I've done POSIX C++ programming for five and a half years. I compile on my mac using clang and on my ubuntu machine using g++. Here's the differences:
1. Clang seems to have better error messages.
2. Of course, clang is usable using libraries (rtags for emacs lets you do ctags but way better for example).
3. Run speed is about the same for optimized build between the two. They're within 1% for our application using the benchmarks for it.
4. Compile speed is a bit faster using clang.
I like having two big compilers that compete with each other. It forces both to try harder and to become better compilers in the end.
In order to find a sentient machine, we need to create a sentient machine. Creating a sentient machine is a hard task. Early AI researchers thought it would be possible and set lofty goals of creating machines that would do amazing tasks. However, that all changed with the AI winter.
Artificial intelligence is not creating a sentient system anymore. It is more creating a system to do things that humans are normally good at and computers normally are not good at.
This type of thing reminds me that Slashdot sells ad free pages (1000 for $5). I wonder if they think that a majority of their readers are not familiar with ad blocking either.
This comment (and most comments posted here) seem to fail to address the real purpose of the Times.
The Times understand that they are undergoing an initial loss to set a new standard in online news. They hope that other news sites will follow suit. If and after they do, you will not be able to get the story on any other web site. Subsequently, subscribers should increase and revenue should increase.
So, it's not surprising that they're not making a profit on this switch, because frankly, they're probably not trying to.
It seems that people are upset with Microsoft because 1) they have software vulnerabilities in their OS and 2) they do too little too late to fix these vulnerabilities before hackers start exploiting them.
This group cannot control one of these points (that Microsoft builds vulnerabilities into their OS). However, they can control the second point, by giving Microsoft advance notice and time to fix the vulnerabilities well before disclosing the vulnerabilities to the public.
It seems a bit hypocritical to me to accuse Microsoft of doing too little, too late to fix vulnerabilities, and then release unfixed vulnerabilities to the public.
I've been waiting for google to provide a button on their search page "Don't connect this search with my IP address". It's not the me vs my peer privacy that I care about the most, it's the me vs google privacy that scares me.
We've recently had two UPSs expire in the last couple of months. We were talking about it and we have a UPS fail more often than we have a power outage. If the UPS fails more often than a power outage, why do we even use UPSs?
I interviewed with Microsoft for a development position a few weeks ago. I found that the interviewers were very arrogant. They assumed they knew all the details about my past projects. It felt like politics with them would be horrendous because everyone is showing each other up.
Needless to say, I turned down the job offer. It doesn't surprise me how they keep making flub ups like this when the people at their company are so arrogant.
I think it's kind of ironic how both the courts and Microsoft wanted to keep this secret, but slashdot here has no respect for that. Does it occur to anyone here that there was a reason they wanted it to be secret? Maybe they didn't want these organizations retaliating?
This kind of reminds me of the one time a news reporter was being held hostage. The government wanted to keep the fact that she was hostage out of the public eye in order to lower the ransom fee. However, wikipedia editors thought it better to post to it to the public.
If you use Windows, be prepared to succumb to the conditions of the company that produces it. This includes if the company that produces it wants to assure that you actually paid for the software you installed. If you are not all right with this, don't use Windows.
My AI teacher opened his class with telling us all about these researchers that were making predictions back in the 50's and 60's about AI. During that era, they had great expectations of AI only to have them crushed later. They made predictions that 10 years from then, we would be able to replace human translators with computers. As we know, computers have not replaced human translators. They were so unsuccessful, that there is what is called "The Dark Age of NLP (Natural Language Processing".
If I learned anything in that class, it was not to make predictions about when computers will or will not make AI breakthroughs. Historically, researchers have been way off.
At my university, most CS students do not take notes at all. It's kind of foreign to see someone taking notes in a CS course. I assume it is because CS courses are about understanding the concept instead of memorizing information. Because it's not as much memorization, note taking is not as needed.
Wasn't Windows NT developed from the ground up separately from DOS? If it's developed separately from DOS (no copy and paste), would it really have the same bugs as DOS (for all intents and purposes an unrelated operating system). This feels like to me Microsoft fixing an error that has been around ever since Linux...
We should all give the government a round of applause for bringing the crackdown on Microsoft, a terribly monopolistic organization, and their terrible practices.
Oh wait. This is Google and not Microsoft?
I can't believe that the government is meddling in the affairs of businesses. What happened to Laissez-faire economics? This is an outrage!
There's this race between spammers and researchers. It seems from the article that spammers had been ahead of researchers for awhile by figuring out how to modify their emails in such a way that the spam filters wouldn't catch them. The article claims that research has caught up and figured a way to detect this. This spam filter greedily exploits attributes of today's spam, not tomorrow's spam. It seems a bit early to start saying, "Our program that's trained on today's Spam will catch tomorrow's spam!"
