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:massive parallel processing=limited application (Score 1) 93

Also, there is caching, and also, some loads are heavy on longish FPU operations.

So... it doesn't quite work out that way. Also, multicore designs can have separate memory.

One example of multicore design that's both interesting and functional are the various vector processor graphics cores. Lots of em in there; and they get to do a lot of useful work you couldn't really do any other way with similar clock speeds and process tech.

Comment Re:For the percentage impaired... (Score 1) 82

Can you link to something authoritative so I can cure my ignorance?

Sorry, I didn't find anything definitive either. However, it follows from the normal use for ratios less than unity. The only difference is the magnitude. Taking "two times" to be equivalent to "200%", and "1/2 times" (or simply "1/2") to be equivalent to "50%":

50% as fast (as the original) = 1/2 (times) as fast = 0.5 * original speed
100% as fast = one times as fast = 1 * original speed
200% as fast = two times as fast = 2 * original speed

50% faster (than the original) = 1/2 (times) faster = (0.5 * original speed) + original speed
100% faster = one times faster = (1 * original speed) + original speed = 2 * original speed
200% faster = two times faster = (2 * original speed) + original speed = 3 * original speed

The expression has two parts. The first can be either "X%" or "X times", both relative to the original amount. If the second part is "as fast" or "as much" (etc.) then this is the final result. If the second part is a relative term like "faster" or "more" then this implies addition, and the first amount, after multiplication, is the difference between the result and the original amount.

Few would disagree with the statement that "50% faster" is equivalent to "150% as fast", and not "50% as fast", but for some reason many become confused by "200% faster" when the formula is exactly the same.

Comment Re:Light years (Score 1) 216

This raises a question: Why do astronomers use irregular units like "light years" and "parsecs" instead of the SI units and prefixes used in every other scientific discipline? Is it just a matter of custom, like the use of English(-ish) units in the U.S.? The SI units would not be any more awkward to work with, and would avoid the need for complex conversions:

distance from Earth to the Sun (1.00 AU) = 150 Gm (gigameters, G=10^9)
distance to Proxima Centauri (1.3 parsecs) = 40. Pm (petameters, P=10^15)
estimated size of the universe (46 billon light years) = 44 Ym (yottameters, Y=10^24)

Comment Re:For the percentage impaired... (Score 1) 82

Sorry, but "330% faster" is indeed 3.3 times faster, or 4.3 times as fast. "4.3 [times] faster" is actually 5.3 times as fast. You're off by one, and GP is correct.

Let's try it this way: "100% faster" and "1 times faster." Do you see how your statement is provably false, now?

Sorry, but the AC is right. "100% faster" = "1 times faster" = "2 times as fast".

"X times as fast" = X * original speed
"X times faster" = original speed + (X * original speed)

Comment Re:Depends (Score 1) 82

... "as slow" would seem to need to be a comparison to a value measured from a reference point ...

"slowness" = 1 / "fastness" (a.k.a. speed)

Say that an object is moving at 5 meters per second. Its "slowness" is, equivalently, one second per five meters, or 0.2 seconds per meter. "50% faster" would be 50% * 5 m/s = 2.5 m/s faster than 5 m/s, or 7.5 m/s in total. "50% slower" would be 50% * 0.2 s/m = 0.1 s/m slower than 0.2 s/m, or 0.3 s/m in total, or 3.333... m/s.

(Intuitively, "50% slower" means that it takes 50% more time to cover the same distance.)

"Twice as fast" = 2 * 5 m/s = 10 m/s.
"Half as slow" = 1/2 * 0.2 s/m = 0.1 s/m, or 10 m/s.

"Half as fast" = 1/2 * 5 m/s = 2.5 m/s.
"Twice as slow" = 2 * 0.2 s/m = 0.4 s/m, or 2.5 m/s.

Comment Re:Solution: Buy legislators. All of them. (Score 1) 187

You cherry pick the bad ones.

Well, I cherry picked the high end devices, yes -- because they were sold claiming the feature sets that were compelling. Now, the fact that those feature sets were incomplete, and/or buggy, and/or mischaracterized... that's something I didn't pick. But it's been very consistent, and the higher end the device, the more consistent it's been.

It just sounds like you do business with shitty companies.

Well, Canon for the camera. Marantz for the pre-pro. Kenwood for the radio. I totally agree they are shitty companies. And they won't be getting any more of my money. It's not like I can't learn.

The bottom line is, these devices have, and were sold trumpeting, the mechanisms that would allow them to be fixed and/or improved. They aren't fixed, and they surely aren't improved in any significant way. I'm just reporting it, and drawing a general (and accurate) conclusion about considering "network upgradable" to be anything more than marketing hype.

You don't like what I'm saying, okay, more power to you. I'm still saying it, though. And I'm still right, so there's that. :)

Comment Re:Pile it on.. (Score 1) 301

According to some Eddie Griffin standup, the rationale of saggy pants originated in prison so that some men could advertise that their ass was available. At some point this became "cool" and part of ghetto culture in general. Which is odd given how less welcoming the black community is to the gay community.

Comment Re:Alarming Battery Costs (Score 1) 172

Being that Musk wants to get into that business for the home, couldn't they just set it up so you can replace your battery in your Tesla then have the old battery delivered and installed for a personal UPS/solar storage? I assume if you're wealthy enough to own a Tesla, you can probably afford this as well.

Slashdot Top Deals

Mathematicians stand on each other's shoulders. -- Gauss