Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Java hasn't been in the browser for 10+ years (Score 1) 33

Loading a webpage shouldn't bog down a $4000 MacBook Pro...but the shitty front-end dev community said "M4 should easily be able to load my stupid and simple website?"...."Challenge accepted!"

Does it actually bog down a reasonably-speced computer? I don't think it does, I think the sluggishness is just from the sheer volume of stuff that has to be downloaded, and the inefficient way it's downloaded. And the reason the web devs don't notice the awfulness is (a) their browsers have 98% of it cached and (b) they have a GigE (or 10 GigE) connection to the server. They certainly don't have computers faster than your M4.

Comment Re:Needs to be optional (Score 1) 33

As long as I can turn it off, I don't give a rat's ass what stupid, annoying, and bandwidth-eating "features" they put into Chrome.

I think you didn't understand what this feature is. It's pretty much the opposite of annoying, and it has no effect at all on bandwidth consumption. Though I suppose when devs get used to their sites seeming to load faster they'll bloat them up even more...

Comment Re:Intel's political marketing has always been bad (Score 3, Insightful) 22

If you read this post it shows that AMD stole Intel's design and reverse engineered it.

If you dig deeper, you'll find that AMD originally reverse engineered the *8080*, not the 8086. The two companies had entered into a cross-licensing agreement by 1976. Intel agreed to let AMD second-source the 8086 in order to secure the PC deal with IBM, who insisted on having a second source vendor.

There would have been no Intel success story without AMD to back them up.

(That actually would have been for the best. IBM would probably have selected an non-segmented CPU from somebody else instead of Intel's kludge.)

Comment Re:Bad for us, but not "our fault" (Score 1) 107

The real reason we will never be able to "fix" the drought is because the American West is not in a drought right now.

Basically everyone who lives in the area or studies the climate or hydrology would tell you that you're insane.

The West's rapid aridification isn't being caused by a "once-in-a-century" weather event

More like a once-in-a-millennium event. Though I suspect it's going to be considerably more common going forward.

What we're dealing with in the West is not a drought because the current lack of rainfall isn't "abnormal" for a desert. Dry is the default setting. And you can't call it a "drought" because you wish deserts were wetter.

Deserts have some amount of normal precipitation, too. And when you get a lot less than normal, that's called a drought. Yes, even in a desert.

Slashdot Top Deals

1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.

Working...