Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Reliability vs Choice (Score 1) 627

by Jmac217 (#46338449) Attached to: Does Relying On an IDE Make You a Bad Programmer?
You can know how to use a terminal on a headless server, write your C code in VIM or EMACS, and compile your code with GCC, and be totally content and remove any overhead, but as long as you understand these tools I don't see any harm in using a program that links your libraries and throws you right onto the starting line with the click of a button. You can only write the same 20 lines of code and manually set paths so often before you're writing your own templates and doing the same thing the IDE would do for you anyway. It's typically natural to start programming in an IDE, but those who rely on it, rather than choose to use it, and never eventually venture down to the command line to build their program from scratch are only seeing half of the picture and will never fully grasp the basic concepts of what they're doing.

Comment: Re:Bad news for string theory (Score 1) 150

by Jmac217 (#45745539) Attached to: "Perfect" Electron Roundness Bruises Supersymmetry
Well that's the sad truth when basing hypothesis on unproven theories. If Supersymmetry flops, as a whole, it doesn't necessarily mean that we start over from scratch. There could be some truth to each theory even though certain aspects fall through. Physics is about knowing physical law, not wishing it into existance. Wishful thinking only takes us so far and eventually conclusions need to be determined. Well it seems we're getting near the point of drawing conclusions. Picking up the working pieces of busted theories and setting them into improved hypothesis is the best we can do with our current technology. Rather than designing new theories we should focus on developing new technologies to enable the next rounds of experimentation.

Comment: But why should this matter? (Score 1) 280

by Jmac217 (#45716161) Attached to: Theo De Raadt Says FreeBSD Is Just Catching Up On Security
I don't think this guy knows what he's talking about, but that's beside the point. There is absolutely no reason to argue against an operating system you DON'T use. That is the reason you use OpenBSD instead of FreeBSD right? Shit if you're that worried about security go play with Windows for an hour, and come back to see how secure FreeBSD actually is. /dev/random is supposed to become incrementally better with time, but FreeBSD is about tested stability. You're criticizing the project for not implementing a new technology and that is arrogant. Keep testing your chip-based crypto and when it's ready it will get used right away. For now software cryptography is perfectly fine.

"Be *excellent* to each other." -- Bill, or Ted, in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure