Why no 4k footage of the moon? (Score 1) 26

What are you talking about? We''ve been sending some damned impressive cameras out into space of late. Heck, even not just "of late". Have you seen the HiRISE images of Mars? Forget 4k, you can download those in 8k.

Now, if you're talking constant live 4K video footage, the problem isn't the cameras, it's the bandwidth over such huge distances.

Comment Perfect timing (Score 2) 26

The timing on this is perfect. A group I'm in is working on a book and right now going through trying to get copyright permission on all of the images we want to use (and sometimes you can't get it without paying fees, or can't get in touch with the author). Having such a huge wealth of public domain images all together on one seemingly well-designed search engine will be great for finding substitutions.

Too bad there's no ready substitution for figures from papers, however :P For a nonprofit book a lot of the big servers charge around $50 per image. Which for a full length book (dozens of figures) is thousands of dollars. Most authors are very nice about granting permission, but the journals are all about cash.

Comment Re:Where's the news? (Score 1) 246

Are you sure about that? I used to take golf balls apart in the 70s and they varied wildly. Some had a tiny hollow rubber ball surrounded by meters of rubber band like material wrapped around willy-nilly, covered by a multi layered skin. I doubt that they became less sophisticated over the years.

Comment Re:I know just the man for the job (Score 5, Informative) 74

Not just been photos, there's been some reported video as well (also Queensland). I did check the gait of the animal in the video, and it matches a diagram of the thylacine's gait. But that's hardly unique to them, it just narrows down the range of possible species. There's old zoo footage here.

I doubt it's actually a thylacine, but who knows, weirder things have been discovered.

Comment Re:It's just smart business. (Score 1) 346

But it does!

When I can manufacture in China where I don't have to pay for air scrubbers or sewage treatment but instead dump the waste chemicals in the river and simply blow all the fumes from manufacturing outside I have much higher profits.

The EPA strangles companies trying to make maximum profits by not blotting out the sun with pollution or turning the waterways into chemical tubs of death.

Rich people profits are far more important than clean water and clean air.

Comment Re:Yeah, but no (Score 1) 109

Dissecting the test output:

11737/s avg= 85.20uS bw=48.07 MB/s lo=66.22uS, hi=139.77uS stddev=7.50uS

That means the average latency is 85uS (averaged over all reads), the lowest latency measured was 66uS and the highest was 140uS. Another important metric is the standard deviation... that is, how 'tight' access times are around that average latency of 85uS. In this case, a standard deviation of 7.5uS is very good.

Comparing this to the Optane. what Intel has stated is that the average latency over all reads for Optane NVMe will be around 10uS. They also stated that the standard deviation would be much tighter. So that is comparative.

But here's the real problem... you ask whether Optane will beat a PCIe SSD as a HDD cache in actual real-world desktop circumstances. I will add 'at the same price point'. The answer to that is going to be 'no'. The reason is that you can buy 4x to 8x the amount of NAND NVMe-based storage as you can Optaane NVMe storage for the same price.

So instead of having a 32G Octane cache, you could have a 128GB-256GB NAND SSD cache for the same price. That *completely* trumps Octane, no matter how low Octane's latency is, for this use case.

-Matt

Comment Re:Goes Back To Kennedy (Score 2) 158

I once worked at Rockwell-Collins, which had been a supplier for the Space Shuttle programme. When I arrived, they were very stringent about how we handled our time reporting and billing. Why? Because apparently before I got there they had just gotten heavy slapped down for exploiting cost-plus Shuttle contracts. Whenever any project went over budget, they just had employees credit their time to the Shuttle programme.

Comment Re:It is in the nature of the business! (Score 1) 158

And before you go and say Blue Origin and SpaceX are doing it so much cheaper, yes, but that is because they are standing on a mountain of research & technology courtesy NASA.

Something both of them readily admit. SpaceX in particular has continually expressed their gratitude for all of the support they've gotten from NASA over the years. And they have an interesting cooperative model in place now for Red Dragon - no money exchanged, but they get access to NASA facilities and time working with NASA researchers, and in turn NASA gets all of the data they acquire from their missions.

Comment Re:Can't blame NASA (Score 4, Insightful) 158

I'm anyone but someone to defend SLS, but this report seems rather flimsy. It seems that they're calling anything that NASA does in-house "overhead". That's not really a fair measure. A rocket is not just its physical construction; there's a huge amount of cost in research, design, testing, and support infrastructure - in the case of SLS, particularly the Exploration Ground Systems (EGS). Part of the problem however is that every time NASA builds something new, they're rarely allowed to shut it down. Including major projects with contractors. Congress keeps mandating this inefficiency, when what NASA really needs is the freedom to put large amounts of infrastructure to the axe when it can't contribute toward competitive costs, and reallocate the funds as is needed. So long as they face mandates to keep everything open (both internal, and with specific production lines run by particular suppliers), they shouldn't be criticized for their high costs - congress should.

I really think NASA would fare better if it went back more to the NACA model - a research and support organization for other players, maintaining the common infrastructure and R&D used by others - with the addition of a scientific exploration program. NASA shouldn't be making anything that a private business case can be built for (for example, rockets reaching LEO / GEO), but they should be running the DSN, range support, creating a market for private industry to continually expand/improve its capabilities, nurturing startups to increase competition, and extensively working to bring more advanced technologies (that the market couldn't afford to sink money into due to the risk) from theory into real world - not trying to make "workhorses", but proof-of-concept systems that others will run with if merit and maturity can be demonstrated.

In short:
If there's a business model for it: private industry
If it's too risky or long-term for business: NASA proof-of-concept
If its a common need for multiple businesses in the field: NASA permanent infrastructure

Slashdot Top Deals

Never tell people how to do things. Tell them WHAT to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity. -- Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.

Working...