Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Bad summary, refactoring not optimization (Score 1) 156

Hmm... this doesn't look at all appealing to me.

As far as I can tell, this only works if you can accurately recreate the exact circumstances for each run, because under normal usage it is quite possible that a refactoring that seems slower, is actually faster but has to process a larger workset. As a programmer I'd be pretty unhappy if my compiler decided to rebel and reverse my O(n^4) refactoring back to the O(n^y) version because I happened to have a smallish y in the first run (so it seemed like an O(n^3) algorithm). Now, for most programs it's not a big deal because you're just reading something from the database. But you better hope the database doesn't get a hiccup or your code may be re-refactored behind your back.

Basically, this looks like IBM's version of Clippy, for programmers.

Comment Re:Serious question : (Score 1) 468

The answer to your question RockDoctor depends on whether Sony actually makes money off of selling the consoles or only through the games. If they are "losing money" because the cost of the console is less than the resources required to produce it, then I can understand why this would be happening. In other words, as a business, Sony wants you to buying and using their console in such a way that would net them a profit.

It still does suck for those who do take advantage of OtherOS AND ALSO plays online using the same box. It's rather unfair Sony would do this.

Comment Re:Too nerdy. (Score 2, Insightful) 185

Except his generalization has been more the exception for all the nerds I've ever met.

Nerds tend to go for things with more depth/complexity then the average bear and it's true

I've never seen such a thing on average being true. Almost all the nerds I've come across are into just as much banal shit as the next person. Sure there might be a few areas that they like that tend to be more complex, but it's outweighed by the other shit.

Comment Re:So Many Questions (Score 1) 303

Except in the universe of physical-dimensions, when a body is moving in one dimension with a constant velocity, that velocity is not affected by the body's movements or even accelerations in any other dimension (unless, of course, the environment changes such that it now impedes the first dimension's constant motion). A spaceship in frictionless space moving at a constant velocity forward along the Z-axis will continue moving along the Z-axis with the same velocity even if maneuvering rockets give the spaceship new velocity along the X or Y axis.

Even under your own hypothesis, time must be different than space since time is the only dimension that must lose "speed" when velocity is increased in a different dimension. Consider a spaceship moving at 50% the speed of light along the Z-axis. Adding substantial velocity along the X or Y axis would increase the spaceship's overall speed, and the time experienced by those withing the spaceship would be slower (in agreement with your "conservation of space-time" hypothesis), but there would be no change to the velocity along the Z-axis. Losing that velocity in the X or Y axes would result in restoring the speed of time (as experienced by the passengers) to its previous rate, but not affect the velocity along the Z-axis. Therefore the time "axis" has special properties not shared by the several space axes.

Slashdot Top Deals

Your files are now being encrypted and thrown into the bit bucket. EOF

Working...