Slashdot Mirror


CodeCon, Placebos, Fear, Yoyo-hacking, Dune, etc.

doom writes "Annalee Newitz rambles about CodeCon, placebos, random numbers, fear, yoyo-hacking, Dune and more. This is what it means to be a geek: Techsploitation."

108 comments

  1. No... by Wiser87 · · Score: 4, Funny

    A true geek would've also taken the time to personally post their article on slashdot.

    1. Re:No... by Gil2796 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think the author is trying to /. a foe's website. A clever ploy! By the end of the day, his webserver will be no more than a pile of steaming slag!

      Good tactic, fitting of a true geek!

    2. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely. Either I'm so throughy emersed into geekiness or I've evolved so thoroughly past geekiness, but this article resembles nothing I could closely identify with geek.

  2. yo-yo hacking? by DanThe1Man · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is yo-you hacking like cracking severs while lissening to Vanilla Ice?

    1. Re:yo-yo hacking? by plover · · Score: 1, Funny

      I think it's more like hacking while listening to the cello being played really, really well.

      --
      John
    2. Re:yo-yo hacking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't that be ma-ma hacking?

      What if you were cracking servers while listening to a really good cello player covering Vanilla Ice? yo-ma-ma hacking. Oh wait, I guess that's something entirely different.

    3. Re:yo-yo hacking? by kalja · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but its all about the Jo-Jo hacking.

  3. Ahhhhhhh.... by Ratface · · Score: 4, Funny

    *sighs contentedly*

    Takes me back to the days when internet connections were text-based and being a hacker meant being a proud explorer of a new frontier.

    Where has all the magic gone eh? Thank goodness there are people out there who are keeping the magic alive!

    --

    A little planning goes a long way...
    1. Re:Ahhhhhhh.... by notque · · Score: 1

      Thank goodness there are people out there who are keeping the magic alive!

      Are those the people that still run bbs's via telnet?

      --
      http://use.perl.org
  4. What do these have in common? by arcanumas · · Score: 5, Funny
    For those wondering what placebos, yoyos , random numbers, fear , CodeCon and Dune have in common:

    Only on slashdot have these been combined in a single sentence.

    --
    Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
    1. Re:What do these have in common? by onyxruby · · Score: 5, Funny

      And only on slashdot would they have a good chunk of the readers never bat an eye at such a combo.

    2. Re:What do these have in common? by Gil2796 · · Score: 1, Funny

      That's usually because we don't read the article before we set out on our karma gathering expeditions! :)

      People like me should be given karma points for not posting!

      Ok ok, I'll metamoderate! Please don't hurt me anymore :(

    3. Re:What do these have in common? by kmonsen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The use of placebo was a bit qute though. Like that new winXP disc is just one big shiny placebo pill. Which is kind of true.

    4. Re:What do these have in common? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't this self-congratulatory "aren't we ./-ers the *greatest*" interchange rather pathetic :(

  5. Yo Yo hacking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is that when you hack a server to bring it down, wait for it to come back up again then down, up, down...

  6. Ignore the FA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    There's a link to "Nude Beaches" on the same page, which has got to be a lot more inteersting than guys modifying yo-yos :-)

  7. is that it ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful


    i know /.'ers have a short attention span but 200 words of thin rambling doesnt really make an article

    if i wanted articles of this level of intelectual calibre i would get my lowdown from "TechTV" or "the Screensavers"

    1. Re:is that it ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think im putting michael on my ignore list

    2. Re:is that it ? by kmonsen · · Score: 3, Insightful
      There is another article on slashdot about how 50% or something of americans with net access publish their own stuff. This is an example of why this does not need to be a good thing.

      I mean how many blogs with personal info do we really need?

  8. Anallee Newitz? by mikeophile · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ummm, put down the porn for two seconds to spell check, ok?

  9. Since when is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is it such a slow day at Slashdot? Why is this dump of mental diarrhea "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters"? Someone is at some geek conference, throws a bunch of sci-fi references with a couple of buzzwords and some piece about a software that doesn't work but "will do soon" and suddenly we have a truly wondrous article about how good it is to be a geek.

    1. Re:Since when is this news? by lutefish · · Score: 5, Interesting
      It's a column. She writes chatty, informal bits on tech and geeks for the SF Guardian. Columns suceed precisely because of their individual tone; although writing in a tech-heavy area, there are still the unwired masses that she reaches, as well.

      Although she's been writing for the Guardian for a while, she's been writing, at least occasionally, on geek subjects/the web since Bad Subjects, 1995. If you want to fault /. for posting it, why bother commenting on how, presumably as a 'true' geek, that you're completely and utterly unimpressed with Newitz's writings/geek credentials?

      --
      Amor omnia vincit. Occasionally.
    2. Re:Since when is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You answered the question. It's a column, an "informal" rambling. It's not any research, important news or anything out of the ordinary. If I wanted to read shit like that I'd be in blog.org or any other shitty blog place. All the credentials in the world are not worth a crap if your writting skills suck.

      Why bother commenting on it? Because hopefully this way the Slashdot editors will think twice before feeding us such tripe.

    3. Re:Since when is this news? by Ath · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If she is the same Annalee Newitz I went to high school with (and I am pretty sure she is) then she writes to satisfy her own ego more than anything else.

