Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:FINALLY! (Score 1) 31

Yeah, I love spending my money on inferior products that don't work as well, because brand loyalty!

It's called 'voting with your wallet.' If the company isn't getting it done with their product line, they need to know it. And there's no better message delivery than a warehouse full of stale product that nobody wants to buy. How do we know? Because of this story right here - AMD may have come up with a winner. Same or better performance at far less price. And why did they do this? Because Intel was kicking their asses up and down the block on performance, at ANY price point.

Maybe not anymore. If AMD can deliver on this announcement, they will see sales uplift. Message received.

Comment All of this has happened before... (Score 2) 31

It seems that every time Intel gets a significant pile of laurels, they like to rest on them. Then someone comes up from behind to kick them in the ass. AMD has done it before, perhaps with this generation they can do it again.

And who wins? We all do. Last time, Intel got off their ass and created the Core-series that has expanded PC processing power to the point where upgrade cycles have gone from 3 years to 6+. Let's hope that this shot across the bow ushers in a new era of chip design that brings features we want, rather than the features that they think we want.

Comment Re:will probably take off with next gen hardware (Score 1) 111

I basically agree - VR as it currently stands is not going to take off. The current experience is nifty but it quickly becomes annoying. The cables get in the way. The controllers work but you're still holding on to little plastic bits.

The next gen is going to be higher resolution and wireless, and Microsoft is going to have standard APIs for them. I expect that's when they'll go mainstream.

Here's where I'm not sure I agree - I think what's going to go mainstream first is smartphone VR, for one simple reason: just about everyone owns a smartphone. It's inherently wireless. Assuming you stick to Android devices (as Apple isn't doing anything with VR and seems to be actively hostile to the concept), you've got a standard API.

Smartphone powered VR has the chance to be something that's basically a cheap add-on for a device you already own.

There are issues with this: smartphones aren't really powerful enough to create a great VR experience and the smartphone controllers are - well, also not great. There's still work to be done to make smartphone VR really "go mainstream."

But I think $100 "addon" VR headsets for a $1000 smartphone people are already buying to use elsewhere is much more likely to happen than a $400 VR headset that's only a VR headset.

Comment Re:Paid news is hopeless against the internet (Score 1) 379

There are so many free sources of news, it may be impossible to sell it in the near future.

But how do those news sources get filtered and curated? The problem today is that there is so much news that you can find someone writing absolutely any story you want, regardless of the facts, and regardless of the relevance or importance.

Comment Re:In next weeks news get your nails done at Autoz (Score 1) 42

Wow - this is some pretty cool stuff and I commend Netflix for doing it, but really? Netflix?

It's a tool developed for internal, corporate users, to make Netflix's own operations more secure. They've decided to open source it, probably in hope that others will have good ideas to make it better.

Comment Re: Who cares? (Score 1) 299

You're assuming that it is a one time operation. here's the long term problem: At best 5% of a launch mass goes to the payload to reach LEO. At best. If launching a manned mission to Mars, the vast majority of the launch fuel will be to get the vehicle to reach LEO. So the vehicle most likely will have to be re-fueled in orbit. Again 5% of a launch just to refuel a craft.

Certainly it can be done short term for a few flights. However a long term mission to Mars might be better off with moon refueling where gravity is 1/6 that of Earth. Will it be easy to set up a Moon base to serve as a refueling point? No. But in the long run it will be better.

Comment Re: Great idea... But there is a problem... (Score 1) 299

aka, for every 10 kg you launch to LEO you get 1kg payload to your destination

That's factually not true. Falcon Heavy Weight (1,420,788 kg), LEO payload (54,400 kg ): 3.83%
Ariane 5 Weight: 777,000kg, LEO payload: 16,000 kg. 2.05%
Atlas V Weight 345,000, LEO payload: 18,810 kg: 5.45%

At best it is 5%. At best. Many orbital launch systems deliver less than 5%.

Just 3000 m/s is a nearly 3:1 ratio.

Someone is forgetting basic physics. F=(1/2)m(v^2). The ratio is not 3:1. The ratio is (10^2)/(3^2) or 11:1.

Comment Re:Seen this before... (Score 1) 137

Yep. Exactly. Gotta love government IT workers!

I love my government IT job. After years of working for Fortune 500 IT teams, I'm finally working with the best pros in the industry. ;)

Second best.

I spent 15 years as a consultant, working with both fortune 500 companies and government agencies. Government agencies tend to have one of two personalities; either they're quite good or they're horribly bad. Sounds like you got into a good one. Corporate IT departments of non-IT companies tend to be more middle of the road, though variance is huge. But the top tier information technology companies tend to have almost uniformly excellent people.

Comment Re: Great idea... But there is a problem... (Score 1) 299

Because they're... probes? Most of them weigh so little and go by so energy efficient orbits that there's no point.

If their orbits are so efficient why do many of them have flybys so they get a gravity assist? These are also unmanned probes for which time is not as important a factor as a manned mission.

Your typical probe is maybe a ton, the Curiosity mission was a real heavyweight at almost four tons total - of which the rover itself was around one, but still something a regular Falcon 9, Atlas V or Delta IV could deliver to Mars. There's still room for bigger missions on a Delta IV Heavy, even before the Falcon Heavy flies. We don't do it because there's no point in adding that complexity and the extra expense doesn't give any payback in science. It's better science to send two small probes than one big one.

Falcon Heavy's max payload to Mars is 13,000 kg which is about the size of 1 ISS module. Orion spacecraft is estimated to be 25,000kg with 9,000kg of fuel. Bigger rockets will be necessary, or refueling in space has to be an option.

Comment Re: Why not land on the moon? (Score 1) 299

Your "logic" seems to be that it is impossible to test the new rocket without strapping people on top. This is, of course, nonsense.

Please read above: This was my first post in this thread: "Because you have to walk before you run. Before landing on the moon don't you think NASA should get to the moon first. Apollo 11 was not the first Apollo mission to reach the moon if you remember history."

Two I never said it. My point: Anything new from NASA has to be tested. Even the Apollo era technology was tested. Before Apollo 11 landed on the moon, Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 went to the moon to test various aspects of the mission including orbit and module docking.

Putting a crew on the first attempt to fly a new rocket is foolhardy. To do so on a stack that can fly just fine without a crew is a reckless stunt.

If you read my words, I never advocated for that. But it appears you didn't do so.

Slashdot Top Deals

Blinding speed can compensate for a lot of deficiencies. -- David Nichols