Slashdot Mirror
Rubik's Cube Now Solvable in 20 Moves
A few years ago we reported that it had been proven that Rubik's Cubes could be solved in 23 moves. Well now that number is
down to just 20. Proving it required 35 years of computer time donated by Google to get it done.
Enough with the Rubik's cube junk, someone please tell us how to unhook a bra with *1* move.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
Moves 1 through 19: repeatedly hit cube with hammer
Move 20: reassemble the smashed bits into a solved cube.
Warning: Your cube may or may not remain functional through use of this solution.
Google invents time machine to improve compute capabilities!
1. Allocate computer time to cancer. 2. ??? 3. Cure cancer!
I know it won't stem the tide, but this is good research. I'm sure there are a million other algorithms in the world that can benefit from this. Shortcuts they had to invent to make sure they were using minimal processing time, full understanding of how much money and time it really took to get this process done to make other projects more practical, etc etc. This sort of thinking, even if silly on its own, has a broad range of applications.
20 mechanical turk sweatshop workers and 157 pigeons died to get this information.
Cancer is unlikely to be cured via brute-force computing. If you've got a computational problem that would help towards a cancer cure, have you asked Google to donate time for it?
The shortest path between any two configurations (be them solved or not) on a graph of all possibilities will be no greater than 20.
I got a team working on solving Rubik's cube in 1 move.
The proof only need 30 years of computering to be proven, however as we only got one computer we won't release is before 2040 (and then we'll claim we were that close to the solution, but due to a timestamp bug we had to restart from scratch in 2038).
Yes, you're right, we should devote all our time to getting ourselves to live longer, and none of our time to making our lives more interesting and enjoyable. That'll make a lovely world, won't it.
Given that Google isn't 35 years old, Google must have invented a time machine to solve this problem.
I always knew Google had some smart people, but this is very impressive.
I'm surprised it wasn't kdawson who wrote this summary.
You meant to say that this problem required 35 years of computer time on a particular model of computer.
So, you could take less time on a faster computer, or add more computers to solving the problem.
English motherfucker! Do you speak it?
How about measuring that in actual computer usage? X MHz on Y cores per Z nodes over A hours? Or at least say it would have taken one X MHz processor 35 years to compute it. Computer-hours are nothing line man-hours or horse-power. At least those have good limits to their vagueness. Computer-time might as well be arthropod-lengths (are we talking dust mites or ancient giant sea-scorpions?).
Step 2 would be "Not die until step 3", I think.
If we're comparing things like that, then I think you better quit the internet and donate your computer/internet subscription money to cancer research. Much more useful than this comment.
It can't possibly be 35 years! Google is not that old.
Stop regurgitating meaningless numbers. Even the article itself can't seem to explain the 35 (cpu) years. What kind of CPU?
It was supposed to solve it, not rearrange the stickers.
They give the distance and number of positions for the cube here: http://www.cube20.org/ What I don't understand is why they have only approximate number 20 moves - from the article on the link above I understand that they solved all of the 20-moves combinations so they must know the exact number of those combinations
Don't have to, World Community Grid has already been doing cancer cure grid computing for years.
This one is complete:
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/research/hdc/overview.do
These two are still running:
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/research/hcc1/overview.do
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/research/hfcc/overview.do
Thank God!
And cancer? Still unsolved. I'll bet computer time could be used for that too.
It can be shown that a cure for cancer can easily be derived from a method of solving any Rubik's cube in 19 moves.
Thank God! And cancer? Still unsolved. I'll bet computer time could be used for that too. (sorry, bullsh*t like this hits very close to home for me recently. Nothing like having people dying, and then hearing how we are using resources for utter crap)
I don't think the limiting factor in cancer research is lack of computer time. If it were something so simple, getting the resources wouldn't be a problem.
Your raging is pointless.
Why does the graphic on the left show 22 moves? if the number is 20
Does this mean that it was somebody's JOB at Google to figure this out?
