Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Not negative? (Score 1) 221

I think it will increase OS security and create a lot of jobs in this sector. If you think this jobs are redundant, think about lawyers. The ignorant will suffer, and if they learn their lesson, they will be much better prepared for the new threat and take security more seriously. I think that computer malware is more useful than many think it is. Just remember the blaster worm. It made actually normal people think about security and the big losers were the ones who used windows in places it shouldn't have ever been.

Comment Re:Tough crowd here (Score 1) 355

Moral propositions are testable, like "don't do harm to others" or "do harm to others" or "help others" or "don't help others". I mean you can test them and find which is more useful for you. So from your words if science is the true subset of philosophy, then you yourself say that philosophy is not science. Anyway, the philosophy I had at school had a lot to do with analysing Ideas of some authors, it was good as it was a source of new thinking patterns, but it didn't have any testable results, all theories were valid, and there wasn't much knowledge that proved to be useful. Well maybe I am the one who doesn't know that he doesn't knows but till today my impression of philosophy as computer scientist is that it's good for writing books but not for getting work done.

Comment Re:Tough crowd here (Score 1) 355

Philosophy should be more empirically testable to be anything more than a nice past time. How about "if you kick someone, he kicks back" a nice basis for a Rule of ethic, like "don't hit others". Very empirically testable. On the other hand, you can try to answer the question "Why are we here?" all you life, and 42 is as good an answer as any. And because of that, calling philosophy a science is an offense on science, because in the philosophy, as we know it, has nothing to do with science, like in testable hypotheses, more with trying to find an answer for things, that accept .* answers.

Comment Too agile to be true! (Score 1) 138

We are uncovering better ways of developing
software by doing it and helping others do it.
Through this work we have come to value:

Spying on Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
Chinese market over freedom of speech
Rehashed Programming languages over some new ideas
Rush jobs over tested software?... dunno, well see...

That is, while there is value in the items on
the right, we value the items on the left more.

Comment Re:Hmmmm. (Score 1) 427

Win7 is faster, more scalable, more stable, MUCH less bug ridden, better security, and supports new tech...than XP

By your rankings, Linux must be the worst OS out there and Windows ME rules with an iron fist.

You are wrong, most dx9 games run faster in winxp and it uses less memory and swap, so the actual experience feels for me actually faster.

Comment Re:Terrible design (Score 1) 155

That is not realistic. If you want to provide people with a possibility of BIOS update to fix some hardware bugs, you can overwrite you bios for example with some garbage that can apply incorrect voltages, which will physically destroy your mainboard, it once happened to me. If you know how you even can load new microcode, which can kill a CPU. One can theoretically open multiple tristate gates and cause some kind of short circuit. I mean you can say "noone should kill another person, period", everyone will agree with it, but it's also not realistic.

Slashdot Top Deals

The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much.