      Your interest in the subject is a lot less important than the fact that she is a "writer" and sees things published with her byline.

      Of course, I am an asshole so what I write (especially on Slashdot) is not particularly relevant either.

  10. Erm by cca93014 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What the fuck is this? News for 12 year olds?

    Sorry to be a troll, but really.

    Next on Slashdot...K1nd3rg4rt0n hax0r5!!!

    1. Re:Erm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      without wanting to be sexist it is more of an emotional article, from the heart. men and women don't see things the same way

    2. Re:Erm by Brainboy · · Score: 1

      /\/\Y |310||5 R 1337.

      F1/\/G3RP41/\/71/\/G !!!!111!!!1! kewl!!!1111!!!11!

      j00 r 4 p00p00H34|)

      --
      Just a guy with an opinion
  11. This article is a splendid example of... by purduephotog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... what is not journalism. It's mostly a rambling trend of thought that, unfortunately, is very publishable on the internet.

    "Hacking YoYos" ??? Hardly. That's not new, and it certainly wasn't invented at this conference. People (and self) have always 'modified' a yoyo when it wasn't performing well.

    I won't even go into the logic the writer espouses while complaining that doctors are allowed to cause pain in the name of science. Anyone remember the 'call for volunteers' that NASA wanted to lay on their back at a negative incline for months to simulate weightlessness? That's a hell of allot more intrusive and damaging than being poked or heated.

    Enough New-Age crap.

    1. Re:This article is a splendid example of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ... what is not journalism. It's mostly a rambling trend of thought that, unfortunately, is very publishable on the internet.
      Sadly, Newitz's stuff is not merely published on the Internet. It's a syndicated column that appears in I-don't-know-how-many alternative weekly newspapers around the country. The Web site linked here is that of the San Francisco Bay Guardian.

      And yes, she needs to get over it.

  12. I was going to read that article but... by Zakabog · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... as soon as the site loaded I couldn't help from clicking the "Nude Beaches" link.

    1. Re:I was going to read that article but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know you're going to hell, right?

  13. What the hell was that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have no idea what that article was about. What is CodeCon? Nevermind the shiny LED's and the yo-yo's, someone find that writer an editor. In fact, speaking of editors, how the hell did this get posted in the first place?

    Oh, and for some reason, the Shmoo site is down. *goes in search of a mirror*

    1. Re:What the hell was that? by Zakabog · · Score: 4, Informative

      What is CodeCon?

      I think this gives a decent picture of what to expect at CodeCon: That's sort of the beauty of CodeCon: people come here to share their weird creations, even if all the bugs haven't quite gotten worked out yet. A place people come to share their weird creations. And if you read the entire article it seems like they're tech related creations, with a ton of geeks around. The yo-yos aren't important, they're mentioned because of the REACTION to the yo-yos, the people their were true crackers, trying to figure out how the yo-yos worked, taking them apart, making them better. That was why it was mentioned, not that there was anything special about them. Sure the article does swing between so many different topics (placebos, dune, codecon, geek habits) but it's a little interesting (although I also don't understand how it got posted, there really isn't much of a point to the story.)

    2. Re:What the hell was that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Shhh, I think the Slashdot editors are looking for their first offical Slashdot writer. We all know the quailty of the editing.

      Runns and hides.

    3. Re:What the hell was that? by Catiline · · Score: 2, Informative
      The yo-yos aren't important, they're mentioned because of the REACTION to the yo-yos, the people their were true crackers, trying to figure out how the yo-yos worked, taking them apart, making them better.
      I think you mean true hackers; if the subjects were crackers the yo-yos would have been spat upon, stomped, kicked around, and probably thrown into the hotel pool. (Or, if they were the script kiddie kind, simply stared at slack-jawed with an "ooOOhh, teh 5h1nej!!!1!")
    4. Re:What the hell was that? by s4m7 · · Score: 1

      people come here to share their weird creations, even if all the bugs haven't quite gotten worked out yet.

      Well, this "article" certainly qualifies as both weird and buggy. I guess it's better than another NYT op-ed posting.

      --
      This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
  14. This is not good... by miketang16 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I read the "article" and then I read the replies and noticed everyone talking about how horribly written and short it was.

    I liked it.

    --
    -------
    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
    -- George Orwell
    1. Re:This is not good... by AnomalyConcept · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I liked it too. When has a reporter/journalist gone to one of these conventions, and moreover, written about it? This article was a nice way to relax for a bit between classes (having a 7:30 English class), and was amusing to read. Maybe I'm not a 'true geek', but Slashdot doesn't have to just be 'news'. Sometimes I read the comments just for the 'Funny' ones to lighten up my day.

  15. Bit short of an article, but by prat393 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    She does make a good point about how arbritrary perceptions are. I think the most interesting thing she said was that the brain ceases to interpret pain as pain, because this indicates some understanding that the signals are still being processed, just not in the normal way. Thing about it for a second. That's not even the normal "ignore your pain" ideal, it goes even further. What if we really do have the ability to interpret our senses as we see fit?

