Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:The art of doing more with less (Score 1) 166

I remember doing image processing on a 4MHz 8088, in 1986, in assembly

And nowadays would you write a separate version in assembly for x86_64 processors with SSE instruction support, then one that exploited the benefits of SSE2, then one that used SSE3, then one that used SSE4 then one for AVX and then one for each of those targeting 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 cores to squeeze "every bit of performance out of a system"? Then take a look at all the custom Apple chips and all the custom ARM chips and write individually optimized versions for those as well? Of course you wouldn't.

Sure you could do that but is the performance gain (if there is one at all) worth it over writing it in C and targeting these platforms using different compilers/compiler flags? I'm curious as to what you're actually suggesting should be done here.

Hand optimization has its place when you know what you're targeting and there is a measurable performance advantage to doing so whilst not having considerable maintenance debt, tuning shader algorithms for various GPUs and their specific extensions is certainly still done for example. But most software these days needs to target many architectures, configurations and software platforms and the benefits of hand optimization simply aren't there vs the cost.

Comment: Re:The art of doing more with less (Score 1) 166

It's not really that programming has become inefficient, it's that in the old days we targeted specific machines and setups but the industry has changed and those development methodologies are not practical anymore. A lot of the software written back then doesn't run on any modern system anymore so people want to avoid making that mistake again, this means abstraction layers. I could write an application in assembly for every CPU architecture and operating system combination I want to target and re-write it every time a new one comes along but that would be a bit ridiculous. So instead the tradeoff comes in the form of a runtime inefficiency due to an abstraction layer, but as we've seen with the progress of Java even that overhead is diminishing.

Comment: Re:Double-speak (Score 1) 118

You sure? Have you actually installed another OS to a Firefox-based TV?

No I haven't, in theory it should be possible though. Still I don't see how users are "locked in", it's no different to any other device or appliance, if you don't like it then you can replace it, why can't you do that with these TVs?

Comment: Re:and it would only work with other apple product (Score 1) 243

by exomondo (#49731303) Attached to: Why Apple Ditched Its Plan To Build a Television

You realize you just said "You can microsoft on your microsoft with anyone who has microsoft" in defense to Apple apple-ing only with Apple

Yes but his point is obviously that you can use Skype on Microsoft platforms or on Android, iOS, OSX, Ubuntu, etc... Whereas the equivalent Apple product is Facetime which only works on Apple products. Same goes for Airdrop and iMessage.

Comment: Re:Make it more expensive ? (Score 1) 243

by exomondo (#49731195) Attached to: Why Apple Ditched Its Plan To Build a Television

Porsche has a car that is actually a VW (Porsche belongs to VW, but this car is marketed as either Porsche or VW - it is not just a "shared platform", but the same car, build in the same factory... NOTHING different, except for the brand!)

I know the VW Golf and Polo are used as shared platforms for a lot of cars, underneath they are the same but all the body, interior, wheels and branding is different. What Porsche and VW vehicles differ only by the brand?

Comment: Re:Double-speak (Score 1) 118

for Apple I'm guessing it's about 50% cool electronic jewellery and 50% ecosystem

I've never understood this, the iPhone is the most common smartphone in the world, if what you're looking to do is make "a social statement" with your choice of smartphone then the iPhone (and probably the Galaxy) would be last on the list.

Comment: Re:Fuck you. (Score 1) 616

by exomondo (#49714859) Attached to: Editor-in-Chief of the Next Web: Adblockers Are Immoral

It is exactly as easy to part me from my money as it is. No more, no less.

That's a completely redundant statement that says nothing.

When advertising doesn't work, there's no issue. It's when it does - and you KNOW it does, else it wouldn't exist - that something has gone wrong.

What exactly has "gone wrong"?

Are you trying to pretend that (all) the debt-load people in developed nations have is because they've just fallen behind temporarily?


Or do you actually get it that people buy crap they don't need?

Yes of course, most people don't live a purely utilitarian existence consisting of nothing beyond the most basic needs. What's wrong with that?

Specific itemized examples from my life aren't useful... they're just anecdotal evidence.

Evidence of the extent of your inability to exercise self-control, just because you see an ad for something and buy it doesn't mean anybody else will.

That advertising exists, and has existed for a long time, is empirical evidence that the practice is profitable on average.

Yes it is hard to get people to know about your product or service if you rely purely on them seeking you out and asking if you offer such things.

It doesn't matter who is, or is not "too weak-willed to spend wisely".

Of course it does.

What does matter is that active advertising is an inherently predatory act.

Only if you're intent on simply existing. Advertising does indeed help to find things that make my life easier that I didn't know about before, I just have the ability to measure the value of the advantage, something you obviously do not have.

Comment: Re:Fuck you. (Score 1) 616

by exomondo (#49714573) Attached to: Editor-in-Chief of the Next Web: Adblockers Are Immoral

While yes, I get something for my money, it's not what I really want, which is my money, which I would still have were I not advertised to.

Seriously? It's actually that easy to part you from your money? It's pretty clear the problem here is you, not the people trying to sell stuff. You make the decision, if what you really want is your money then why are you trading it? You already have what you want.

What are some actual examples of when this has happened to you?

Comment: Re:Theo, about your rhetoric (Score 0) 249

Gates and Zuckerberg do not care where their workers come from but how much they cost as they run businesses and not charities. In fact it is in their best interest to 1. train domestic talent 2. import foreign workers 3. domestic salaries are now depressed 4. profit.

Take a look at the mantra pushed in stories on slashdot. Sure not everybody agrees but in general you see the pontificating that software-as-a-service is bad, that paying a subscription fee for software is bad, that software should be free and that you should be able to pass it around free of charge, internet advertising is bad and you should be cutting off that revenue stream for companies by using ad-blocking software, etc...

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with espousing those values but you have to understand that this reduces the ability for these companies to make a profit thus they need to reduce their costs as well. The cost of software and IT infrastructure has been driven down drastically so obviously the costs must be cut too.

The solution of this problem is trivial and is left as an exercise for the reader.