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."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
A true geek would've also taken the time to personally post their article on slashdot.
Is yo-you hacking like cracking severs while lissening to Vanilla Ice?
*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...
Only on slashdot have these been combined in a single sentence.
Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
Is that when you hack a server to bring it down, wait for it to come back up again then down, up, down...
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 :-)
i know
if i wanted articles of this level of intelectual calibre i would get my lowdown from "TechTV" or "the Screensavers"
Ummm, put down the porn for two seconds to spell check, ok?
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.
What the fuck is this? News for 12 year olds?
Sorry to be a troll, but really.
Next on Slashdot...K1nd3rg4rt0n hax0r5!!!
Invoicing, Time Tracking, Reporting
... 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.
... as soon as the site loaded I couldn't help from clicking the "Nude Beaches" link.
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*
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
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?
Using glue, you can install Linux on your yoyo.
You don't need a lab to make mud.
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
yeah its still a pre-release... php?t=127764
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic
"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
...good thing the FBI wasn't around. With the DMCA, he could of gotten into big time trouble with that yoyo.
"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.
This is just my XP box, up...down....up....down
You broke my googlewhack!
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.
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...
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
The first thing you do to a new yo-yo is adjust the string. "mod", "hack", whatever - memes getting old, fast.
> 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.
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!
Hah.
Looks like someone else beat you to it.
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)
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.
...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.
\
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
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"
Time series data from radioactive decay will generate truly random numbers in a non-uniform distribution. (Prerequisite: belief in quantum physics.)
Use one good one (many bits long) to seed your PRNG.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's right, most people haven't. It was a gratuitous reference. If you don't like 'buzzword', substitute 'technical term'.
'Quantum physics' was part of my response concerning truly random events, and meant as a shorthand justification for my assertion.
Clearly.
Agreed.
je ne suis pas un fou
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? ;-)
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 :)
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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
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.
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)