  16. I say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we /. the site of doom in vengance. What say you?

  17. Yo-yo hacking by FraggedSquid · · Score: 5, Funny

    Using glue, you can install Linux on your yoyo.

    --
    You don't need a lab to make mud.
  18. Re:This crap got posted.... by marcushnk · · Score: 1

    I'm sure it is fully released yet.. Theres been no official statement..

    --
    "Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far
  19. Re:This crap got posted.... by marcushnk · · Score: 1

    yeah its still a pre-release..
    http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic. php?t=127764

    --
    "Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far
  20. Ken Schalk better watch out... by coolguy81 · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...good thing the FBI wasn't around. With the DMCA, he could of gotten into big time trouble with that yoyo.

    1. Re:Ken Schalk better watch out... by prat393 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm sorry, but the operation of YoYo's is a trade secret. We're awaiting a ruling from Danish courts, but in the meantime, the YYIA is suing you for everything you've got!

  21. Since when is this +5 insightful? by Vintermann · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Is it such a slow day at Slashdot? Why is this dump of mental diarrhea "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters"? Someone is at some geek conference, throws a bunch of sci-fi references with a couple of buzzwords and some piece about a software that doesn't work but "will do soon" and suddenly we have a truly wondrous article about how good it is to be a geek."

    Not every article on slashdot is revolutionary brilliant. Neither are all replies. Get over it. I for one can't see what's so insightful about your whining.

    --
    xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  22. Not a hack.... by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is just my XP box, up...down....up....down

  23. $1 for a random number??? WTF? by Eagle5596 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Who would pay $1 for a random number, not even a random number, but one from someone who is such a horrible coder, that they can't even get a program to bound the number between 1 and 10 reliably! Random number generation is one of the easiest and most simplistic algorithms in existance.

    I think this Con sounds as amateur as the article, a bunch of wannabes who get together to feel good about the fact that they don't seem so stupid when all the smart people are elsewhere.

    Come on Slashdot! You can do better than this!

    1. Re:$1 for a random number??? WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot. A random number is *impossible* for a computer to create without input from some other source, such as the sources she cited. The definition of a random number is a number that cannot be expressed by any program shorter than the length of the number itself. Since the output of rand() is the result of a program, it cannot be a random number, because it is the result of (to quote your post) "one of the easiest and most simplistic algorithms in existance". The output of rand() is best described as "pseudorandom", or "random enough".

      A truely random number of arbitratily large size is very, very valuable indeed (it's easy enough to get a random number of size [1,6], for example).
      jaz
      (posted anonymously to keep my mods intact)

    2. Re:$1 for a random number??? WTF? by jazmataz23 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      d'oh. when did posting anonymously undo mods?

      --
      Death to Argument by Slogan!! (This post twice-encrypted with ROT-13. Replies not using same will be ignored)
    3. Re:$1 for a random number??? WTF? by Eagle5596 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You should read up on chaos theory and probability before you call someone an idiot jaz. Random numbers don't exist period, even taking them from external sources is still pseudo-random generation, it just adds the further complication that you cannot control or predict how the noise will interact, and so can't guarentee that it will be uniform, the most useful sort of random number, as it can be translated into any other random number.

      Furthermore, my point was not to use a pseudo-random number generator (and by the way, using a Lehmer Congruential Generator will produce better results than sampling a lava lamp for sure, never use rand(), it has horrible properties), my point was this:

      Given a source of noise, translating that noise to a number between 1 and 10 is amazingly easy. You are controling your input device's range, and you know what possible values it produces, so it's a simple matter of finding where the generated number lies within that range.

      And while pseudo-random numbers which seem more random than others (truly random numbers do not exist period) are valuable, one of them is not. Why the hell would I want to pay $1 to a bunch of wannabe's for a number between 1 and 10? Or any other single random number.

      Next time you call someone an idiot, make sure you know what you are talking about first.

    4. Re:$1 for a random number??? WTF? by azzy · · Score: 1

      > Random numbers don't exist period

      I suppose this really depends on what you're defining a random number as being. If I defined a random number as being any number my 2 year old nephew came up with, then yeah, random numbers exist. Though they probably range from 1 to 2, and are pretty useless.

    5. Re:$1 for a random number??? WTF? by rholliday · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think a Lava Lamp-derived random number is pretty cool. Now, if you could just factor in an optimized yo-yo-based algorithm ...

      --
      Xbox reviews.. We think they're funny.
    6. Re:$1 for a random number??? WTF? by lars-o-matic · · Score: 3, Informative
      [...] Random numbers don't exist period, even taking them from external sources is still pseudo-random generation

      Time series data from radioactive decay will generate truly random numbers in a non-uniform distribution. (Prerequisite: belief in quantum physics.)

      [...] one of them is not.

      Use one good one (many bits long) to seed your PRNG.

      [...] You should read up on chaos theory and probability before you call someone an idiot jaz.
      [...] and by the way, using a Lehmer Congruential Generator

      Demonstrably wrong statements, an abusive tone and gratuitous play of buzzwords does nothing to make you look less an idiot.

      --
      je ne suis pas un fou
    7. Re:$1 for a random number??? WTF? by Eagle5596 · · Score: 1

      Time series data from radioactive decay will generate truly random numbers in a non-uniform distribution. (Prerequisite: belief in quantum physics.)