The Generation
I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
If you've got a computational problem that would help towards a cancer cure, have you asked Google to donate time for it?
No, he'd rather just complain. It's much easier to criticize researchers than to do the research yourself.
Yes, you're right, we should devote all our time to getting ourselves to live longer, and none of our time to making our lives more interesting and enjoyable. That'll make a lovely world, won't it.
That's what the lifestyle police are pushing for.
Eat food that tastes like cardboard, run like rabbits, and take pills based on how long they'll help you live (never mind quality of life - e.g. so hormone therapy for women is out - can't have 1 more heart attack per hundered even if it makes life bearable for the other 99) and you'll live longer or at least it will feel like it.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Now if they'd put the same effort in defeating the common cold...
I wouldn't say they're cheating, but I am a bit dissatisfied with their way of counting moves. Rotating a face by 180 degrees is not an elementary move to me. I'd like to know god's number in elementary moves.
The inevitability of our demise serves as functional justification for throwing ourselves into our favorite causes with reckless abandon.
Since we will die anyway, ultimately we have nothing to lose, so we can justify the taking of extreme risks in attempting to accomplish whatever is important to us.
Yes, you're right, we should devote all our time to getting ourselves to live longer, and none of our time to making our lives more interesting and enjoyable. That'll make a lovely world, won't it.
I agree completely. After watching so many people "live" well past their prime I'd much rather have a good life and a fast death.
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
I've also been working on solving the Rubik's cube for 35 years. It's taken me 63,412,452,120 moves and I have one side solved and a line on another side.
:wq
Thank God! And cancer? Still unsolved. I'll bet computer time could be used for that too. (sorry, bullsh*t like this hits very close to home for me recently. Nothing like having people dying, and then hearing how we are using resources for utter crap)
Guess you should be using your spare cycles to help cure cancer. Lead by example instead of using your resources for the utter crap that is posting on slashdot!
...But why the hell is the demo avi on the web page (cube20.org) showing the process in reverse?
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Actually, I was at a high-performance physics computing conference this summer in which a genetic oncologist talked about some of the computational challenges in cancer genomics and said, basically, "There's lots of room over here if you physics folks want something else to chew on." It won't be cured by brute-force computing alone, but there are certainly computational challenges where a few million core-hours would be welcome.
Besides, manually traversing the enormous tree of possible Rubik's Cube states to get to the solution in 20 moves will make any person's life seem much, much longer!
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
making our lives more interesting and enjoyable
It appears that you have never watched me attempt to solve a Rubik’s cube.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1638258&cid=32071298 "Lost" doesn't contain filler! Thank God! And cancer? Still unsolved.
Every waking moment should be spent supporting cancer research, right? Isn't that the standard you are criticizing others for failing to meet?
I'm not at all saying cancer research is unimportant. Far from it. It's vital.
But if you're going to demand that everyone else singlemindedly pursue a valuable research project that is personally important to you, and that any time spent pursuing things you think are unimportant is ignoring the dying, you could at least make a halfhearted attempt to lead by example.
And if you think watching "Lost" and doing other things occasionally that aren't in direct support of cancer research is just living your life, then maybe you might consider offering the same courtesy to others.
That's where you are wrong. There is a lack of resources, funding, and computers cycles. There have been cycles running for years. I know cancer researchers, and I've donated time, money, and my computer cycles. Great job though moderators, bump up misinformation.
You'd rage too if you were 34 and had to deal with this shit. And watch, I'll get marked as Troll again, even though I'm not and have a great post history. Whatever.
1) Turn the lights off.
The cube now exists in an entangled solved/unsolved state.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
From the old article, Posted by timothy on Friday June 06 2008:
[...], which he used it to show [...]
Who the heck is IT the inventor of that strange kind of grammar ????
Why is this on Idle? Rubik's cubes have deep(ish) and fascinating mathematics behind them; they've been a staple toy of geeks pretty much everywhere, for decades; and this is a fascinating new result that puts an end to an old question.
If this isn't "news for nerds", then what is?
I mean, what's next? Claimed P != NP proof verified, Millenium Prize claimed, story on Idle?
The computational resources are available. If the researcher needs clock time, he can talk to the folks at TeraGrid, among others. Of course, the researcher you mentioned was doing something similar to what OP wants, although more politely and probably the "correct" way, which is to try to get people who are working on problem X to work on cancer instead. At least the oncologist was "walking the walk" in that he is actually working on his topic of interest instead of just complaining that there is no cure for cancer.
To answer that question, you need to ask whether there is something inherently special about the “solved” state.
Or, to put it differently:
1) Begin in state A
2) Re-arrange stickers into a corresponding state X, such that state A maps directly to state X in a particular transformation system
3) Solve from state X to S (max. 20 moves)
4) Re-arrange stickers using the same transformation system in reverse, obtaining state B, which mapped to state S in that transformation system
Now, if your transformation system was consistent, you should be able to omit steps 2 and 4, going straight from A to B in 20 moves.
QED.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Either it always has been or it is not, no big deal. I put all white stickers on mine and it is solvable in ZERO moves!!!
Folding@Home
Dilbert RSS feed
Step 1: Remove the stickers.
Step 2: Reapply the stickers,
Get a small titted girlfriend. They don't wear bras.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
When I was about six years old, my cousin challenged me to solve a scrambled Rubik's Cube. The family figured it would keep me busy for hours.
I solved it in the fastest possible way: I pulled off every sticker and put them on the right sides.
Problem solved; it wasn't MY fault they didn't define the problem properly.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Cancer isn't a solvable problem. It is the result of three gene mutations:
1) cell death gene turns off
2) a gene controlling cell metabolism changes so it can process blood sugar
3) I forget. It escapes me right now.
But cancer is nothing more than three mutations combined. With only two you won't have cancer. The genes flip for various reasons: toxins (chemical), radiation, biological (viral). The solutions are: don't over-expose yourself (though a minimum level of exposure is required to keep the repair systems functioning), and eat lots of antioxidants which limit free radicals. Everyone who lives long enough will get cancer, some people seem to be born with poor genetic health, meaning DNA is easily damaged or not repaired effectively. These people get it earlier than others. DNA is always being damaged. it is always bring repaired. But some people seem to repair better than others.
We also have treatments for cancer. I think the problem is these are currently relatively barbaric, in how we target cells with these mutations. Eventually we'll be able to infect them with a virus that will restore the right genes, but the battle against genetic mutations will be on-going.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
My condolences for your loss, but do you really believe that Google would have found the cure for cancer by now if only they hadn't spent time on this? Big achievements are incremental; someday we might turn this into something bigger or we'll find out it was a waste of time, but it shouldn't be hated simply for being done. How many people here would love to find a way to solve a Rubik's cube in 19 moves? Would you give them the same reaction?
I'm sure this will be difficult coming from someone on the Internet but you should focus on how the person lived, not how they died. And if cancer research is really important to you, donate time, money, emotional support, whatever you can in hopes that it helps the next person because like big achievements, big changes are incremental.
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
Plot the count vs. distance table on a chart and set the count to a log scale. Up to 17 it's almost perfectly linear. I wonder why that is?
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
35 years is about 300k core-hours, a standard measure of computing resources. This is a big pile of computer time, but is not unreasonable.
So how much does this cost?
A typical supercomputer, Ranger, cost $59 million to build and operate for four years. It's got about 60k cores, so $59 million delivers 240k core-years; they used 35 core-years to do this computation. Doing the division, you get $9000 of computer time -- not all that bad. Plugging in the cost numbers for another production supercomputer, Kraken, gives a slightly lower cost.
I always hear about people switching stickers, so I have to ask this... has anybody else physically disassembled the cube and put it back together? It's a surprisingly fun process.
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
Get out of 2names' head, Randall!
http://xkcd.com/457/
I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
If it's anything like when I try to solve it, then it involves hammer and tape.
