Yeah, but looking at Wilkinson's photo, his douchiness quotient may not be far behind. Their combined daily hair product emissions alone could probably power a small town.

One overprivileged hipster screws another. Oh, the humanity! And it's so sad to see, since in another world they could have been bros, sharing some PBRs on a Sunday morning at the beer garden while talking over each other about their new iPhone apps.

There is definitely something about intuiting manual shifts (or blipping downshifts) by the sound of the engine alone or mastering the art of the shift/gas/brake/clutch on twisting roads with only two feet for the 3 pedals.

If you are *racing* (and VERY few people really actually do this) sure, it's all about speed and handling, who cares how you get it. But as you said for most auto "enthusiasts" it's about *driving*. Really, most of the fun is in the learning, same with many hobbies - if you just want to "be perfect", you can let a computer decide your next chess move, play the baseline on your keyboard, or shift for you. But what's the point?

No, electric will NOT "win" (where win is become the predominant form of vehicle propulsion) with performance. Electric will be an awesome but tiny niche with performance.

Electric will win with price, utility, and reliability, just like all car models that "win" ie. are hugely popular (e.g. the Prius). Once electric cars start winning the 24 Hours of Le Mans, can be purchased for $30k and can get ~300 miles per charge and go cross country in a few days, I think absolutely they will win...

Reminds me of a high school drivers ed session years back (I was sitting in the back seat):

teacher: "What's the speed limit on this road?"
student: "64?"
teacher: "64!? This is Route 64 you nitwit! Well, at least we didn't take Route 83. Or I-355!"

It's a reasonably modern ATI GPU, and it can be used as a "compute shader".

Though of course GPU compute functions are pretty complex to do, and they directly take away from graphics functions. I'm guessing Ubisoft's claim that the platforms are CPU bound does not really mean they are not using as much of the GPU as they can - otherwise seems a little disingenuous that they are also limiting the rendering resolution to 900p.

Hah. No.

Windows 7+ does a shit-ton of graphic eye candy and multi-threaded background tasks, etc. Without a couple of reasonable (not Pentium) cores and a decent GPU it's unusable. The extra RAM just keeps it from crashing entirely.

Ugh, give me a break. If everyone targeted their games to "Nintendo standards" instead of games actually trying to push the envelope with performance and features, Mario, Pokemon, and their ilk would have taken over the world by now.

And I have developed for the Wii U. Compared to the XB360/XB1/PS3/PS4 It's a HORRIBLE platform with a worse OS. It still requires cooperative multitasking (hello Yield()!) which if custom-designed for the platform form the start would be fine, but it makes porting later from a *real* platform that actually sells games a PITA. If you wondered why the Wii U is not getting the quality ports of the other platforms - it's because Nintendo's development tools and OS are stuck in 1995.

Yeah, it is helpful to call it a PPC because that was the basic architecture that the OS and main app ran on.

And in terms of the PS3 Cell/SPUs, it was an even bigger architecture change, of course.

But the point is: the fact that the PS3 PPU/SPU and the XB360 CPU ran at twice the clock speed of the PS4/XB1 X86 cores is totally irrelevant, since they are completely different architectures. The point of RISC is it runs simpler instructions in fewer cycles at a higher clock rate. Which of course means any clock rate comparison with a CISC architecture is mostly irrelevant.

True - that and actually having a personality capable of working with others. Interviews are 1/2 proving your competence and 1/2 proving you can work with your interviewers. Based on said /. commenters' posts, no way in hell I'd hire them ;)

Except the point of this article is most of the time it's fairly useless and doesn't result in them getting a *career* in said research. So they did research, but they were a STUDENT, not a RESEARCHER.

Easily. Before bonuses and options. I keep seeing all of this whining on /. this week about how SW engineers are under appreciated and underpaid, but in the Bay Area right now, there is a huge shortage and salaries and bonuses are getting almost ridiculous (especially how many horrible programmers I see getting paid as much as they are as well).

So you are saying the problem isn't subsidizing grad students, it's overpaying the faculty ;)

Sweden subsidizes their Internet access with high taxes: it's cheaper in Sweden than the US.

US subsidizes gas prices and/or has unusually low gas taxes: gasoline in US is $3.50/gallon vs $8.00 in Sweden. Not to mention the cars themselves are 25%-100% more depending on tariffs/luxury taxes.

Also, the average 6-pack is $12+ in Sweden! Oh, the humanity...

You are correct that it's an "at will employment" issue, but the OP is also correct that with at will employment you are better off terminating someone for no cause than a cause that is not provably accurate. If you give a reason but can't prove it - or even worse, your reason can be proved wrong - you have opened up yourself to a wrongful termination lawsuit regardless of "protected class" (though that would make it even stronger).

As the (attorney) lecturer for the class on employment law that I took said: "this is an at will employment state: the employee or employer can terminate employment at will with or without reason. And the exceptions make up 98% of the law."

In this case, firing someone for an undisclosed email sent by Comcast that "summarizes" an interaction that the employee believes is incorrect completely opens them up to a lawsuit. And a lawsuit would definitely force disclosure of the email, so if his side of the story is accurate it could be interesting...

PhD != researcher. PhD is just a degree. *Good* PhDs could still become high paid engineers (or industry researchers) or mediocre-paid college faculty. *Bad* PhDs might not become either.