      Wrong, they are not "truly random" anymore than anything else for which you have imperfect knowlege. Using radioactive decay does nothing more than make your system more expensive, as other forms are just as random for all intents and purposes.

      Use one good one (many bits long) to seed your PRNG.

      Did you even RTFA? Or my post? We're talking about a single number, between one and ten, and an integer to boot. Your comment is entirely out of context, and similar to saying "Paying $1 for a blade of grass is a good thing, because if I had a few billion blades of grass, I could use it to much my state".

      Demonstrably wrong statements, an abusive tone and gratuitous play of buzzwords does nothing to make you look less an idiot.

      Since when is an LCG a buzzword? Most people have never even heard of one. As for probability and chaos theory, if we're calling those buzzwords, don't let me ever hear you say Quantum Mechanics, or even Mathematics.

      As for demonstrateably wrong statements, I'm sorry but taking things out of context, or making assinine assumptions doesn't prove them wrong. As for an "abusive tone", I'll take what ever tone I like when someone responds in an offensive manner to my posts.

      All of this changes nothing: charging $1 for a random number at some Con is about the dumbest thing I've heard; the article itself is amateur and not worthy of notice; you'd have to be dumb to buy anything from a coder who can't even bound his algorithm.

    8. Re:$1 for a random number??? WTF? by lars-o-matic · · Score: 1

      Look, I was just answering your (rhetorical?) questions and picking nits with some of your specific assertions. And yes, expressing irritation with your tone; bad idea, wish I hadn't.

      Wrong, they are not "truly random" anymore than anything else for which you have imperfect knowlege.

      Actually, yes they are. A specific event of radioactive decay is unpredictable by nature of reality, according to quantum physics: the famous Heisenberg Principal of Indeterminacy, aka Uncertainty Principal. It's not that knowledge of the internals of the nucleus is imperfect or even unmeasurable in principal: the information isn't there. There are theorems proving absence of any "hidden variables" that could track the state of a nucleus behind the scenes.

      Did you even RTFA? Or my post?

      Yes, both. fwiw, the article didn't claim 'integer'; you didn't mention it either. But whatever...

      To spell it out: the context of my answer of the value of one random number is that it be many bits long (I spelled that out), answering your original question in which you included this: "Or any other single random number." See, I did read your post.

      Since when is an LCG a buzzword? Most people have never even heard of one.

      That's right, most people haven't. It was a gratuitous reference. If you don't like 'buzzword', substitute 'technical term'.

      [...] if we're calling those buzzwords, don't let me ever hear you say Quantum Mechanics

      'Quantum physics' was part of my response concerning truly random events, and meant as a shorthand justification for my assertion.

      As for an "abusive tone", I'll take what ever tone I like [...]

      Clearly.

      All of this changes nothing [...]

      Agreed.

      --
      je ne suis pas un fou
    9. Re:$1 for a random number??? WTF? by mrogers · · Score: 1
      (Prerequisite: belief in quantum physics.)

      Will it still work if I don't believe in it? What about if I half-heartedly believe in it for want of a better explanation? ;-)

    10. Re:$1 for a random number??? WTF? by jobh · · Score: 1
      You're probably thinking of linear congruential generators (LCGs), proposed by Lehmer. Old unix rand()s were LCGs but with bad parameter choices.

      LCGs can be made OK but the state of the art has moved on. Try a generalized shift register implementation like Mersenne Twister.

      Those are all pseudorandom. As another poster pointed out, true random numbers are obtainable for example by observing radioactive decay or in single-photon/slit experiments. (All analogue processes have some degree of true randomness but some more than other, the more chaotic the better; a lava lamp is probably good but sloooow :)

    11. Re:$1 for a random number??? WTF? by lars-o-matic · · Score: 1

      Then you'll get only pseudo-random numbers, as far as you know... or half-heartedly true (unfaithful? adulterated???) random numbers...

      :-)

      --
      je ne suis pas un fou
    12. Re:$1 for a random number??? WTF? by jazmataz23 · · Score: 1

      http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie =UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=definition+of+random+num ber

      --
      Death to Argument by Slogan!! (This post twice-encrypted with ROT-13. Replies not using same will be ignored)
    13. Re:$1 for a random number??? WTF? by jazmataz23 · · Score: 1
      So the output of a coin flip is what then? random or predictable? Our intuition of coin flips is that they represent a random outcome. You might argue that the outcome is calculatable, given enough information about initial spin and force, wind speed and etc. To that I respond that if so, I can calculate your current state of mind given enough information about your brain and predict ahead of time your arguments, since the neurons in your brain fire according to the laws of physics. I doubt you're willing to allow me to assert that you are not a free agent, able to make decisions for yourself. So for the purposes of this discussion you must accept that the outcome of a coin toss is at the very least, incalculably complex and therefore practically random. If you're still stubbornly refusing to accept this, substitute "alpha particle emission at time t" for "coin flip" in the remainder of this post.

      Given that we admit the actuality of events in the natural world whose outcome cannot be predicted, I'd like to see a reference to back up your assertion of the non-existence of random numbers. But that's just intuition, not a rigorous argument.