He didn't need compute time; he was giving a talk to a bunch of physicists about something that a) they don't know much about, but would find interesting, and b) they could go work on if they get bored with quarks, and would probably bring a fresh perspective to since they have different skills.
(And, in a sense, he *did* talk to the TeraGrid folks, since some of the largest TeraGrid users were there.)
Reach around the supermodel. Gasp clasp the thumb and index finger with thumb on the inside. Snap your fingers with clasp between. Bra or Swimsuit top should spring apart followed by a giggle from your target. At this point if you have mastered this move you should be able to get her to do anything you wish, just ask.
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
"It's a problem that can't be prevented" and "it's a problem that can't be solved" are two rather different things. So it's caused by undesirable mutations as a result of radiation/chemicals/viruses... doesn't mean we can't fix it once it happens. That being more or less the definition of a cure - a fix you apply to a disease after you already have that disease.
I doubt we'll ever have a vaccine for cancer, for the reasons you mentioned, but a cure... a cure could be achieved.
Although rather than 1 cure for all cancer, it'd be more like hundreds of cures for all the different ways a cell can malfunction in a cancerous way. There may be a similar end result, but there's a lot more than 3 specific mutations that can produce a cancer.
Great, now I know I'm even WORSE at solving it than ever...
Dan
You've got a point. On the other hand, I'm constantly shocked at things like how US Cancer Research gets ~$4.81bn yearly , while I.E. the cosmetics industry, just on cosmetic products, just in the US, chew ~$41bn yearly.
There's a movement in health research now geared at extending what they call "healthspan" rather than just "lifespan" -- not "how long does this dude keep breathing", but "how long can we keep this dude active and happy"?
Turns out that many of the things that make people live longer also make their late years healthier. My grandfather is 94 and still travels the world with his girlfriend (a spry young 75, but he'll never see her again now that she's taken up Farmville). He got prostate cancer a few years ago (and colon cancer a few decades ago), received aggressive treatment for it, and is now cancer-free and healthy.
Old does not *have* to mean feeble. Sometimes it does, of course, and that's bad; this is why we should look at healthspan rather than lifespan.
That's where you are wrong. There is a lack of resources, funding, and computers cycles. There have been cycles running for years. I know cancer researchers, and I've donated time, money, and my computer cycles
While all research could use more funding, cancer research has to be one of the best-funded research fields out there. It's either that or defense. It lacks funding like I lack funding because I can't buy a mansion.
Could you be more specific as to what those cycles were for? I'm guessing they were for protein folding, which is essential and good research but is not going to directly find a cure. If google had run all it's computers on protein folding, we'd likely be only marginally closer to a cure for cancer.
The limiting factor in cancer research is -not- computing time. A bigger one is the fact that there are many different types of cancer, and the biggest one is that it's incredibly difficult to kill millions of any one type of cell without killing a lot of other cells in a human body. For most of our history, we had no idea how to specifically kill bacterial cells in a human body. It's still an issue.
Great job though moderators, bump up misinformation. You'd rage too if you were 34 and had to deal with this shit. And watch, I'll get marked as Troll again, even though I'm not and have a great post history. Whatever.
You're also going to get modded troll because you were asking for it. If you're 34 you should have at some point learned how to calm down and not take things so seriously.
Sorry. US yearly spending on cosmetics is 41bn EUR. So it's more than 10 times as high as Cancer research.
Also interesting, In 2009, Colipa bragged how they spent 25mn EUR on research for finding alternatives to animal testing. 0.06% of their yearly income.
I am sure Google would of donated many many times the amount of computer cycles to curing cancer if they were asked.
I would be surprised if they really needed cycles much, it should not be hard to run some drive and get millions of people to donate their excess cycles to research.
and it really does not cost that much to buy computers, if they wanted to do it themselves.
But I do not know, it is possible no one in the cancer research field has tried very hard.
