Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:About that singularity... (Score 2) 78


How on earth can anyone produce a TV series about PS, when everything that ties us to our anthropomorphic, biocentric model of the world has been made redundant?

No individuality, no collective, no mortality, no sense of time (as we understand it), totally incomprehensible ideas of value.


Comment KERNEL vs. CACHE (Score 1, Interesting) 124

So there seems to be some difference over assertions here.
Apple is only talking about the iOS 10 kernel CACHE and that private data is never stored there (fair enough), whereas TFA is talking about the kernel code which is left open to exploitation.

I personally consider that opening the kernel is a wise move. It will, most likely, assist in closing holes in the code and, eventually, would make a stronger kernel. However, as the article suggests, it was probably a mistake...

Comment Technology is a factor not a cause. (Score 1) 1144

The question doesn't really make sense, in that technology is not an actor, and therefore has no ability to prevent shootings.

Various options on how to prevent shootings.
(1) Remove the required materials. Bullets and Guns. Hard to do as, due to modern technology, they aren't hard to fabricate.
(2) Make it illegal to carry the materials. We do this in the UK. It reduces shootings, but it doesn't prevent them.
(3) Make it impossible to use guns (eg surveillance, escalation, parity). Totalitarian state gone awry. This way leads to hell on earth.
(4) Remove the motive. Education and training in empathy and tolerance is possible, but will only reduce shootings.
(5) Cease to use it as a model. When authorities carry and use fire-arms they legitimise such activity. Will only reduce shootings.
(6) Smart weapons/bullets. See (1) above. It's easy enough to fabricate dumb weapons.
(7) Make the activity redundant. Once we are in a post-singularity society, then shootings won't mean very much.. (bit fantastical).

Comment Re: Really? (Score 1) 596

I'm a bit confused by tenses when it comes to fictional historic narrative set in an imaginary future.
Wouldn't it be better to say "The Raman's will have been having always done things in three's and look how that will have been turned out (though it could have been the fact that they will have been having used left-handed threads, for all we know)".

Comment Re:Fool. Code has been written by computers for ye (Score 1) 281

Actually no. You are right though - I've never coded assembler on either x86 or ARM. However, I have coded for Z80, 68000, PowerPC 601, PIC, and AMTEL chips.
I was referring primarily to branch-prediction and other instruction hints. They were pretty modern by the time I left commercial assembler coding. But I'm not too surprised if they are no longer used. I'm just older than you. That's all.

However, and this was my point regardless of your flame, you would be a total fool to attempt to write a modern operating system in assembler, unless it was for a particularly niche purpose, and even then I believe you would be better off writing a compiler for your environment.

Compilers are hardware domain aware, whereas coders are problem domain aware. This means that compilers are really good at dealing with the machine-side of things, but they won't compete with a coder when it comes to the problem domain (and I'm not talking about design patterns here). It will take a long, long time before a computer turns around and says "You don't need to software for this at all - just use a simple hardware system".

Comment Re:Fool. Code has been written by computers for ye (Score 2) 281

I totally agree - I used to be part of a demo group and we could make speed-ups which were serious. Lots of it using our domain knowledge - knowing what implicit boundaries are to be expected on a data-set often means we could reduce tons of cpu work to a few LUTs and work magic from them instead.

But I wouldn't write an OS (or even a standard commercial shrink-wrap application) that way, and you know it :-D

Comment Fool. Code has been written by computers for years (Score 4, Insightful) 281

Anyone who has written assembler knows that modern static analysis and optimising compilers will write far better code than the average assembler programmer; most chips expect hinting and other flags which are not really part of a human activity. Everything else is just assist.

So the creativity element of programming is still very human driven. It will be for a long, long time. But the mechanics of software programming has become increasingly invisible to the programmer.

As another person says (as if it wasn't just a cheap media-whoring attention-grab) - what a twat.

Slashdot Top Deals

Someday somebody has got to decide whether the typewriter is the machine, or the person who operates it.