Well they would if the shooter was designed to apply, say, the character rotation as a delta versus as an absolute. That operation uses a lot of sin/cos, most games are designed such that the angle is stored, the delta updates the angle, and the rotation reapplied on update. Versus rotating the vertices based on the delta from the update, and saving the result (until the next update). You do the latter too much and eventually your object looks like poo. Mathematically, it's perfectly acceptable, but practically wrong.

I would test that theory first. I have a hunch some GPUs are going to take shortcuts with math that someone like the guy who wrote this article will object to.

I suspect those viewers are watching Ghost Hunters and happy with it. This is a show whose niche market is mostly disgusted with it.

It's just the usual groupthink that cliques like to propagate. There are tens of thousands of lines of new perl and ruby (not to mention python, tcl and javascript) being created in the engineering world every day. There's been no shift away from them, and in many cases they are integral parts of CAD tools. I have yet to work in a place where Perl wasn't an institution. I keep hearing that C is dying, obsolete, ancient, yet I would advise any child who wants to pursue CS to learn it first, and learn it well, that if you knew only one language that it should be C. It isn't going to "die" in my lifetime, and probably not my children's. It's an excellent language where pragmatism is advantageous (read everywhere, but primarily OS/Systems/embedded) .

The key thing here is that these languages are tools we use, but we do not define ourselves as "C Programmers" or "Perl Programmers". My title has something like "design verification" or "design engineer" or something in it, my resume lists C, perl, python and (gasp!) various assembly languages. I'm not hired because of those skills, but those skills definitely increase my chances of being looked at. I think if you say looking for a "Perl Programming" job, you'll strike out. But there's tons of jobs out there for which perl programming is a hugely valuable skill.

But if you want to chase trends, and you want to chase job req's... well I have no advice for you except that you're doing something fundamentally wrong anyway.

Or you just keep writing in C and rely on tools to create code in those bullshit languages for you, because who wants to define their career by the platform-du-jour? Sure, someone will have to know C#,Java,ObjC,Swift,JS, but not really that many people.

This stuff would go away if we could just agree to boycott these things. Corporations know how to make products, they are absolutely terrible at creating anything that lasts.

Not entirely. "Her" was perhaps the most even-handed I've ever seen, but as such the AI managed to also be selfish and inconsiderate. But at no time did one question whether it was going to slaughter everyone and start looking for John Conner. Perhaps it did the best at showing how the failings of intelligence are from the intelligence, rather than the underlying technology.

"Transcendence" doesn't fit, the entire plot hinges around the intentions of the AI, and whether it is good or bad. However if anything, it was more or less the reverse of "Her", it was the human consciousness that was at question, and it was the intentions of that consciousness that resolved the plot. The technology itself was portrayed as terrifying and dehumanizing.

I feel like the FCC is trying to butter us up (or perhaps lube our rear ends) for something unpleasant they plan to do.

No he didn't, the Koch brothers want to keep all the profit in coal. Duh.

If only we could put datagrams on bullets, we might at last get high speed internet!

As long as I can play with my cell phone, I won't have a hand free for the whiskey bottle.

I don't see any active misogyny where I work. No one picks on the females for being females or makes those demeaning comments that would make Al Bundy proud. I do see some dissatisfaction however with gender culture clashes. Men have a way of getting along, while I will be the last to defend it, it's how things have been done since we first set foot in school. Women have generally another way of getting along, and I find it at least as obnoxious as male methods, but I assume they have reached the same form of quiescence.

These two mechanisms do not frequently get along with each other, however, and for equally sexist reasons it is very hard for someone of the opposite gender to effectively play the game on the other's turf. Women who try the macho, alpha dog thing get labelled bitch. They talk the talk, but we secretly know we could beat them up, so they can't possibly be alpha, right? Alpha isn't about being right, it's about fear and intimidation. Men who try to play the clique game are seen as gay, weird or otherwise "creeps". The only reason that misogyny makes the news is male dominated fields pay more, in many cases.

The flip side is without the other gender present and forcing awkwardness, these cultures get out of control. Many men in male dominated fields and many females in female dominated fields complain about how tough a place can be to work in when these gender-specific culture mechanics are allowed to run unabated. Not all men like the macho bullshit game, I find in engineering that many a company has actually been ruined by meetings and decisions being dominated by the confident idiot who drives snappy decisions and overrides the thinkers. I have heard women complain about how resistant to change elementary school teachers can be, when the wrong clique gets in the way.

I'm not sure how we solve this problem, except to DEemphasize social behavior in children, and promote independence, self-reliance and critical thinking beyond these cheap interactions we seem to push hard (play dates, putting them in school ever younger, rushing them to certain milestones). Anyway this doesn't make as good of a headline as men are being sexist pigs.

No, not what I said, at all. I said absolutely feel free to do whatever you THINK is right. Those two words are very important.

You asked does right and wrong exist in a universe without God. My answer, is clearly yes. You are now changing the question to "what is right and wrong", and my only answer can be to study those that have come before you, understand their philosophy, understand the questions people have poked in the philosophy, and use it to evaluate your actions. Then choose the most optimal action. If you wish to judge me, judge me the same way. THINK, and THINK in the context of RIGHT/JUST/ETHICS.

There is no script for right or wrong in every case, either in the Bible or in secular belief. It has always been application of philosophy by way of careful thought. I feel the biblical version is myopic, and founded on a fundamentally flawed premise. That is not to say it does not have merit.

I never said that.

Or just say you can't sell your phones in our country with 3 billion people willing to sell kidneys for it w/o this software installed...

Are you aware that many of those who carried out the atrocities of the 20th Century thought they were doing right?

And many atrocities were performed in the name of doing God's work too. The list of people killed in the name of God would not fit in the pages of the Bible . The Bible is equally terrible at black and white, but provides a lot to think on and in some cases a template of a society we might want to live in. It is one of many sources of wisdom when it comes to difficult decisions.

so feel free to do whatever it is you think is right
Yes, absolutely. You're probably going to do better by understanding the study of right and wrong than just by doing whatever you feel like doing at the time. But you can rationalize almost any decision as well, and delude yourself. Religion does not have the market cornered as far as self-delusion goes.

If you want a list of right things and wrong things, I don't have one, no one does, though many will happily construct it for you and you can just blindly accept it. I am not sure that meets the letter, spirit, or common interpretations of the passage indicated above but it suffices for many. If you want to reject the idea of right and wrong outside of the concept of God, I gave you a list of people whose opinions were considered brilliant and well reasoned, both in the secular and non-secular context, who disagree with you. If you accept that right and wrong is, in many cases, difficult and a lot to ask, I completely agree.