But in the end of the day it is not googles fault or anyone else if researchers have not made it a point to go looking for people to donate computers time.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Pah! You haven't been paying attention. Of course they would have. And if Michael J. Fox is any credible source of information, they would have also found a cure for Parkinson's Disease by now if they had been allowed to do embryonic stem-cell research. And he should know; he went back to the future.
Let's see... Three moves shaved off every 2 years... That means that by the year 2024, we'll be able to solve any Rubix Cube in 1 move (or less!).
Indeed... once you pop one of the corners out with a flathead screwdriver, the rest come out pretty easily. The bad part is that after a few times doing this, the plastic becomes a bit worn and the edges won't hold the cubes in as well. It becomes patently obvious that the cube has been disassembled; a few more times and the cube starts to fall apart when turned and twisted normally. Or maybe I just got cheap models as a kid.
While I believe people should be allowed to make there own decisions regarding the risks of this kinds of treatments. I also believe that it is vital that the risks are well understood by those making the decision. My aunt died of cancer that was suspected to be related to hormone therapy... while it improved her quality of life for a time the cancer (and subsequent treatments) drastically decreased it.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
"Yes, you're right, we should devote all our time to getting ourselves to live longer, and none of our time to making our lives more interesting and enjoyable. That'll make a lovely world, won't it."
Similar concept to those male sexual de-sensitizing products on the market that help improve a guy's stamina in bed. Have sex all night long and not feel a thing! What a concept!
There's already a cure for cancer. It's called body alkalinization. Get your blood pH up and the cancer cells will die.
The only reason people don't know about it is because pharmaceutical companies are making shitloads of money pushing treatments to let this dirty little secret out.
And since the FDA is in bed with them, it's illegal to use anything else.
I was taking more issue with the part of your post where you said, "there are certainly computational challenges where a few million core-hours would be welcome." Now, a few million core-hours isn't cheap, but if you have a good idea and you can sell it (to the grant agencies or someone who has a huge cluster), then getting the requisite compute time is certainly do-able. Furthermore, going back to OP's post, the researchers who did this Rubik's cube stuff were not competing for the same pool of resources as oncologists (i.e. it's not likely that Google had some cancer research they put on the back burner because finding God's Number was more pressing, and I couldn't tell who was funding this research, but it looks like it may have been a volunteer effort).
As you mentioned, the bottleneck is people. And the oncologist you mentioned was going about recruiting people in the right way, by saying something to the effect of, "here are a set of problems you have the skills to solve, you may be interested on these issues, and there is funding for you to do research in this field." That works a lot better than telling a bunch of mathematicians that they are wasting their time and that they should work on curing cancer while you are not an oncologist yourself (this is referring to OP).
Sure it is, Dr. Fruitloop.
Computing time doesn't have to do much anything with why you can't get good cancer therapy.
The main reason why you don't get good cancer therapy is because the working ones are too unprofitable.
I saw one of them personally and give it the benefit of the doubt.
Here is some info to chew on before you go into meaningless rants.
ps. Yea, the title is cheesy, read the text before you complain.
How many moves does it take to solve Farmville?
Though I'm not sure that answer matters much to its developers either.
This result has a much greater range of interest than one might suppose. The Rubik's Cube is a physical example of a problem in group theory (a group appropriately now known as the Rubik's Cube Group : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubik's_cube_group), and completely solving this group (and thus all simpler sub-cases) is a matter of some significant interest in pure and computational mathematics.
The Rubik's Cube Group also has a physical analog in the subatomics physics of quarks. See: Golomb, S.W., "Rubik's Cube and a Model of Quark Confinement", American Journal of Physics, Vol. 49, No. 11, pp. 1030-1031, November, 1981. Analogs can provide powerful tools for visualizing other physical systems.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
purchase scissors
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Imagine the number of clicks this has generated net-wide on various pages created to attract clicks and think of how many of those are hooked into Google's massive adware fabric.
It could be someone at Google's job to figure everything out.