      The traditional CS definition of a random number is that it has uniform distribution across the component digits and future results are unpredictibile. I disagree here for two reasons: first, that uniform distribution is an emergent property of a random number, not a necessity, and second, it precludes numbers under a certain complexity from "randomness" -- which I think is part of your issue with the random digits being sold as "random numbers" (by the way, the bounding problem seemed to be the author's way of explaining the problem. You're right, a single-digit random number is worthless).

      Here's the problem; we agree that the output of a "coin flip" is random (well, you agree or accede to being an automoton), but that definition would make the numeric output of a single coin flip a non-random number. While no future results would be predictable, as there is only one digit to the number, so it is not uniformly distributed across the range. Does this preclude from randomness any decimal in (0,1) that does not have an even multiple of ten digits? Our intuition tells us that any series of coin flips of arbitrary length should certainly generate a random number. The problem is that addition of uniform distribution in the definition is similar to defining "sunset" using the word "orange". It seems there's no "sunset" on Mars because we recently discovered that the "sunsets" there are "blue".

      Uniform distribution does not imply randomness, as pi is uniform across the integers, yet is completely determined as far out as you like to go. I can tell you with exact precision the 17th digit of pi. Randomness does imply uniform distribution across the component set, and a statistical analysis can be used to make reasonable predictions about the next value. But the gulf between a "reasonable prediction" and "certainty" is life and death to certain GedankenKatzen. As you remember from your high school stats lessons, the fact that we've thrown heads 16 times in a row does not change the chance that we throw heads this time. Tell me you've flipped 16 heads in a row, I'll bet on tails, but that doesn't improve my odds.

      A more sound definition of a random number is based on information theory; a random number is one that cannot be expressed in any way "shorter" than the number itself. I can generate a random binary number of arbitrary length simply by flipping a coin n times. This is a random number by definition because the only way to express this number is by describing the sequence of coin flips it took to create it. (I flipped heads then tails then heads... is longer than 101... ergo the result is a random number. This has everything to do with compression algorithms by the way, and why compressing an already maximally compressed file will end up giving you a larger file).

      I belie

      --
      Death to Argument by Slogan!! (This post twice-encrypted with ROT-13. Replies not using same will be ignored)
    14. Re:$1 for a random number??? WTF? by jazmataz23 · · Score: 1

      It would be a random particle with opposing spin, the randino.

      --
      Death to Argument by Slogan!! (This post twice-encrypted with ROT-13. Replies not using same will be ignored)
    15. Re:$1 for a random number??? WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's fucking loser if you want to spell right, loser.

      And if you've got a dynamic IP you can tell slashdot to go fuck itself and mod your own posts or post anon in articles you've modded in all you want!

      Eventually you might get $rtbled or whatever they call it when you lose mod access, but if you use two different browsers and a dynamic IP you should be fine.

      Anyone have any other thoughts on this?

    16. Re:$1 for a random number??? WTF? by Eagle5596 · · Score: 1

      Jaz, as I said before, next time you call someone an idiot, make sure you know what you are talking about. Screw that, make sure you have the basic skills required to read a post submitted in English. You're methods seem to be "skim the post, without reading the actual content, then post a long winded discussion based on imperfect knowledge of what was actually posted". I've fully read your post, you ought to have the decency to fully read mine first. Several of your points are moot because you don't even know what I was stating in very clear terms.

      Furthermore, if you want to have a discussion, it is usually best not to call people names. All it does is highlight your own personal inadequacy. If you have to resort to insults from the start to make your point, then you really aren't showing much faith in your point to begin with. For shame, I am called an idiot by someone on the internet, what do I have left to live for? He must be a masterful debater, and filled with knowledge to use a word such as idiot! Grow up or shut up.

      Furthermore: I will agree that, baring some greater power introducing an element which is inherently unpredictable, yes, the one could calculate the current state of m mind and predict ahead of time my arguments. The same goes with coin flips, given a "Diety Computer", i.e. one which is truly omniscient, you could accurately predict future results. The same probably even extends to alpha particle emissions. Quantum physics is not set in stone, and has many flaws, yet it is a good model, as I do not deny that even if we believe it is possible, it is highly improbable that we could in practice build such a machine.

      I'd like to see a reference to back up your assertion of the non-existence of random numbers. But that's just intuition, not a rigorous argument.

      Random numbers can only exist in a universe where there are non-deterministic events. While some events are so extremely complex that they seem non-deterministic, our current knowledge of the laws that govern this universe imply otherwise.

      I don't know personally where you are pulling your "traditional CS definition" of a random number (well obviously on Google, and the internet is always right, isn't it!), but it's wrong. The definition of a random number does not state that it must be uniform distributed. Furthermore, stemming from my earlier assertion that you lack the skills necessary to read a post on slashdot, had you read my post you would notice that I stated that uniformity of distribution was merely a admirable quality of a generator, not something required by definition.

      Uniform random numbers can be translated into any other possible distribution, leading them to be the most useful. Some, if not most, of these transformations cannot be run in reverse. While some of the simple ones can (weibull), others cannot (cauchy). If your source happens to have a nasty distribution, it's not very useful in the long run, using a source which doesn't have well defined properties (lava lamps for example) is therefor a bad idea when other fully tested methods exist.

