Rubik's Cube Now Solvable in 20 Moves

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Rubik's Cube Now Solvable in 20 Moves

Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday August 9, 2010 @03:30AM from the good-use-of-spare-time dept.

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.

309 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Thank God! by skgrey · 2010-08-09 03:33 · Score: -1, Troll

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)
1. Re:Thank God! by mastershake82 · 2010-08-09 03:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  1. Allocate computer time to cancer. 2. ??? 3. Cure cancer!
2. Re:Thank God! by ceejayoz · 2010-08-09 03:37 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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?
3. Re:Thank God! by beelsebob · 2010-08-09 03:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
4. Re:Thank God! by Jurily · 2010-08-09 03:39 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Step 2 would be "Not die until step 3", I think.
5. Re:Thank God! by Reilaos · 2010-08-09 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  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.
6. Re:Thank God! by jridley · 2010-08-09 03:42 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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
7. Re:Thank God! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 03:43 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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.
8. Re:Thank God! by Pantero+Blanco · 2010-08-09 03:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
9. Re:Thank God! by TheGeneration · 2010-08-09 03:44 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
10. Re:Thank God! by kg8484 · 2010-08-09 03:46 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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.
11. Re:Thank God! by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2010-08-09 03:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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!
12. Re:Thank God! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 03:52 · Score: 0
  
  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.
13. Re:Thank God! by Abstrackt · 2010-08-09 03:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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
14. Re:Thank God! by adamjgp · 2010-08-09 03:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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!
15. Re:Thank God! by Entropius · 2010-08-09 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  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.
16. Re:Thank God! by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2010-08-09 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  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.
17. Re:Thank God! by clone53421 · 2010-08-09 04:01 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  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.
18. Re:Thank God! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 04:01 · Score: 0
  
  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.
19. Re:Thank God! by RMS+Eats+Toejam · 2010-08-09 04:03 · Score: -1
  
  I've always admired people who complain about others who are complaining. Keep it up, Champ.
  
  --
  Turning to a Linux advocate for thoughts on Microsoft is like asking Hitler how he felt about the Jews.
20. Re:Thank God! by skgrey · 2010-08-09 04:06 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  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.
21. Re:Thank God! by kg8484 · 2010-08-09 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  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.
22. Re:Thank God! by icebraining · 2010-08-09 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Folding@Home
  
  Our goal: to understand protein folding, misfolding, and related diseases
  Protein folding is linked to disease, such as Alzheimer's, ALS, Huntington's, Parkinson's disease, and many Cancers
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
23. Re:Thank God! by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2010-08-09 04:20 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  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.
24. Re:Thank God! by scorp1us · 2010-08-09 04:21 · Score: 0
  
  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.
25. Re:Thank God! by Abstrackt · 2010-08-09 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  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
26. Re:Thank God! by Abstrackt · 2010-08-09 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  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
27. Re:Thank God! by SupremoMan · 2010-08-09 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  If it's anything like when I try to solve it, then it involves hammer and tape.
28. Re:Thank God! by Entropius · 2010-08-09 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  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.)
29. Re:Thank God! by mpeskett · 2010-08-09 04:28 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  "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.
30. Re:Thank God! by rawler · 2010-08-09 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  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.
31. Re:Thank God! by Entropius · 2010-08-09 04:32 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
32. Re:Thank God! by interkin3tic · 2010-08-09 04:35 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
33. Re:Thank God! by rawler · 2010-08-09 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  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.
34. Re:Thank God! by wisnoskij · 2010-08-09 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  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.
35. Re:Thank God! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 04:37 · Score: 0
  
  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.
36. Re:Thank God! by Alyred · 2010-08-09 04:42 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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.
37. Re:Thank God! by GundamFan · 2010-08-09 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  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
38. Re:Thank God! by Tragedy4u · 2010-08-09 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  "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!
39. Re:Thank God! by shentino · 2010-08-09 04:59 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  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.
40. Re:Thank God! by kg8484 · 2010-08-09 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  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).
41. Re:Thank God! by dave420 · 2010-08-09 05:08 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Sure it is, Dr. Fruitloop.
42. Re:Thank God! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 05:13 · Score: 0
  
  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.
43. Re:Thank God! by careysub · 2010-08-09 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  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
44. Re:Thank God! by blair1q · 2010-08-09 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  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.
45. Re:Thank God! by bunratty · 2010-08-09 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  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.
46. Re:Thank God! by scorp1us · 2010-08-09 05:46 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  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.
47. Re:Thank God! by chronosan · 2010-08-09 05:50 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  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.
48. Re:Thank God! by coolsnowmen · 2010-08-09 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  Water Fluoridation really is a waste though. It only helps kids, and they are going to lose their teeth anyways.
49. Re:Thank God! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  You'll have to point out these lifestyle police. I've never seen them for some reason.
  Try looking here.
50. Re:Thank God! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 06:00 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  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.
51. Re:Thank God! by MotherErich · 2010-08-09 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  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.
52. Re:Thank God! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 06:36 · Score: 0
  
  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-
53. Re:Thank God! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  Reminds me of this.
54. Re:Thank God! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 07:30 · Score: 0
  