You'll have to point out these lifestyle police. I've never seen them for some reason.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
P.S. Be prepared for 2012.
Well then the cures for cancer we have today are:
1. A low-carb diet (this starves the cancer cells of the necessary sugars they need for metabolism.)
2. Anti-oxidants. (this prevents (lessons) DNA damage by chemicals.)
3. Get the right amount of radiation exposure for you. (Oddly, Denver with 3x the radiation (from the mountains) has over-all lower cancer rates)
4. Limit exposure to toxins and VOCs.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
It's REAL science! Hemp also cures cancer and water fluoridation is really dumping toxic waste in our water supply. The moon landings were faked too because they took too many nice pictures, and the smallpox vaccine is actually made from cowpox, so there's no chance it could possibly create the same antibodies needed to kill smallpox. Also, joint pain can be cured remotely by any well-trained chiropractor.
Water Fluoridation really is a waste though. It only helps kids, and they are going to lose their teeth anyways.
You'll have to point out these lifestyle police. I've never seen them for some reason.
Try looking here.
I can’t comment but on two of those, first being the moon landing photos, which were of course not faked (and much evidence exists to support this).
Secondly, the fluoridation of water... if you look into the studies which were done to determine whether the effect of fluoride on teeth has any correlation to the occurrence of dental caries (tooth decay), you will find that (as any good researchers should) the researchers used a control group: the cavity rate amongst children in a number of cities in which the water was not fluoridated was also recorded. The result of the study? As predicted, the cavity rate declined in the cities where the water supply was fluoridated. And the cavity rate declined by a statistically identical amount in the cities where the water supply was not fluoridated. Conclusion: Fluoride prevents cavities. Wait, what?
P.S. As I work in the drinking water industry, I happen to know that fluoride is indeed a highly toxic waste, but dilution is the solution. That, and human bodies make really good filters.
I'm sure there aren't any other applications of the technology being used here. Completely useless doing research unless it cures cancer. What a bunch of... Trolls? Let's shut down Google and enter in that Cancer Cure equation. About time that thing got solved. I just love how computers can solve everything on their own. Makes me feel so obsolete.
You have to be smarter than the machine you're working with.
Move your thumb behind the hook/bra line, draw a bit and with the index press agaisnt ebfore the hook, then make the index go past the thumb. World record IIRC is something like 40 or 50 bra un hook in 1 minute.
.
But... but... but... google hasn't been around for 35 years....
Bill Maher
Dennis Kucinich
That Dude from Oversize me.
and the most egregious of them all The Mayo Clinic. -being a little tongue and cheek here-
What does Vinay Deolalikar have to say about this?
Hint: If a woman really likes her bra, destroying is is not going to go over well. Good bras are extremely expensive (upwards of $60) and well endowed girls have a hell of a time finding bras that they find both attractive and comfortable. If you ruin the bra, don't expect a 2nd date.
Reminds me of this.
Thank God!
And cancer? Still unsolved. I'll bet computer time could be used for that too.
It can be shown that a cure for cancer can easily be derived from a method of solving any Rubik's cube in 19 moves.
That makes sense, but how are you going to peel all the stickers off the tumor?
Cancer Algorithm is function of PH;fitness.eating,stress , microbiology,chemistry and physic the blood body brain
cancer oncology R&D research
http://www.resdays.com/seminars
Science doesn't happen overnight!
It's not a waste, since the fluoride itself would otherwise be a waste product. Water fluoridation is a way of dumping chemical byproducts in a manner and proportion which is a net benefit to the recipients as well as the disposers. A true win-win scenario, at least in the average case.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
... and you'll live longer or at least it will feel like it.
So much truth in one sentence: "make your life a misery, you'll live every painful second of it and feel like you lived a thousand years!"
Much easier than living 55 fulfilling and happy years and dying with a smile on your face surrounded by people you love.
Thank God!
And cancer? Still unsolved. I'll bet computer time could be used for that too.
It can be shown that a cure for cancer can easily be derived from a method of solving any Rubik's cube in 19 moves.