      The fact of the matter is this: no method you have mentioned is any better than using an LCG with a properly chosen seed. In fact, they are inferior because they lack the ability to produce reproduceable sequences, where an LCG offers you that ability. I can easily generate a number using an LCG which you cannot predict, simply by seeding my generator with a suitably complex process, such as your mouse movements, or the intervals between your keystrokes. If I want to get really fancy, I'll use an external device which samples noise on a radio frequency, line noise on the power source, and then use that with your mouse movements and key strokes to provide a suitably random seed. Volia, random numbers. However should I have a scientific application, where I need to actually reproduce my results, I set the seed to your SSN, and then I am free to alter my model while keeping the same input.

    17. Re:$1 for a random number??? WTF? by jazmataz23 · · Score: 1
      Ha! All this talk and then today it's posted that coin flips aren't so random after all :)

      The problem is that we're coming from vastly different points of view; so different that it seems we're talking around each other. So I'll start making a bridge. I ought to say I'm sorry for calling you an idiot, but I won't, since it seems you've brought your best thinking to the debate, at least once you got done whining. You think I didn't read your post at all when in fact I spent a long time reading it and working on my reply (notwithstanding the diversion into how many binary numbers are in fact evenly distributed).

      You took my argument the wrong way; I have no intention of attempting to map the tortured turnings of your byzantine mind. I was trying to get you to accept that there are random events in the world. You went off and started talking about Laplace's Demon. My tactic was to make you see what a repugnant idea your radical determinism is, but that failed. I'll just put it to you straight. Determinism is dead. Heisenburg's Uncertainly Principle shot it and Godel's Incompleteness Theorem buried it. Einstein might not like it, but there are events in this world that cannot and will not succomb to the mechanistic tyrrany of a Turing Machine. God does play dice.

      So skip the coin flip, quantum physics tells us that there are random events. It is not possible to calculate or predict alpha particle emissions.

      That's the corner of the debate. You're not an idiot, you're right, it's not very useful in some situations to have a random number generator hooked up as input for a scientific experiment, because you can then never repeat the results. An LCG with a "properly chosen seed" is the correct tool to generate "random" input, when reproducibility of results matters. What you're not seeing is that there are situations, such as cryptography, where repetition is NOT desired, and so truely random numbers are needed and in fact do exist.

      Where we actually differ is that you see that "properly chosen seed" as merely the output of a complex system, and I see true unpredictability.

      If you'd like a random number of your very own, try HotBits which uses radioactive decay as its source of entropy, or if you prefer something cooler, try Random.org who can serve up random bits in whatever package you like, even via CORBA! Now, if you'll excuse me, it's time for me to take my completely predictable dog out for a walk.

      jaz

      --
      Death to Argument by Slogan!! (This post twice-encrypted with ROT-13. Replies not using same will be ignored)
    18. Re:$1 for a random number??? WTF? by Eagle5596 · · Score: 1

      I ought to say I'm sorry for calling you an idiot, but I won't, since it seems you've brought your best thinking to the debate, at least once you got done whining.

      Ok, I guess I don't understand where this is coming from, at least where I am from, one doesn't insult others one is involved in a debate with, and when one does do this, by error, or otherwise, they apologize, but then you may be from somewhere where this does not happen.

      Determinism is dead. Heisenburg's Uncertainly Principle shot it...

      Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle says nothing about determinism in the real world. It simply says, whenever I measure a system I will have some error in my momemtum and position, as measured by dp and dx. Further more it says this error cannot be eliminated due to the fact that to measure some system, I must alter that system in order to do so. However, most physicists will point out that just because we can only speak of probabilities when we talk about such things, it does not necessarily indicate that the Universe does not operate on deterministic principles. In fact it says nothing either way. The theory of Quantum Mechanics is incomplete, and is not the "correct model" of the Universe, just a damn good one. It is an unfortunate flaw of our measurments that they introduce error, however, if Laplace's Demon were to exist, and were able to measure without disturbing the system, Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle does not apply. Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle merely gives us a hard upper limit on our ability to analyze a system, saying that for all practicle purposes, Laplace's Demon is impossible. However the theory behind it is no less sound because of it.

      and Godel's Incompleteness Theorem buried it.

      Again, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is only a comment on the ability of our minds, or any other machine to solve highly complex equations. It merely states that there are some problems for which we cannot derive an answer. This does not mean that such answers do not exist, merely that we are unable to prove so. The halting problem is an excellent example. (I am assuming you are familiar with the Incompleteness Theorem, so I'm not going to summarize it). One of the favorite versions of the halting problem in Finite Automata is the one of a Turing Machine being given a string of length N, where N is greater than 0, no other bounds. This string is composed only of the characters "(" and ")", and the Turing Machine must validate the string as being correct or incorrect. Of course, due to the bounds on N, it obviously suffers from the halting problem. This does not mean there isn't an answer, just that we cannot necessarily find it.

      Your arguements of "If we lack the ability to see if a system is deterministic, then it must not be," are the same arguements used by people in previous decades when arguing against theories for which things cannot be immediately proven. In the end, none of our current work disproves Einstein in a theoretical sense, it just comes close to proving that he is wrong in a practicle sense. (Note, I say comes close because it's bad to say "proves" in science as really there is no proof, only disproof).

