It's like there's some strange black hole of information available on the internet that only happens around the super specific topic the Ask Slashdotter is interested in. I'm pretty sure all of these folks are the ones that were our best horses in Keener Bingo:

http://www.mathnews.uwaterloo....

Ding ding. Fuck, C# is fine and dandy and pretty fucking fast, if your target platforms and related asset and tool ecosystems are cool with it, and you're not boneheaded about what you're doing. Questions like these are so silly - if you do so much homework to know what you know and what you don't know, I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to find the right information, books, etc. What a passive aggressive inquiry. If you're convinced you can write an intelligently framed question with tons of context, then why on earth can you not do a little google mining for books that focus on C# game development? This discipline is hardly a secretive cabal.

Google is your friend, but I'll save you a little time. Some info from Google and Intel.

As I just got done saying in a comment above: Note that native development can be important to apps for a non-technical reason: preventing piracy. An app written purely in Java is relatively easy to decompile and analyze, and pirates have a lot of techniques for removing or disabling licensing code. Adding a native component makes the app much harder to reverse-engineer, at least delaying the day that your app appears on pirate sites.

Though I do agree that JNI is a serious pain. On the other hand, I've developed for Netware and Palm OS, so my standards for pain are probably artificially high.

I made an app for Android - ported an emulator written in C++. (Link in sig, if you're interested, but this isn't a slashvertisement.)

So the core of the app, the 'engine', is in C++ and must be natively compiled, while the UI and such is in Java. Naturally, the binary's compiled for ARM first. This actually runs on a lot of Intel Android tablets because they have ARM emulators. But, thanks to a user finally asking, I put in some time and now I can make an Intel version. (Heck, the original source was written for Intel anyway, so it wasn't a big stretch.) The existing tools are sufficient for my purposes. And it runs dramatically faster now on Intel.

However, for the developer it's mildly painful. The main issue is that you have a choice to make, with drawbacks no matter which way you go. You can include native libraries for multiple platforms, but that makes the APK larger - and according to a Google dev video I saw, users tend to uninstall larger apps first. In my case, it'd nearly double the size. So instead I'm putting together multiple APKs, so that ARM users get the ARM version and Intel users get the Intel version - but only Google Play supports that, not third-party app stores. I haven't looked into other app stores, and now it's less likely I will.

Note that native development can be important to apps for a non-technical reason: preventing piracy. An app written purely in Java is relatively easy to decompile and analyze, and pirates have a lot of techniques for removing or disabling licensing code. Adding a native component makes the app much harder to reverse-engineer, at least delaying the day that your app appears on pirate sites.

Is "emerging space" a synonym for "didn't go anywhere?" As it stands, there is the Ouya, which is dying, a bunch of android consoles dying on the vine, and a Playstation Vita TV, which hasn't caught on enough in Japan to bother shipping elsewhere. As it stands, the only microconsole-like object that is doing OK is Chromecast, and that has nothing to do with games.

Every single field has its own vernacular, its own special usage of words. It's unavoidable. If I refer to an 'atomic bus queue operation' in a computer context that's perfectly clear and unambiguous... but it's not what a 'layperson' would probably picture. If you can fix this, you will revolutionize human communication.

I wish you luck.

I said the predictions have been shown to be accurate, not the hypothesis. Perhaps the sentence could have been simplified, but the grammar's correct.

This doesn't necessarily mean that he disagrees with evolution and mutation as a mechanism for change or that there is common DNA across a large number of species.

BTW, I couldn't let this one go. It's not just 'a large number'. It's the same DNA code across all organisms we know of. There are a couple of exceptions - but they edit the code back to the 'standard' one before the proteins are transcribed.

And the pattern of 'common DNA' confirms common descent to a ridonkulous degree.

Books used to be copied by scribes, and (despite a lot of care) sometimes typos would be introduced. Later scribes, making copies of copies, would introduce other typos. It's possible to look at the existing copies and put them into a 'family tree'. "These copies have this typo, but not that one; this other group has yet another typo, though three of them have a newer typo as well, not seen elsewhere..." This is not controversial at all when dealing with books, including the Bible.

Now, this process of copy-with-modification naturally produces 'family trees', nested groups. When we look at life, we find such nested groups. No lizards with fur or nipples, no mammals with feathers, etc. Living things (at least, multicellular ones, see below) fit into a grouped hierarchy. This has been solidly recognized for over a thousand years, and systematized for centuries. It was one of the clues that led Darwin to propose evolution. (Little-known fact: Linnaeus, who invented the "kingdom, phyla, genus, species, etc." classification scheme for living things, tried to do the same thing for minerals. But minerals don't form from copy-with-modification, and a 'nested hierarchy' just didn't work and never caught on.)

Today, more than a century later, we find another tree, one Darwin never suspected - that of DNA. This really is a 'text' being copied with rare typos. And, as expected, it also forms a family tree, a nested hierarchy. And, with very very few surprises, it's the same tree that was derived from looking at physical traits.

It didn't have to be that way. Even very critical genes for life - like that of cytochrome C - have a few neutral variations, minor mutations that don't affect its function. (Genetic sequences for cytochrome C differ by up to 60% across species.) Wheat engineered to use the mouse form of cytochrome C grows just fine. But we find a tree of mutations that fits evolution precisely, instead of some other tree. (Imagine if a tree derived from bookbinding technology - "this guy used this kind of glue, but this other bookbinder used a different glue..." - conflicted with a tree that was derived from typos in the text of the books. We'd know at least one tree and maybe both were wrong.)

The details of these trees are very specific and very, very numerous. There are billions of quadrillions of possible trees... and yet the two that we see (DNA and morphology) happen to very precisely match. This is either a staggering coincidence, or a Creator deliberately arranged it in a misleading manner, or... universal common ancestry is actually true.

(Single-celled organisms are much more 'promiscuous' in their reproduction and spread genes willy-nilly without respect for straightforward inheritance. With single-celled creatures, it looks more like a 'web' of life than a 'tree'. But even if the tree of life has tangled roots, it's still very definitely a tree when it comes to multicellular life. Which is the area that people opposed to evolution most worry about anyway.)

You're absolutely right. You don't need to have much theoretical knowledge to practice a particular skilled trade. It's only when trying to develop beyond the current state of the art that a good grasp of theory helps. If you're not interested in that, go ahead and don't worry about the whys and wherefores.

A scientific theory ties together a broad range of observations into a coherent model and makes testable predictions, that have since been tested and found to be accurate. It's still called the germ theory of disease, after all. Or the theory of Relativity, which you use every time you use a GPS. Without Relativistic corrections, the whole system would drift to the point of uselessness within six hours.

A cross between Descent and Tron, with procedurally-generated levels. Haven't had time to try it yet, but it looks worth checking out.

I used to do software for industrial robots. Safety for the people around the robot was the number one concern, but it is amazing how easy it is for humans to give orders to a robot that will lead to it being damaged or destroyed. In practice, the robots would 'prioritize' protecting themselves rather than obeying suicidal orders.

Specifically, the original poster writes: " Intriguingly, the BICEP team has yet to flat-out deny this."

However, the very first link quotes one of the PIs for BICEP by saying: "As for Falkowski's suggestion in his blog that the BICEP has admitted to making a mistake, Pryke says that "is totally false." The BICEP team will not be revising or retracting its work, which it posted to the arXiv preprint server, Pryke says: "We stand by our paper.""

The /. editors didn't actually look at the submission before approving it. Yeah, yeah, I know.

Yikes. And you think *he's* dumb?