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


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:NASA is risk averse? (Score 5, Insightful) 412

Don't think that those people selected to go will have to sign a few documents and undergo a few mental evaluations to make sure they really understand that they will most likely die on the mission?

I would imagine that the direct relatives of the crew will have to sign something similar for the member to be eligible.

Comment Left Hand Right Hand (Score 1) 103

The US already have a bunch of very bright hackers on its payroll. They work down at Fort Meade in a big glass building with NSA written on the front of it.

What this smacks of, is kingdom building. The FBI is trying to bolster its own little playpen, instead of playing nicely with others and asking the NSA for help.

The FBI simply wants a bigger budget.

Comment It will never last... (Score 4, Interesting) 364

... because then the studios won't have a boogie man to blame when their crappy game doesn't sell.

Studio Exec: Oh noes, our awesome game isn't selling because people are pirating it instead.
Random Underling: Sir, no one has cracked our DRM yet....
Studio Exec: Oh shit, hurry up and leak a crack before the shareholders notice our 80 million dollar game sucks

Comment Intel/AMD Response (Score 1) 288

I thought about Intel/AMDs response to this as the concept is a direct attack on the profit percentage of a computer. MS is unsurprisingly trying to take more.

Consider this.

Random company has X dollars to spend on a new server. Y is allocated to the hardware and Z is allocated to licensing. Whereas previously they could get an 8 core dual socket machine. This would give Intel/AMD a sale of 2 of their better margin CPU's. Now, the company has to re-allocate funds to MS licensing and therefore needs to buy a smaller, lower margin CPU to keep within budget.

This directly affects Intel/AMD's profitability.

The solution I propose is that Intel/AMD license their CPU's to Azure on an 'instructions per second over time' model. Basically if the CPU maxes out for anything more than a burst, extra fee's a due. Fr the regular user who's CPU isn't pegged at 100% day in and day out, then it wouldn't make a difference. But if you run a large web services company...

Something tells me MS wouldn't like that very much.

Slashdot Top Deals

The trouble with being punctual is that people think you have nothing more important to do.