Doesn't it seem intuitive that the spammers are going to find another way to get their email through this spam filter?
Slashdot Mirror
I've done POSIX C++ programming for five and a half years. I compile on my mac using clang and on my ubuntu machine using g++. Here's the differences: 1. Clang seems to have better error messages. 2. Of course, clang is usable using libraries (rtags for emacs lets you do ctags but way better for example). 3. Run speed is about the same for optimized build between the two. They're within 1% for our application using the benchmarks for it. 4. Compile speed is a bit faster using clang. I like having two big compilers that compete with each other. It forces both to try harder and to become better compilers in the end.
Artificial intelligence is not creating a sentient system anymore. It is more creating a system to do things that humans are normally good at and computers normally are not good at.
http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/den/1625610355.html
http://slashdot.org/faq/subscriptions.shtml
Developers! Developers! Developers! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMU0tzLwhbE
The Times understand that they are undergoing an initial loss to set a new standard in online news. They hope that other news sites will follow suit. If and after they do, you will not be able to get the story on any other web site. Subsequently, subscribers should increase and revenue should increase.
So, it's not surprising that they're not making a profit on this switch, because frankly, they're probably not trying to.
It seems that people are upset with Microsoft because 1) they have software vulnerabilities in their OS and 2) they do too little too late to fix these vulnerabilities before hackers start exploiting them.
This group cannot control one of these points (that Microsoft builds vulnerabilities into their OS). However, they can control the second point, by giving Microsoft advance notice and time to fix the vulnerabilities well before disclosing the vulnerabilities to the public.
It seems a bit hypocritical to me to accuse Microsoft of doing too little, too late to fix vulnerabilities, and then release unfixed vulnerabilities to the public.
I've been waiting for google to provide a button on their search page "Don't connect this search with my IP address". It's not the me vs my peer privacy that I care about the most, it's the me vs google privacy that scares me.
I thought that slashdot was about "news that matters." Seriously.
Even though everyone around here is absolutely in love with Google, can we please not post every single April Fools joke that that company does?
We've recently had two UPSs expire in the last couple of months. We were talking about it and we have a UPS fail more often than we have a power outage. If the UPS fails more often than a power outage, why do we even use UPSs?
Every time I read an article like this, it gives me a smug face wondering why more people don't switch.
I didn't know that Microsoft was trying to gain open source credibility. Last I checked, they were the kings of proprietary software.
Needless to say, I turned down the job offer. It doesn't surprise me how they keep making flub ups like this when the people at their company are so arrogant.
I think it's kind of ironic how both the courts and Microsoft wanted to keep this secret, but slashdot here has no respect for that. Does it occur to anyone here that there was a reason they wanted it to be secret? Maybe they didn't want these organizations retaliating? This kind of reminds me of the one time a news reporter was being held hostage. The government wanted to keep the fact that she was hostage out of the public eye in order to lower the ransom fee. However, wikipedia editors thought it better to post to it to the public.
Times like this make me grateful that I've chosen to use Windows instead of Linux.
If you use Windows, be prepared to succumb to the conditions of the company that produces it. This includes if the company that produces it wants to assure that you actually paid for the software you installed. If you are not all right with this, don't use Windows.
If I learned anything in that class, it was not to make predictions about when computers will or will not make AI breakthroughs. Historically, researchers have been way off.
Those were my Google searches! I just recently built that crib!
At my university, most CS students do not take notes at all. It's kind of foreign to see someone taking notes in a CS course. I assume it is because CS courses are about understanding the concept instead of memorizing information. Because it's not as much memorization, note taking is not as needed.
Wasn't Windows NT developed from the ground up separately from DOS? If it's developed separately from DOS (no copy and paste), would it really have the same bugs as DOS (for all intents and purposes an unrelated operating system). This feels like to me Microsoft fixing an error that has been around ever since Linux...
Oh wait! This is Google Docs on Ubuntu and not Microsoft Office on Windows?
This just goes to show how the open source community can embrace and package quality products with their software.
Oh wait. This is Google and not Microsoft?
I can't believe that the government is meddling in the affairs of businesses. What happened to Laissez-faire economics? This is an outrage!
DES was already shown to be insecure. That's why they hacked DES to become Triple-DES. Let's see you break RSA like that. I'd be interested.
There's this race between spammers and researchers. It seems from the article that spammers had been ahead of researchers for awhile by figuring out how to modify their emails in such a way that the spam filters wouldn't catch them. The article claims that research has caught up and figured a way to detect this. This spam filter greedily exploits attributes of today's spam, not tomorrow's spam. It seems a bit early to start saying, "Our program that's trained on today's Spam will catch tomorrow's spam!" Doesn't it seem intuitive that the spammers are going to find another way to get their email through this spam filter?