But there was insufficient room in the margin to go into the details.
And for added fun, put it back together with a single edge flipped (or a single corner rotated), then jumble it up and leave it in the vicinity of a smart-arsed kid who thinks he knows how to solve it :-)
[ ]Half Empty [ ]Half Full [x]Twice as big as it needs to be
Ah, yes, you're correct: there are challenges where a bunch of compute time would be welcome, but that time is available, as you point out. (If MILC can get a billion hours over eight years to simulate quarks, someone can get a few million to do cancer research).
Cancer is already solved, it's called THC. (Well, that's what I read anyway, don't know if it's true)
Wood nymphs don't WEAR bras!
Actually, this is a much more important result than the summary claims. Until now, there was always a gap between the proved lower bound and upper bound on necessary moves. They now proved that the known lower bound (20, proved in 1995) is also an upper bound (ie. there is no position which requires 21 or more moves to solve) and thus concluded research that lasted for 30 years.
This article could very well be listed on the Slashdot main page, it has nothing to do in Idle. The algorithms that were designed during this research are nothing to laugh at and will surely advance other research fields as well.
I can see how this research could be helpful
...is to not play.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
that's a sad day for Tomas Rokicki and John Welborn what are they gonna work on now?
Naturally since I'm not an MD you have every right to laugh.
But considering the typical corporate trend to rake in profits and stomp all over the consumer in almost every other industry, would you be surprised if I was telling the truth?
Congratulations on the well thought out factual reply. Ridiculing instead of really answering is worse than suppressing or censoring in my opinion. But go ahead, feel superior. Color people mentally ill, call them paranoid, whatever. It works.
There is a vaccine for cervical cancer, but this is Slashdot. No one here knows anything about that sort of thing.
Yes, you're right, we should devote all our time to getting ourselves to live longer, and none of our time to making our lives more interesting and enjoyable. That'll make a lovely world, won't it.
I agree completely. After watching so many people "live" well past their prime I'd much rather have a good life and a fast death.
You're young, aren't you...?
Check back in here in 15 or 20 years and lets see how you're doing.
Oh! Goodness, I forgot, you'll be...dead.
If you're 34 you should have at some point learned how to calm down and not take things so seriously.
Riiiight - you're not married, are you?
As a wife would surely have made CRYSTAL fucking clear to you by now, sometimes taking something seriously is the RIGHT fucking thing to do, and you better learn fast exactly WHEN that is (answer: when I feel that it is) or you're not getting any dinner tonight, and you must be INSANE if you think I'm going to do THAT thing for you tonight in the bedroom with your crappy disrespectful flippant attitude...
By the time you get to 34, you ought to at least know how to fake taking something seriously, which, in the end, pretty much adds up to the real thing anyway.
Technically, though, it's a vaccine for a virus that happens to cause cancer. There are non-viral forms of cervical cancer that Gardasil does not prevent.
The vaccine is for HPV, which can cause cervical cancer. The vaccine is not for cervical cancer.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Those would actually be more prevention than cure. They're not 100% effective prevention, which is why no-one calls a low-carb diet a vaccine against cancer (unless of course they're trying to sell books about their patented low-carb diet).
If you've already got cancer, it's really much too late to start limiting your radiation exposure. The other things are probably a good idea in any case but seem rather insignificant in the face of that cancer you hypothetically already have.
The standard cures for cancer at the moment would be surgery, chemo and radiotherapy. The research ongoing is into more effective means of killing cancer that include a smaller side-component of killing things that aren't cancer (it's really very easy to kill a cancerous cell, doing so without killing the patient is the challenge)
So, basically, Google could cure cancer in like, say 6 months. Or even 6 Years. But they don't. Because Big Pharma says no. What a bunch of jerks.
http://rubiksolve.com
You can try it yourself with your own cube. It isn't always 20 moves since it is limited by being web based, but its never over 25. It uses a version of the algorithm outlined in the article above.