      Practicle sense though says nothing about the underlying mechanics. Yes I will agree that we will never be able to sample alpha particle emissions in such a way that we can predict future events in that system. However, they still are not "random". You may argue (and correctly so) that the uncertainty principle guarentees you a generator that is thus impossible to reproduce. However, other sources cannot be reproduced either. A simple radio reciever is a chaotic enough system that even should you have a similar reciever in another room, attempting to capture the same values, the EMR from my speakers, computer, and the differences in shielding in my office as opposed to yours will be introducing enough noise, that my values will be significantly different than yours.

      I understand wha

    19. Re:$1 for a random number??? WTF? by doom · · Score: 1
      Eagle5596 (575899) wrote:
      Practicle sense though says nothing about the underlying mechanics. Yes I will agree that we will never be able to sample alpha particle emissions in such a way that we can predict future events in that system. However, they still are not "random".
      You conceede that human beings (nor any other hypothetical intelligent observer) have no way to predict alpha decay, and yet deny that alpha decay is "random".

      You're in effect claiming that something exists in spite of the fact that there is no way to observe it (in this case, the hidden wheels that determine this apparently random phenomena). This entire attitude runs against current understanding of what the scientific method is about, and the weird thing is that you don't seem to know that that's what you're doing.

      I think that's what's giving rise to name-calling: "idiot" or not, you're way off in left-field, out on a limb, marching to a beat of the different drummer, however you want to put it. These are discredited ideas, and if you want to argue for them, you should know why they've been discredited.

    20. Re:$1 for a random number??? WTF? by jazmataz23 · · Score: 1
      but then you may be from somewhere where this does not happen

      No, I definately come from a ruder intellectual background. As another illustration of how different our perspecives are, I have been thinking that I'm coming from a theoretical point of view and you from the applied!

      I'm at work, so I can't spend as much time, but I've certainly enjoyed this debate, and learned a few things. I'm part of the Math meetup, if by chance you're based in the DC area, we can continue this or other discussions face to face.

      jaz

      --
      Death to Argument by Slogan!! (This post twice-encrypted with ROT-13. Replies not using same will be ignored)
  24. Hey! by asr_man · · Score: 2, Funny

    You broke my googlewhack!

  25. Oh boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seems like one of the editors didn't like what we were saying about the "article" and came in with a bunch of -1 offtopic points. Half of the posts here got modded down in like 2 minutes. Heh.

  26. Boring article - avoid! by ycherk · · Score: 0, Troll

    Wow, what a boring article... If he'd stick to one subject, it might have been worth the read...

    --
    (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
  27. linkage by doom · · Score: 5, Informative
    If you were wondering what this is all about... Annalee Newitz (with two N's) is the author of a regular print-media column called "Techsploitation", of which this story was an example. More on that: http://www.techsploitation.com/writing/ http://www.alternet.org/alsoby.html?Author=2188 More about CodeCon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CodeCon http://www.codecon.org/2004/ http://www.oblomovka.com/search.php3?q=%3Cspan%20c lass= http://www.financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/0 00050.html The Schmoo Hacker Group: "The Shmoo Group is a non-profit think-tank comprised of security professionals from around the world who donate their free time and energy to information security research and development." http://www.shmoo.com/ Wi-Fi Remains a Work in Progress A latte, a Wi-Fi link and a hacker Wireless network worries? Get a dog! "Need To Know" (a zine in fixed-width font, the way god intended the net): http://www.ntk.net/ Ken Schalk, yo-yo hacker, is the author of Vesta: "Vesta is an advanced system for source code control, versioning, configuration management, and building. It is an alternative to CVS+make." http://freshmeat.net/projects/vesta/ http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?relea se_id=156198 Sparky's http://www.milkycat.com/toiletree.htm Jonathan Moore evidentally did a bunch of wifi networking down in Santa Cruz, and is the author of the MobileMesh software http://wiki.haven.sh/index.php/WikiWikiWan Jonathan Moore's CodeCon presentation was about: "Hacking Social Networks part II (Don't search private data)" http://more.theory.org/archives/000110.html#more Science Magazine is put out by the AAAS, and does great in-depth coverage of general science (and insanely detailed minutia about biology): http://www.sciencemag.org/ Placebos http://placebo.nih.gov/ Oh, and about "GenToo 2004": http://www.gentoo.org/news/20031203-news.xml

    Heh... note the email address Annalee Newitz is using here... she evidentally creates a new mail alias for every column: sugarpill@techsploitation.com

    Ah, slash ids pushing a billion and whining about what a sewer it's become...

    1. Re:linkage by [Xorian] · · Score: 4, Informative
      Ken Schalk, yo-yo hacker, is the author of Vesta

      Maintainer, yes. Person who ported it to Linux and got it released as free software, yes. Author, no. (I am Ken Schalk, so I should know. :-)

      Vesta was written by researchers at the Digital/Compaq Systems Research Center in Aplo Alto, CA. I've certainly tried to make a useful contribution, but I did not create it.

