Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment French: bad example (Score 1) 301

"On" in French is a bad example -- "on" agrees with masculine conjugations and endings, not feminine. And French is a bad example in general, since so much of the language is gender-laden. Try getting a French person to remove the destinction between "le" and "la", replacing it with something else ("lo"?) -- and replace all masculine/feminine dimorphism in the language with some new generic ending. That will take you far.

Comment Missing the point of Level 5 (Score 3, Insightful) 149

He's totally missing the point of the definitions. Level 3 is "can drive autonomously, in some conditions, with occasional human intervention". Level 4 is "can drive autonomously, in some conditions, without human intervention". Level 5 is "can drive autonomously, in any conditions that a human can drive in, without human intervention". Saying "We can do Level 3, 4, or 5, depending on the conditions" is saying "We can do Level 3".

Comment Re:rear is better (Score 1) 71

Personally I hate having the fingerprint scanner on the back, I think it's one of the most stupid of recent phone "innovations". It's way too easy to accidentally unlock the phone when you're putting it into your pocket (as has happened numerous times for me). It's also easy to accidentally slide down the notification bar by moving your finger on the back while holding the unlocked phone (I know you can disable this feature). I'd much rather have the front surface touch-sensitive, and the back surface and sides completely non-touch-sensitive.

Comment Re:Because there's no such thing as one "performan (Score 1) 474

The available wavelengths of light in the EM spectrum have not changed since the dawn of Moore's Law. Only our ability to used them for lithography has changed. It's engineering, knowledge and skill, NOT PHYSICS. What you are referring to as "physics" is simply "standing on the shoulders of giants". There is NO principle of physics that limits us from jumping multiple process nodes ahead, EXCEPT for the fact that we seem only able to do incremental development. You're still missing the point of the OP's question.

Comment Re:Because there's no such thing as one "performan (Score 0) 474

"Physics" is not an answer to this. "Time and experience" is the answer you are giving. The same physics exists today that existed 25 years ago. What is possible today was technically possible 25 years ago, but in practical terms it wasn't yet, because the engineering processes weren't sufficiently developed yet. You have provided no sound explanation as to why engineering processes, time and experience are exactly stuck in lock-step with Moore's Law. That is not Physics at all.

Comment Re:Because there's no such thing as one "performan (Score 1) 474

Yes, but I think you're missing the point that the OP is really making: they are asking why improvements to processor speed are so danged incremental. Processors are maybe 200x times faster now than they were 25 years ago, but the point is that we got here, so it was physically possible. What stopped us from condensing the last 25 years of progress into 5 years? Or 1 year? Why is the progress of Moore's Law supposedly so inexorable? Does this indicate a "learned helplessness" of the industry, transitioning from the view that Moore's Law was an interesting phenomenon that arose from the industry without collusion, to the point where it now dictates what the product targets should be for this year and next year? Why is nobody trying to dramatically outstrip Moore's Law? Is it even possible to jump more than one process node ahead at a time, or increase IPC by an order of magnitude at a time rather than by a small percentage?

Slashdot Top Deals

Every young man should have a hobby: learning how to handle money is the best one. -- Jack Hurley