Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:18:9 Display? (Score 1) 79

What's the difference between an 18:9 display and a 2:1 display?

Duh, obviously the former has 9 times more* pixels than the latter.

*(Actually, it's 8 times more, or 9 times as much, in each linear dimension, so 81 times as much in total. But this is marketing, so don't worry about the techy details.)

Comment Re:No surprise... (Score 1) 210

But, it's a direct admission that they were basically gouging for want of competition.

We live in a world with the most complex market dynamics in the history of human civilization (by a landslide) and this is all you've got?

AMD's new design probably has a sweet spot. I'm sure Intel's existing designs also have a sweet spot. According to Plato, Xeonophon, Hume, Smith, Kant, Thoreau, Mises, and Hayek's theory of division of labour, price signals on both sides must adjust to achieve optimal resource allocation internal to both firms, with Intel's volumes around their comparative sweet spot rising, and Intel's volumes around their comparative disadvantage falling.

That's just one additional component of the price signal. There's also the possibility that the price signal is being used to fire a warning shot over AMD's bow, that Intel is preparing to use their enormous war chest to engage in scorched-earth, oxygen-sucking anti-competitive tactics.

Pricing theory. There's more to it than derp derp derp "gouge".

Direct competition aside, the threat of power-efficient ARM designs in the data center might not have pressed Intel's feet to the fire, but I'm pretty sure Intel's feet have remained at least somewhat toasty, over this long decade of mainstream-CPU quasi-monopolistic seller's market.

You make the difference out to be going from a lawn-chair lemonade stand at the ultimate congestion point in the Medina airport to breaking rocks in a South African prison camp. No, it's more like going from a light sweat to a heavy sweat. Of all companies, Intel has never not proceeded by the sweat of its brow.

Only the paranoid survive.


Hike the margins while you still can!


More IPC, more SOI, more FinFET!


You want to see gouging? Ask any Intel engineer to lift his (or her) shirt.

Comment Re: Rockets are too expensive (Score 1) 324

I think we were thrown off point by AC, who doesn't seem to grasp that physical systems can be described in alternative reference frames.

I think he is trying to say that there is no such thing as a geostationary orbit, because satellites in that orbit are actually tracing out a circular (or even more pedantically, spiral) path.

I believe the responder was trying to point out, using the example of a rocket ship travelling to geosynchronous orbit, that "stationary" is a kind trick of perspective when viewed from the frame of fixed stars.

Of course in the rotating frame of where we happen to be sitting on the Earth geostationary satellites are indeed actually stationary.

Comment Re: Rockets are too expensive (Score 1) 324

geosynchronous satellites: when the sun circulates over the north pole and it causes the satellite to exhibit the figure 8 orbit

geostationary : are fixed (fiction) stations , allegedly ground based

That is the most garbled explanation I've ever heard of geosynchronous orbits.

A geosynchronous orbit is one with a period that exactly matches the Earth's rate of rotation.

Geostationary orbits are a special case of geosynchronous orbits where the angle inclination of the orbit to the Earth's equator is zero.

So: a satellite in a geosynchronous orbit that is also geostationary appears to continually hover 22,236 miles above some point on the Earth's equator. If it is in a geosynchronous orbit that is not geostationary, it will appear from the earth to drift north and south of the celestial equator, tracing a figure 8 against the background stars over the course of one Earth rotation.

Of course in both cases the satellite would actually be following an elliptical (in fact almost perfectly circular) path around the Earth. The "stationary" or "figure 8" thing is simply a trick of perspective -- the way car in the next lane traveling at the same speed appears not to be moving.

Yeah, most of you knew all that. But insofar as there's an explanation here, it oughtn't be gibberish.

Comment Re:Poor on $100k? Sure (Score 1) 563

People can adapt to just about anything. If you live in a ditch, then a shack feels like a mansion. If the people around you live in mansions, a perfectly serviceable house seems like a shack.

It's the Red Queen's race:

"Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"

And once you've adapted to running twice as fast, you'll have to run twice as fast yet again to feel like you're progressing.

That's why I say the most important thing in your profession, once you have achieved enough income to live modestly and set a little aside for the future, is to find work that is in itself rewarding.

Comment Re:Yes, but it won't happen any time soon (Score 1) 123

Streep is an exception (and good for her if she can still pull in that kind of money.) Most actors don't pull in anything like that amount of money, and even those that are able to pull in six digits or, occasionally, seven, digits per movie do so usually knowing they have a shelf life, and that Hollywood will discard them when they get into their 30s. At that point, many know they'll be difficult to hire in any other professions, as they just devoted much of their lives to a single profession, and have no skills outside of that, and have fame as an added handicap.

20 million, incidentally, is dirt cheap for a modern movie (to put it into perspective, the pilot episode of the 2000 TV series Dark Angel cost that much), and the right star can be the difference between a $60-250M movie (which is more the ballpark) either making a loss, or making an outrageous profit. The ticket price, which seems to have held steady at around $10 per adult for the last 20 years now, is what the market has determined is what people will pay, so that's not going to come down if studios were to cut actors salaries. So... why complain about this, specifically? If they're the ones making the movies profitable, and if the money's there, why not let them have a cut?

Comment Re:Rockets are too expensive (Score 5, Interesting) 324

And a space elevator, of course, would only cost about a Trillion, and there's this little problem of it hitting something (we'd have to make Earth Orbit absolutely pristine and keep it that way) and there's a problem with the kinetic energy if it falls down. Sort of like having many atom bombs go off.

Maybe someday. But right now making rockets as cheap as they can be is a better idea. It's only $200K to fuel up a Falcon 9. We don't get the whole thing back in working order yet, but that would be a lot easier than making a space elevator.

Slashdot Top Deals

Our business is run on trust. We trust you will pay in advance.