      --
      CVS is teh suck. Use Vesta instead.
  28. Great Article! by burris · · Score: 4, Informative

    I loved this article! Of course, I was at CodeCon, at the Google reception, and I stuffed my face at Sparky's. Would anyone like some origami paper (or foil?), I always have some with me...

    In case anyone is wondering, CodeCon is what Bram Cohen (of BitTorrent fame) started after getting tired of conferences where you pay a ridiculous fee to hear some marketeer ramble on about some vaporware that won't ever see the light of day. CodeCon is a conference for hackers to show off their projects; the presentation must be made by a developer and you must demo some working code. It was also less than $100 for three days of presentations.

    burris

  29. yo-yo hack? no. by ayeco · · Score: 3, Informative

    The first thing you do to a new yo-yo is adjust the string. "mod", "hack", whatever - memes getting old, fast.

  30. Dune by damiena · · Score: 5, Funny

    it reminds me of that cool scene in the movie Dune, when Paul sticks his hand in the pain box for a really long time and you hear that spooky voice-over intoning, "I will not fear; fear is the mind-killer."

    Yeah, it was a great movie... Now if only someone would write one of those novelized adaptations. That would be great!

    1. Re:Dune by rholliday · · Score: 1

      We could get Sting to do it ... it'd be fantastic!

      --
      Xbox reviews.. We think they're funny.
  31. Re:This crap got posted.... by QQ2 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    In fact, Flamebait is Insightful,
    Well in that case you must be pleased to be modded flamebait

  32. Re:This crap got posted.... by TwistedGreen · · Score: 1

    Hah.

    Looks like someone else beat you to it.

  33. The real hackers? by KludgeGrrl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Somehow "hacking a yo-yo" seems much more in the spirit of what hacking (as opposed to cracking) is all about -- playfully seeking to improve the way things work.

    But then I suppose that I'm just grasping after an earlier halcyon age, when everything was somehow better (including spelling) ;)

    1. Re:The real hackers? by mrogers · · Score: 1

      Cracking is a natural extension of hacking, because so many of the interesting things have locks on them, and the locks are kind of interesting in their own right...

    2. Re:The real hackers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow "hacking a yo-yo" seems much more in the spirit of what hacking ... is

      Uh, yeah, remind me of that the next time I "hack" a piece of string.

  34. This comment is an example of... by D-Fly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...humorless literalism.

    It's foolish and ill-informed when people accuse columnists (or anyone else who isn't a journalist) of being poor journalists. Columnists aren't journalists in the same way that a reporter is: they have a much wider ambit--commentary, opinion, whatever.

    Annalee Newitz's job isn't to go to a conference and report the facts: it's to ramble, amuse and, yeah, maybe inform a little.

    And it's not merely "publishable on the internet," purdue. As far as I'm concerned, she's one of the few reasons to pick up the Bay Guardian, a very much dead-trees-and-ink city weekly.

    --
    \
  35. Placebos: The ultimate drug by RadarMan · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The placebo effect is an amazingly powerful tool that western science is just starting to open up to.

    Think about it -- a sugar pill can help alleviate pain (and help heal a wide range of disease) with ZERO side effects. Isn't that the ultimate goal of any pharmacologist? This is an area of research we should all embrace, though it requires an open mind to do so. The mind has far more control over our body than medical science has been willing to admit.

    More on Integrative Medicine

    1. Re:Placebos: The ultimate drug by mrogers · · Score: 2, Funny
      Nah, people will just imagine the side effects too.

      I was wondering the other night why placebos aren't used more widely (at least when all other treatments have failed). And then I realised: they probably are. Doctors just don't talk about it because placebos would stop working if people knew about them. At last, a benign conspiracy theory!

    2. Re:Placebos: The ultimate drug by HaggiZ · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about internationally, but I know they are regularly dispensed at sporting events here in Australia. I had a friend who regularly worked at such events and spectators complaining of headaches were dispensed a sugar pill or two and a large bottle of water. In most instances they were simply dehydrated (running/yelling & drinking alcohol & hot weather not a real good combination) but informing them they were dehydrated usually caught the ire of the person. As such they are administered the placebo in an attempt to get them to ingest some fluid. Those returning a second time are re-examined and then possible given some paracetamol.

      I suspect this would be fairly common practice internationally at most major events.

  36. The Placebo effect by Jim+the+Bad · · Score: 1

    It's one of the great mysteries of science. I read somewhere - Fortean Times, I think - that there is even evidence that it works on animals. I don't have a link, dammit, but that's quite incredible if true.

    --
    -- And when Justice is gone, there is always... Force. --Laurie Anderson, "Oh Superman"
  37. Placebo Effect... by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    Give a linux box with XPde to a ms-windows user and tell him/her it's XP Reloaded...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  38. Placebos: The ultimate in malpractice suits by Syncdata · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Western science can open up to placebos all the like. Lawyers will not.
    Lawyer:And on the day of June 2nd, 2003, did your client not come into your office complaining of backpain?
    Doctor: Yes.
    Lawyer: And what did you prescribe to her?
    Doctor: Well her complaints were very general, so I gave her a placebo.
    Lawyer: In lieu of Actual medicine?
    Doctor:No, you see, the placebo effect is actually a well understood and practic...
    Lawyer: No further questions for this witness your honor.

    --
    "Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean