Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Ermm.... (Score 2) 80

You can beat expectations all day long if the expectations are sufficiently low. Beating expectations doesn't mean shit if you are still expected to lose a shitload of money, and you can't convince anyone else to give you more money. It just means you lost a little less than the "analysts" thought you would... but you still lost money. If you are losing money, and nobody is looking to loan you any more because you've been a giant money pit your entire existence with large earth-mover sized equipment dumping stacks of cash into it never to be seen again... well, pretty soon you start "downsizing" in order to just meet payroll and keep the lights on. ... much like what TFA is about.

Comment Re: Hmm (Score 1) 990

ARM was founded in 1990 as a joint venture between Apple, VLSI, and Acorn Computers - they needed a low power CPU for Newton. Apple uses the ARM instruction set, but designs their own SoC and has it manufactured to their spec. It helps explain why iPhone is so much faster than Android phones in benchmarks unless the Android OEM cheats.

As an aside, the year Apple became profitable after years of bleeding ungodly sums of money was largely on the back of them selling down their holdings in ARM after killing off the Newton. Turns out that they made far more on this joint venture then they ever did with Newton.

Comment Re:Positive development (Score 1) 157

Means more room for humans. We're succeeding as a species. I suspect it wont end well for us though.

I don't see any reason to believe it will end badly, at least not for reasons related to this issue.

Homo Sapiens has proven to be an extraordinarily adaptable and successful species, a global superpredator, which has inevitably displaced many other species. The Holocene Extinction, which has been in progress for thousands of years, is the result. The rate of extinctions accelerated dramatically in the last few centuries, particularly as the human population has exploded.

However, in the last few decades humans have become aware of the issue and have begun to care about it. This isn't to say that we'll ever value other species as highly as our own, but we've begun to think that it's important to avoid destroying them. That coupled with the fact that human population is likely to peak within 30 years and then begin declining and the fact that new technology is enabling us to tread more lightly means that extinctions directly produced by human activity (e.g. habitat expansion) will slow and perhaps cease.

Indirectly-caused extinctions will likely continue for millenia, though. Global warming is going to do in a lot of species (though it may create a good number as well), as climate shifts exceed the ability of species to migrate. It may also provoke some more directly-caused extinctions as it causes humans to migrate. Not much, though, since we already live pretty much everywhere. The accommodation of human-transplanted "invasive" species is also going to take a lot of time, and transplantation is probably going to continue as much as we try to avoid it, so there's going to be a sort of homogenization effect across the globe which will wipe out a lot of species as more aggressive and capable species get moved into their area. If humans choose to begin engineering planetary climate and stabilize it, so that it stays permanently within a particular range, that large driver of new speciation will be eliminated which will also contribute to the establishment of an equilibrium that will likely contain many fewer species than the planet has had for most of life's history upon it. It's also possible that we'll begin engineering biodiversity as well. That's hard to say.

Or maybe we'll have a massive nuclear war, simultaneously removing ourselves from the picture, ending the Holocene extinction with a spike, and kicking off an explosive new round of speciation. I think that and similar humanity-caused, humanity-ending disasters are unlikely, but I am an inveterate optimist.

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 1) 990

That's indeed the kind of ideas that is now floating around. I rank it in the category of Iraq coming to kill us all, with the same combination of inflating the threat and at the same time regarding the opponent as a pushover. I think Colin Powell has made some sensible comments on that. Russia is paranoid about us, about NATO. We scare them. They are a small power, we're a big one that is surrounding them more and more, and then sabre rattling is a sensible response.

That doesn't explain why they weren't rattling their sabers a few years ago. The Economist has a recent article that does offer an explanation that covers that as well The thesis is basically that domestic troubles caused by a weak economy have motivated Putin to seek ways to distract his people from domestic concerns. Specifically, he's tried to recapture the superpower position of the Soviet Union. He can't, really, because Russia isn't the Soviet Union. Without the central planning structure to force the massive overproduction of military resources, the Soviet Union wouldn't have been the Soviet Union, either.

But his people don't really realize this and, frankly, the rest of the world tends not to realize it much, either. So Putin can rattle his rusted and broken saber and the rest of the world reacts as though he was the mighty Soviet Union. Except... there is one area in which is military isn't so rusted or broken: nuclear weapons. Oh, his nuclear armament is aging and dilapidated, but it's still very real and Russia has the technological wherewithal to build highly functional nukes and missiles to carry them. Russia can't afford to build very many of them, but it doesn't really take all that many.

So, as it becomes more and more apparent that Putin doesn't really have the conventional forces to make the world treat Russia with the fear and respect that the Soviet Union got, he's almost certainly going to be making more and more use of the nuclear threat that the world can't ignore. And that will help to keep his people feeling like they're a major world power again, which will keep him in power.

Is this true? I don't know. Makes sense to me.

Comment Re:Am I missing something? (Score 1) 142

Hangouts used to have seamless SMS/Hangouts.

No, it was never seamless in the sense that iMessage is. The seams were harder to see, and that was exactly the problem that motivated the clear separation; the failure modes of the combined messaging were subtle, hard to understand and opaque to users. The upshot is that the combination made Hangouts messaging appear to be unreliable.

Actually, iMessage isn't really seamless either. It breaks badly if iMessage thinks the destination device is an iPhone but it isn't. It's very good in a pure-Apple world, though.

Comment Re:Uh..... the price tag?! (Score 3, Informative) 188

Except it really doesn't. You can configure iMac 27" 5K to have a 4GHz 4-core CPU, 2TB "fusion" drive (probably same hybrid thing Microsoft has here), 32GB RAM, and a Radeon R9 M395X with 4GB VRAM for $3400.

That's basically the same machine, except with an Apple logo and OS X instead of Microsoft logos and Windows 10, and no touchscreen. And, the bit that makes the touchscreen even remotely useable was patented by Apple 6 years ago so Microsoft didn't even come up with that - they can just use it through the cross-licensing agreement that the two companies share.

Is the touchscreen and Windows 10 really worth $800?

Comment Re:Am I missing something? (Score 1) 142

Hangouts does everything you describe. It's what I use all the time. It is seamless across my phone and table and my PC. And it is seamless across windows, linux and apple.

It is seamless between SMS and the internal delivery system, and the conversations are synced to my gmail account allowing me to search them.

I like Hangouts and use it constantly, both personally and for work (I work for Google, where it is arguably the primary means of communication), but it isn't quite as seamless as iMessage in one respect: SMS integration. In iMessage there is no distinction between SMS and iMessage messages; they're all just messages. If they can be delivered via Apple's infrastructure, they are, if not they're routed via SMS. With Hangouts, SMS and Hangouts chat messages are distinct. They look similar, but they're different in subtle ways.

Of course, Hangouts clearly is superior to iMessage if you or your friends use non-Apple devices, because Hangouts works on a much wider variety of platforms, and for those who understand the distinction it's *good* to know what is SMS and what is not, because SMS is inherently unreliable -- and in some parts of the world SMS is also ridiculously expensive while data is cheap.

So, although depending on your context Hangouts may be better than iMessage, it's definitely not as seamless in a pure-Apple world as iMessage is.

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 5, Insightful) 990

You're talking like Putin isn't the madman.

Note: I don't think he's a madman - he's too smart to actually go down the road to a full-on military engagement against NATO. I do, however, think he is beating the nationalist drum in order to bring back the glory days of the USSR that everyone seems to remember without also remembering the crushing human rights violations, the starvation and bread lines, and the ever-looming threat of nuclear oblivion between the Soviets and the West.

For the millenials that have no idea what Soviet Russia was about: everything sounds nice and rosy until you find yourself being forced into being a farmer because that's what some bureaucrat designated you as. Don't like it? Better not say anything about it, or you're off to a gulag in the next purge.

Comment Re: Hmm (Score 4, Informative) 990

Manufactured in Israel. If it's an Intel CPU, it was designed in Hillsboro, Oregon, USA (unless it's an ancient Pentium-M). And the fabrication process and fab plant layout was also designed and tested in Hillsboro, Oregon, USA at Intel's D1X facility, as that is exactly what that facility is for - perfecting the fab design for the next node shrink. Just like the D1C and D1D facilities right next to it, which have been converted into manufacturing fabs.

Oh, and if the grandparent poster has an iPhone, the CPU was designed by Apple, in California, USA. The CPU would have been manufactured either by Samsung or TSMC, and not in the US.

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 1) 990

They were useless before. Why would the US put interceptor weapons and radar in Eastern Europe to combat weapons that would fly north in order to hit the US?

Anyone that has bothered to look at a globe could see that these sites are meant for intercepting stuff coming from the middle east. (read: Iran)

Slashdot Top Deals

I came, I saw, I deleted all your files.