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.

I'm reminded of this craigslist ad that I saw making fun of this problem:

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/den/1625610355.html

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.

http://slashdot.org/faq/subscriptions.shtml

Developers! Developers! Developers! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMU0tzLwhbE

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.

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.