  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?
55. Re:Thank God! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 07:31 · Score: 0
  
  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
56. Re:Thank God! by retchdog · 2010-08-09 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  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
57. Re:Thank God! by obarel · 2010-08-09 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  ... 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.
58. Re:Thank God! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 07:47 · Score: 0
  
  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.
59. Re:Thank God! by Myrddin+Wyllt · 2010-08-09 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  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
60. Re:Thank God! by Entropius · 2010-08-09 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  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).
61. Re:Thank God! by eric-x · 2010-08-09 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  Cancer is already solved, it's called THC. (Well, that's what I read anyway, don't know if it's true)
62. Re:Thank God! by shentino · 2010-08-09 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  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?
63. Re:Thank God! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 13:56 · Score: 0
  
  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.
64. Re:Thank God! by Rynd · 2010-08-09 14:52 · Score: 1
  
  There is a vaccine for cervical cancer, but this is Slashdot. No one here knows anything about that sort of thing.
65. Re:Thank God! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 17:07 · Score: 0
  
  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.
66. Re:Thank God! by ceejayoz · 2010-08-10 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  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.
67. Re:Thank God! by scorp1us · 2010-08-10 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  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.
68. Re:Thank God! by mpeskett · 2010-08-12 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  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)
Enough! by 2names · 2010-08-09 03:34 · Score: 5, Funny

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."
1. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 03:37 · Score: 0
  
  If you're over 20 and still can't do it (or even with just one hand)....
2. Re:Enough! by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-08-09 03:38 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Easy.
  Step 1:
  Unhook the bra
  It's all relative - what do you consider 1 move? I came across this argument during my first DnD session, and subsequently, haven't played it since.
3. Re:Enough! by somegeekynick · 2010-08-09 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you want to know -- you're a Slashdotter after all, remember?
4. Re:Enough! by Pojut · 2010-08-09 03:41 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  You gotta do what I did in 8th grade...find a girl who wanted to learn how to unzip a fly with one hand, and was willing to let you practice taking her bra off with one hand.
  I haven't seen her in well over a decade, but I hope her training paid off. I know mine did!
  
  --
  Living With a Nerd
5. Re:Enough! by 2names · 2010-08-09 03:42 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  All good /.'ers seek knowledge. Whether we ever get to *use* that knowledge is another discussion.
  
  --
  "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
6. Re:Enough! by Jurily · 2010-08-09 03:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Tell her to take it off.
7. Re:Enough! by UnanimousCoward · 2010-08-09 03:46 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Are you new here? This is /. so, it should be listed here :-)
  
  ...someone please tell us how to unhook a bra with *1* move...
  
  --
  Twelve-and-three-quarter inches. Unyielding. This wand belonged to Bellatrix Lestrange.
8. Re:Enough! by russotto · 2010-08-09 03:46 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Start with your right arm behind the wearer. Make sure your thumb is on the reinforced section holding the clasp, behind the clasp, on the side to your right. Your index and middle finders should be in a similar position on your left. Squeeze your thumb and the index and middle finger towards each other, while also pressing slightly in (towards you) with your arm. The bra should now be unhooked.
  (Lefties use your left hand and switch left and right above.)
9. Re:Enough! by somegeekynick · 2010-08-09 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  Goes to show why I have 7 digits next to my nick. I am enlightened.
10. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 03:52 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  You gotta do what I did in 8th grade...find a girl who wanted to learn how to unzip a fly with one hand, and was willing to let you practice taking her bra off with one hand.
  I haven't seen her in well over a decade, but I hope her training paid off. I know mine did!
  Tip: if true, that girl back then just wanted to get in your fly, you lucky son of a gun. Sorry if the news is a little late
  Girls have trousers of their own and can practice opening a fly without assistance.
11. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 03:53 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  My brother's a paramedic and he says scissors are the fastest.
12. Re:Enough! by MikeBabcock · 2010-08-09 03:55 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Placing the hand such that the forefinger is bent against the section of the bra closest to the back and the thumb is over the piece in the foreground with the hooks, slide in the detaching direction with the thumb.
  Alternatively, just ask her to take it off for you ... but that may be a problem if you didn't actually know the girl on the bus in the first place.
  
  --
  - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
13. Re:Enough! by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-08-09 03:57 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Are you kidding? You expect him to talk to a girl?
  He actually only needs to know how to unhook a bra because it's currently holding a bundle of Cat6 together.
14. Re:Enough! by Culture20 · 2010-08-09 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  Tell her to take it off.
  Ask, don't tell.
15. Re:Enough! by Pojut · 2010-08-09 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  Tip: if true, that girl back then just wanted to get in your fly, you lucky son of a gun. Sorry if the news is a little late
  I was fairly oblivious back then... till very much "in-training", lol
  
  Girls have trousers of their own and can practice opening a fly without assistance.
  She always said that it wasn't the same when she did it to her own. ::shrug:: I wasn't gonna argue with her, know what I mean?
  
  --
  Living With a Nerd
16. Re:Enough! by Surt · 2010-08-09 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  I'm curious about how that paid off. I've been removing bras two handed for ages now, and it has never been a significant or even minor inconvenience. Maybe it's because I have strong legs?
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
17. Re:Enough! by Surt · 2010-08-09 04:00 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  That's just unhooking, not removing. Removing in one move is best accomplished through the brute force method. Grab the side opposite the clasp and yank hard.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
18. Re:Enough! by 2names · 2010-08-09 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  ...and I wouldn't need to unhook it normally, but some douche bundled up some of our fiber runs in there and I need to move the dmarc...
  
  --
  "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
19. Re:Enough! by Junior+J.+Junior+III · 2010-08-09 04:01 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  # sudo take it off
  
  --
  You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
20. Re:Enough! by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2010-08-09 04:02 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  But I haven't programmed in that command just yet!
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
21. Re:Enough! by clone53421 · 2010-08-09 04:02 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Unzipping a fly with one hand is a bit like tying shoes.
  You’re an expert at tying shoes? Now go try tying someone else’s shoes.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
22. Re:Enough! by Nadaka · 2010-08-09 04:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Sometimes they like to be told what to do.
  This only applies in the bedroom.
  In all other circumstances they prefer to be the one telling you what to do.
23. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 04:09 · Score: 0
  
  This thread is useless without diagrams.
24. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 04:09 · Score: 0
  
  Huh, I didn't know that the girls you rape would do what you told them to?
25. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 04:12 · Score: 0
  
  You do realize that some of them have FOUR hooks, right? Sure it is easy on the one or two hook models for the smaller chested women. But on the 4 hook models for the larger chested - I defy you to do it with one hand in one "move"...
26. Re:Enough! by Pojut · 2010-08-09 04:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I don't think any of them cared that I did it one hand vs two hands...they just cared that I did it quickly. Being able to unhook a bra while having the other hand free to do...uh...other things was nice though :)
  Of course, the danger of trying to do it with one hand was if you screwed up or if they had a really wonky bra, suddenly you had to bring your other hand into the equation. That was impossible to do without looking like a moron. If you already started with two hands, that's fine...but if you started with one and ended with two, that meant you thought you were cooler than you actually were -_-;;
  
  --
  Living With a Nerd
27. Re:Enough! by pha3r0 · 2010-08-09 04:16 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I can't speak for every /.'er but I can do with 1 finger in one move. But seriously this is cool.
28. Re:Enough! by Ngarrang · 2010-08-09 04:21 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  More and more women are going braless, or are wearing a sports bra. Gone are the days of the hooks.
  
  --
  Bearded Dragon
29. Re:Enough! by breakfastpirate · 2010-08-09 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  I can understand why you didn't have access to a variety of bras to practice on, but aren't a lot of female pants similarly equipped with zipper flies? You think she could just practice on her own... Still a good scam though, kudos to you!
30. Re:Enough! by asukasoryu · 2010-08-09 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  Step 1: have lots of money.
  The bras remove themselves after that.
  
  --
  There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
31. Re:Enough! by Surt · 2010-08-09 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  Tying someone else's shoes turns out to be pretty easy, as most parents learn. It's a mirror symmetric problem, so it really is functionally the same.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
32. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  Tell her to take it off.
  Ask, don't tell.
  ...quoth the nice guy who is her friend. The guy she's banging left the asking/begging to someone else.
33. Re:Enough! by selven · 2010-08-09 04:23 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yes, because chicks dig recursion.
34. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  #sudo takeoff bra
35. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 04:27 · Score: 0
  
  What I find more interesting is how women can take a bra off in a single movement without removing the blouse or sweater. It is an awesome sight to see. In one moment they are sitting there, the next, voila! bra in hand without so much as a pinch of effort.
36. Re:Enough! by clone53421 · 2010-08-09 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  I never said it wasn’t easy. What isn’t easy is doing a “mirror symmetric problem” with no practice.
  Saying the alphabet backward is easy too, but that’s because I practiced it.
  zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcba
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
37. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 04:33 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  "haven't played it since." - DnD or bra unhooking? you're posting on slashdot ...
38. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 04:34 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  More and more women are going braless, or are wearing a sports bra. Gone are the days of the hooks.
  Why should we, heterosexual men, be denied that childlike pleasure of opening something to see what kind of prize you'd received? When we were younger, it was a toy in a cereal box, now that we're older the cereal box has been replaced with a bra and the toy, well, I guess you still play with breasts.
39. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  Opening a fly on your own pants requires some fairly different movements than opening someone else's.
  If you knew that though, you wouldn't be posting on /. ;)
40. Re:Enough! by CaseM · 2010-08-09 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  Duh, just throw dollar bills in her direction.
41. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 04:49 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  and the toy, well, I guess you still play with breasts
  Yeah, and my mom isn't there to tell me not to put them in my mouth.
42. Re:Enough! by duguk · 2010-08-09 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Enough with the Rubik's cube junk, someone please tell us how to unhook a bra with *1* move.
  Same method as with a Rubik's Cube; Stanley blade, and a careful knife technique.
  
  Or, y'know, just pull them off and stick them on the other side.
43. Re:Enough! by duguk · 2010-08-09 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  Opening a fly on your own pants requires some fairly different movements than opening someone else's.
  If you knew that though, you wouldn't be posting on /. ;)
  Speak for yourself
  
  *unzips*
44. Re:Enough! by Abstrackt · 2010-08-09 04:54 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  You do realize that some of them have FOUR hooks, right? Sure it is easy on the one or two hook models for the smaller chested women. But on the 4 hook models for the larger chested - I defy you to do it with one hand in one "move"...
  
  Bring me a large-breasted woman and I'll show you how it's done!
  
  --
  They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
45. Re:Enough! by IAmGarethAdams · 2010-08-09 05:11 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Why are you running sudo at a root prompt?
46. Re:Enough! by blair1q · 2010-08-09 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  RTFM
  $ man -k fonz
  fonz (1) - intimidate nerds, remove bras with one motion, raise thumbs, and jump sharks
47. Re:Enough! by blair1q · 2010-08-09 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  >It's all relative - what do you consider 1 move? I came across this argument during my first DnD session, and subsequently, haven't played it since.
  For you, 1 move is looking in the book.
  For me, 1 move is repeatedly bashing you with the flat of my 1d8 halberd until you are a glittering pink sheen on the mossy schist.
  Your move.
48. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  Tell her not to wear them. And that is 1 move ever...
49. Re:Enough! by guyminuslife · 2010-08-09 05:27 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I'm imagining this game session.
  You: "Alright, I'll unhook the wood nymph's bra."
  DM: "Okay, how do you do that?"
  [rest of gaming group listens intently]
  You: "Umm...I just, you know, unhook it?"
  DM: "Okay, we'll say it takes three rounds."
  You: "It doesn't take three rounds to unhook a bra!"
  DM: "Well, it takes your character three rounds."
  You: "That's bullshit. Have you ever done it?"
  DM: "SILENCE! YOU ARE BANISHED FROM DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS FOREVER!"
  
  --
  I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
50. Re:Enough! by McNihil · 2010-08-09 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  Surely just to be on the safe side ;-)
51. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  Why are you not familiar with csh enough to know that # isn't always a root prompt?
52. Re:Enough! by maxwell+demon · 2010-08-09 05:48 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I never said it wasn’t easy. What isn’t easy is doing a “mirror symmetric problem” with no practice.
  Saying the alphabet backward is easy too, but that’s because I practiced it.
  zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcba
  No, the alphabet backwards is of course:
  tebahpla eht.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
53. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  Placing the hand such that the forefinger is bent against the section of the bra closest to the back and the thumb is over the piece in the foreground with the hooks, slide in the detaching direction with the thumb.
  Alternatively, just ask her to take it off for you ... but that may be a problem if you didn't actually know the girl on the bus in the first place.
  Sounds like assembly language.
54. Re:Enough! by c · 2010-08-09 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  You're making the assumption that she's alive, conscious, willing and able. This is slashdot, remember...
  
  --
  Log in or piss off.
55. Re:Enough! by SeePage87 · 2010-08-09 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  If you're in front of her, use your left hand and pinch your thumb and first two fingers fingers together on either side of the clasp. If you're behind her, use your right hand.
56. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 06:01 · Score: 0
  
  Root access is pretty uncommon in real life. It's not like in porn. Even when you are the only one who has super-user privileges you often only get to access the /V and /M folders, while the /A folder is completely inaccessible.
57. Re:Enough! by guruevi · 2010-08-09 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  That way it gets logged in the syslog - we /.-ers need that kind of proof or others won't believe us.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
58. Re:Enough! by celesteh · 2010-08-09 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  apt-get remove bra
59. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 06:34 · Score: 0
  
  Sometimes they like to be told what to do.
  This only applies in the bedroom.
  In all other circumstances they prefer to be the one telling you what to do.
  Not true. "Buy that dress!" Try it.
60. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  German speaking Russian native
  SEO Manager SEO Executive CV http://www.resdays.com/SEO-Manager-CV
61. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 06:47 · Score: 0
  
  DnD session? Obviously it's 2 moves, first drag then drop :S
62. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  csh
  Ahahaha.
63. Re:Enough! by CeruleanDragon · 2010-08-09 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  No command 'take' found, did you mean:
  Command 'tmake' from package 'tmake' (universe)
  Command 'bake' from package 'bake' (universe)
  Command 'fake' from package 'fake' (universe)
  Command 'rake' from package 'rake' (universe)
  Command 'toke' from package 'fcode-utils' (universe)
  Command 'make' from package 'make' (main)
  Command 'cake' from package 'cakephp-scripts' (universe)
  take: command not found
  $ sudo apt-get remove bra-38.0d
  
  --
  ad astra per alia porci
64. Re:Enough! by Kilrah_il · 2010-08-09 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  I don't understand:
  Step 1 - Unhook bra.
  Step 2 - ???
  Step 3 - Profit...?
  I seem to be missing something. Anyone?
  
  --
  Whenever in an argument, remember this.
65. Re:Enough! by ArsonSmith · 2010-08-09 07:30 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  shouldn't that be
  1) unhook bra
  2) ???
  3) loss (child support, alimony, daycare, etc...)
  but step 2 was fun.
  
  --
  Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
66. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 07:31 · Score: 0
  
  Usually, the girl is laying on her back with me on top while in the process of getting undressed. I always tell them to "hug me tight", and then "no, hug me tighter", and lift us backwards off the bed so we are now sitting on the bed. She's in a really awkward position unable to do anything but fall backwards if she lets go of you, so it's a convenient time to take her shirt off (doable without her falling) and her bra off if it's your first time with her and she's a little too shy.
67. Re:Enough! by ArsonSmith · 2010-08-09 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  I thought this was news for nerds, not news for murderous, abusive rapists???
  
  --
  Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
68. Re:Enough! by bluie- · 2010-08-09 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  hmm, i wonder how many hooks a woman like this requires. Well, when she wears a bra anyway.
  
  --
  life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think
69. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 07:45 · Score: 0
  
  I find that once you've rolled them over for easier access, it's fairly straightforward.
70. Re:Enough! by cayenne8 · 2010-08-09 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Err...at that point, I just tell her to take the damned thing off..."now", and grin at her.
  Never had a problem with that working...and then I had 2x hands to be busy doing other things!!
  :)
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
71. Re:Enough! by Wodenedow · 2010-08-09 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  For a standard bra that has a single hook in the back the "one move" is a snapping motion in which the thumb drags across the middle then index finger. The hard part is positioning.... Thumb needs to be on one side of hook, index and middle finger on the other, bring them together in a pinching motion that turns into the snapping motion (not fast, but similar in action). It works amazingly well, but I do this left handed, and you probably need to as well. ;)
72. Re:Enough! by Locke2005 · 2010-08-09 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Easier still:
  
  Step 1:
  Find a girlfriend that doesn't wear bras!
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
73. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 08:46 · Score: 0
  
  No way. Somebody on /. who understands. Will wonders never cease?
74. Re:Enough! by BlueParrot · 2010-08-09 09:08 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  You know we also tend to really dislike? Having people assume they know what we want as if we were all the same.
75. Re:Enough! by joebagodonuts · 2010-08-09 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  To paraphrase Sgt Hulka: "Lighten up, ArsonSmith"
  
  --
  "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
76. Re:Enough! by camperdave · 2010-08-09 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  "haven't played it since." - DnD or bra unhooking? you're posting on slashdot ...
  
  Playing one generally precludes playing the other.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
77. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 09:58 · Score: 0
  
  Now THAT'S helpful. Posters take note.
78. Re:Enough! by GSV+Eat+Me+Reality · 2010-08-09 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  He actually only needs to know how to unhook a bra because it's currently holding a bundle of Cat6 together. ... and he would need to find the old Unix sysadmin who put it there in the first place.
79. Re:Enough! by GSV+Eat+Me+Reality · 2010-08-09 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  If one is that confused at that point, it might be a good idea to slow down, take a deep breath, and ensure that one isn't going to unintentionally create any unwanted child processes by running an unfamiliar command as the root user.
80. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 11:06 · Score: 0
  
  Thumb on one side of catch, forefinger on the other. Push gently into back while drawing thumb and forefinger together. Done.
81. Re:Enough! by GSV+Eat+Me+Reality · 2010-08-09 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  That, 'old man', is the best comment I've seen on this subject yet. +5 Instructive, on both points ;-)
82. Re:Enough! by im_thatoneguy · 2010-08-09 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  Bah. Flys are easy regardless of direction. It's a linear motion. Grip and rip. Nothing like tieing a shoe which requires overlapping and directional mirroring in the head.
  Grab fly. Pull down. Where's the trouble?
  Maybe if you had never unzipped a tent, back pack, thermos, or jacket on a hanger it would be hard. But... I would imagine by the age of 5 you would be quite adept at all those.
83. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 12:32 · Score: 0
  
  And don't even get me started on trying to have multiple simultaneous logins!
84. Re:Enough! by c · 2010-08-09 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  I strongly suspect that murderous, abusive rapists have little trouble with bras...
  
  --
  Log in or piss off.
85. Re:Enough! by Thing+1 · 2010-08-09 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, this article is about ReiserFS? Man it's confusing after 40.
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
86. Re:Enough! by rjch · 2010-08-09 13:05 · Score: 1
  
  ...then we're nerds. Yes, we're fully aware this is Slashdot.
87. Re:Enough! by Alfonso+Vallarta · 2010-08-09 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  Easily, just requires practice: left hand's thumb and forefinger pinch the clip. It'll be done before she can tell when ye get the hang of it.
88. Re:Enough! by Profane+MuthaFucka · 2010-08-09 16:51 · Score: 1
  
  I never understood why anybody would need to remove a bra from a woman. Usually you can just pick them out of their dirty laundry far more easily.
  
  --
  Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
89. Re:Enough! by Dr+Dodgy · 2010-08-09 21:09 · Score: 1
  
  but step 2 was fun.
  Come on, this is slashdot, no one actually knows that, hence the ???
90. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 03:23 · Score: 0
  
  you want your thumb just at the end of the final two hooks, your index finger between the first two and your middle finger between the last two. bring your thumb to your index finger then both towards the middle while curling the clasp back.
  this will rotate the hooks up and out rather than having to slide them out first.
  I spent a couple of months in Germany.
91. Re:Enough! by MikeBabcock · 2010-08-10 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  I was tempted to insert a disclaimer about the number of hooks, but I don't see my fellow geeks trying this on many four and five hook bra clasps.
  PS don't use scissors, girls hate that. lol
  
  --
  - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
92. Re:Enough! by Kilrah_il · 2010-08-10 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  I thought ??? was "sell bra" -> Profit! Am I missing something?
  
  --
  Whenever in an argument, remember this.
93. Re:Enough! by RockDoctor · 2010-08-10 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  I never said it wasn't easy. What isn't easy is doing a "mirror symmetric problem" with no practice.
  Saying the alphabet backward is easy too, but that's because I practiced it.
  You can write with pencil or pen? That'd be - if you're normal and writing in Latin script, with your left-hand, and moving from left to right.
  Mirror-symmetric problem : use your right hand and write from right to left. Or with your left hand from right to left. Or your right hand from left to right.
  There's another 4 variants for writing upside down (so that the person across the table from you can read it).
  After that, you've got a head start on learning the Russian or Semitic scripts.
  (Before you ask : I was bored one summer, and noticed something in a book about Leonardo of Quirm.)
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
94. Re:Enough! by kalirion · 2010-08-10 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  What the hell kind of DM is that? Not even a mention of rolling a d20!
95. Re:Enough! by clone53421 · 2010-08-10 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  You can write with pencil or pen? That'd be - if you're normal and writing in Latin script, with your left-hand, and moving from left to right.
  No... I’m normal and writing in Latin script, with my right hand, from left to right. I only write left-handed when I’m particularly bored.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
96. Re:Enough! by GSV+Eat+Me+Reality · 2010-08-10 18:43 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed! Might be too complex for many of them...
  "Scissors", hah. Back in the 80s, for a brief but very fun time, I ran with a carny gal who didn't object to me using my sheath knife to remove any obstacles between us. This was back in the times when actually carrying the afore-mentioned terrorism weapon was not frowned upon, of course.
  I am certainly much more civilized now. I would not use just any old knife, I would use a suitably un-sharpened, socially fashionable, Branded(TM), DHS and Iron Chef approved, dull steak knife.
  One must keep up with the times, after all.
  GSVEMR
97. Re:Enough! by GSV+Eat+Me+Reality · 2010-08-10 18:52 · Score: 1
  
  I must, at the insistence of my SO, retract the part about "Iron Chef approved" dull steak knives.
  I do not watch TV, and therefore I was not aware that the people on the Iron Chef shows actually use sharp knives.
  Consider that part of my statement duly redacted.
  GSVEMR
98. Re:Enough! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-11 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  sad that u haven't seen your one-armed grandma in over ten years. My question is how did you get the ladies back into the bra to try again?
99. Re:Enough! by RockDoctor · 2010-08-11 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  Wondered if you'd spot that.
  I had a lovely row one year with one of our technicians who insisted on building workstations (into portable laboratories) that could only be used effectively by right-handers. He insisted on continuing to do it that way, despite being shown that the majority of the staff who were going to be using the labs were left-handed. Nice guy, good friend, damned good technician, but a real pain in the arse about this particular point. Don't know why - I'll have to ask him next time I see him.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
The exact sequences by Drakkenmensch · 2010-08-09 03:34 · Score: 4, Funny

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.
1. Re:The exact sequences by MozeeToby · 2010-08-09 03:42 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  1) Turn one face 45 degrees
  2) Pry upward on one middle edge piece until it pops out
  3) Remove all edge and corner pieces
  4) Put the cube back together, but flip exactly 1 edge piece
  5) Give it to someone who knows how to solve it
  6) Laugh maniacally when they just can't seem to get that last piece where it belongs.
2. Re:The exact sequences by Drakkenmensch · 2010-08-09 03:43 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Your method, while functional, shows a decided lack of hitting the cube with a hammer. Where's the fun in that?
3. Re:The exact sequences by Pennidren · 2010-08-09 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  I always just rearranged the stickers.
4. Re:The exact sequences by ifrag · 2010-08-09 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  This would be a fairly obvious misplacement to anyone familiar with solving technique (as provided in #5) since there is no sequence to modify only one edge out of place at the end of a solve.
  
  --
  Fear is the mind killer.
5. Re:The exact sequences by clone53421 · 2010-08-09 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  Am I mistaken in presuming that you meant “corner piece”, not “middle edge piece”, in step 2?
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
6. Re:The exact sequences by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 06:43 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, you are mistaken.
7. Re:The exact sequences by Kagura · 2010-08-09 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  I have a Rubik's Cube that is very pretty, so when I leave it around people like to play with it and be clumsy and drop it on accident, causing pieces to explode off of it and need to be put back on it. If I'm around I can fix it fairly fast, but if I'm not around then people just put them on in random places and call it good...
  
  Long story short, this makes it harder to solve and turns it into an added puzzle, but it doesn't make it impossible. The solver just needs to use some actual thinking instead of algorithms to solve it now.
8. Re:The exact sequences by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 10:25 · Score: 0
  
  Well, there are people who have solved the cube without cheating (i.e. looking up the solution from somewhere). At some point of that process there is usually a moment when you can indeed solve it but aren't aware that rotating a single edge is impossible.
9. Re:The exact sequences by MozeeToby · 2010-08-11 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  No, no you can't. Pieces aren't completely independent of each other and it is impossible to flip the orientation of an edge piece without changing the orientation of some other pieces as well. Try what I described above for yourself and see; solve the cube, flip a single edge piece, then try solving it again. You won't be able to without taking the cube apart.
The REAL story here: by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 03:36 · Score: 0

Google invents time machine to improve compute capabilities!
1. Re:The REAL story here: by Jurily · 2010-08-09 03:37 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Oh, they had that for centuries.
2. Re:The REAL story here: by The+MAZZTer · 2010-08-09 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  35 "computing years" is not the same as normal years. It's like saying 100 man hours. It can be 35 computers for 1 year, or 7 computers for 5 years.
3. Re:The REAL story here: by hedwards · 2010-08-09 03:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  100 man hours? Is that like 9 pregnancy months?
4. Re:The REAL story here: by Surt · 2010-08-09 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Or 1 computer for 1 day if the reference computer is an 8086. Or more likely if you are google, 12,775 computers for 1 day.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
5. Re:The REAL story here: by Bishop923 · 2010-08-09 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  Knowing Google it was probably more like 3500 computers for 3.5 days.
6. Re:The REAL story here: by Bigjeff5 · 2010-08-09 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly, but if you use 9 women you get that baby in 1 month!
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
There is a good reason by calderra · 2010-08-09 03:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
Downsides by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 03:36 · Score: 0

20 mechanical turk sweatshop workers and 157 pigeons died to get this information.
Another way of thinking about this. by dmomo · 2010-08-09 03:38 · Score: 4, Informative

The shortest path between any two configurations (be them solved or not) on a graph of all possibilities will be no greater than 20.
1. Re:Another way of thinking about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 03:56 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  The shortest path between any two configurations (be them solved or not) on a graph of all possibilities will be no greater than 20.
  This only guarantees a shortest path of length 40.
  If the "solved" state lies on the path then it is no more than 20 to it from one configuration, and no more than 20 from it to the second configuration.
2. Re:Another way of thinking about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 03:57 · Score: 0
  
  The shortest path between any two configurations (be them solved or not) on a graph of all possibilities will be no greater than 20.
  Are you sure it's not 40?
3. Re:Another way of thinking about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 04:00 · Score: 0
  
  Not true: to get from one unsolved configuration to another you may have to first solve (20 moves) then scramble again (20 moves), for a total of no more than 40 moves but possibly more than 20.
4. Re:Another way of thinking about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 04:11 · Score: 0
  
  Can you prove that?
  Call configuration S "solved". Then it seems to me there could be configurations A and B such that distance(A,S) = 20 and distance(B,S) = 20, but where do you get that distance(A,B) = 20 as well?
  By the triangle inequality we have that distance(A,B) = 40 for sure. Could there be certain Byzantine configurations A and B which are more than 20 moves apart from one another?
5. Re:Another way of thinking about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 04:11 · Score: 0
  
  But isn't the solved configuration as arbitrary as any other?
6. Re:Another way of thinking about this. by Sir_Lewk · 2010-08-09 04:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  As far as I can tell, by simply redefining "solved" any state should be reachable from any other in 20. There's nothing particularly special about all the colours being on the same sides.
  1) start from any scrambled state, call it "solved"
  2) scramble the cube
  3) "solve" in 20 moves.
  
  --
  "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
7. Re:Another way of thinking about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 04:18 · Score: 0
  
  Another way of thinking about it?
  Was the time to accomplish this useless task at taxpayer expense?
  The captcha for me to send this was manure .
  How very appropriate for the task!
8. Re:Another way of thinking about this. by Racemaniac · 2010-08-09 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  as someone else nicely said. you can name any configuration "solved", so any configuration can then in 20 moves be reconfigured to your solved state
  or in your nice notation, say that A = S (or B = S) and you've got your proof?
9. Re:Another way of thinking about this. by Kjella · 2010-08-09 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Imagine you took two solved cubes and twisted the top third of one and the bottom third of the other. The path to a solution has length 1 but getting from one to the other has length 2, so it's not automatically equivalent. However, specifically for the full Rubrik's cube you may be correct. If we take the arbitrary end position, take off all the stickers and reattach them as a solved cube, then there must be a solution from the solved cube to the starting position. So using the same moves we should be able to get between any arbitrary configuration in 20 moves. But of course you already understood that and I just had to spell out the details ;)
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
10. Re:Another way of thinking about this. by index0 · 2010-08-09 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  I think you mean between any state and the solved state. Not any two states.
11. Re:Another way of thinking about this. by 91degrees · 2010-08-09 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  As another person pointed out, the solved state is simply one arbitrary arrangement.
  
  You could repaint each side in an unsolved state and get from there to any position within 20 moves, including the position that will be the second unsolved position should you remove the paint.
12. Re:Another way of thinking about this. by clone53421 · 2010-08-09 06:28 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Note that the arrangement is not fully arbitrary: there are some arrangements which it is impossible to reach. Not only of the stickers, either (everyone knew that you could make a cube unsolvable by moving the stickers around, right?): it is possible without moving any of the stickers to arrange the pieces themselves in such a way that it is impossible to reach the solved state without taking the cube apart again.
  However, among reachable arrangements, your statement is valid. I suspect you probably knew that, but other people mightn’t have.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
13. Re:Another way of thinking about this. by Brian+Feldman · 2010-08-09 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  The shortest path between any two configurations (be them solved or not) on a graph of all possibilities will be no greater than 20.
  This only guarantees a shortest path of length 40.
  If the "solved" state lies on the path then it is no more than 20 to it from one configuration, and no more than 20 from it to the second configuration.
  What makes you think there is anything special about the "solved" state other than that it can be encoded with very little information (only one color showing per side)?
  
  --
  Brian Fundakowski Feldman
14. Re:Another way of thinking about this. by dmomo · 2010-08-09 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  No. The statement is still valid. It's not about the actual path between two states. It's about saying "i can guarantee that there is a solution which is 20 turns and smaller". Of course, all configurations must be valid for this to apply.
15. Re:Another way of thinking about this. by dmomo · 2010-08-09 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, when you think about it, you have an interesting idea in there. You move two different cubes in an opposite direction, right? Well, if you move 2 cubes "20 turns" in opposite directions, there will most likely be a path from the state of cube A to the state of cube B, which is more optimal than returning to the fixed state. Neat
16. Re:Another way of thinking about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 02:00 · Score: 0
  
  Nonsense.
  The solved state is just like any other state, mathematically. A method for getting from any state to the solved state is equally valid for getting from any state to any other non-solved state.
  If you can get from A (scrambled) to B (solved) in 20 steps, then you can get from A (scrambled) to C (not solved) in 20 steps as well.
  There is no need to go via B (solved) and nothing special about B (solved) as compared to any other state C (not solved).
  Basically, you don't get it. Yet.
That's nothing by Rhaban · 2010-08-09 03:38 · Score: 1

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).
1. Re:That's nothing by The+MAZZTer · 2010-08-09 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Actually 1 move isn't hard, because there are only 12 possible moves, thus 12^1 = 12 permutations. It does not take much processing power to find one rubik's cube that none of the 12 permutations will solve.
2. Re:That's nothing by Rhaban · 2010-08-09 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  The computer time is necessary to find the move that isn't one of the 12 we usually think of, and will solve any cube.
3. Re:That's nothing by Rary · 2010-08-09 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  I got a team working on solving Rubik's cube in 1 move.
  That's easy.
  Step 1. Don't scramble the cube.
  Voila!
  
  --
  "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
35 years of computer time?!?! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 03:38 · Score: 0

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?
1. Re:35 years of computer time?!?! by Skippyboy · 2010-08-09 03:50 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Finally, we were able to distribute the 55,882,296 cosets of H among a large number of computers at Google and complete the computation in just a few weeks. Google does not release information on their computer systems, but it would take a good desktop PC (Intel Nehalem, four-core, 2.8GHz) 1.1 billion seconds, or about 35 CPU years, to perform this calculation.
  
  From the article. They are guessing based on a known configuration how long it would take.
  
  --
  My Slashdot Journal! YAY!
2. Re:35 years of computer time?!?! by Volante3192 · 2010-08-09 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  Do you have a problem with the phrase 'man hours' too?
  100 man hours = 1 man, 100 hours or 10 men, 10 hours or 100 men, 1 hour.
  35 computer years = 1 computer, 35 years or 5 computers, 7 years or 35 computers, 1 year.
  (although it's more likely 'processor hours,' but the theory still holds.)
3. Re:35 years of computer time?!?! by BatGnat · 2010-08-09 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, lets call shenanigans.
  
  My commodore 64 could have done it 34 years....
35 years of computer time by Culture20 · 2010-08-09 03:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

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?).
1. Re:35 years of computer time by pspahn · 2010-08-09 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  What about Moore's Law? Do they consider that in their equation? 35 years of computer time is only 17.5 years of computer time a couple years or so from now.
  
  --
  Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
2. Re:35 years of computer time by MMC+Monster · 2010-08-09 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  And considering the processor speeds from 35 years ago, I'm not sure if I would want an application such as this running that long, anyway.
  
  --
  Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
3. Re:35 years of computer time by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 04:13 · Score: 0
  
  FTFA
  
  Google does not release information on their computer systems, but it would take a good desktop PC (Intel Nehalem, four-core, 2.8GHz) 1.1 billion seconds, or about 35 CPU years, to perform this calculation.
4. Re:35 years of computer time by Nukenin · 2010-08-09 04:17 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  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.
  A simple visit to the web page followed by a modicum of reading would have led you to the following (emphasis added):
  
  Lots of Computers
  Finally, we were able to distribute the 55,882,296 cosets of H among a large number of computers at Google and complete the computation in just a few weeks. Google does not release information on their computer systems, but it would take a good desktop PC (Intel Nehalem, four-core, 2.8GHz) 1.1 billion seconds, or about 35 CPU years, to perform this calculation. .
5. Re:35 years of computer time by rawler · 2010-08-09 04:19 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Except clock-cycles, which is what you get from your equation, is also not a good measurement of "computer usage".
  However, Google Tech Talks had a rather nice explanation of the algorithm and core mechanics for solving the problem a couple of years ago. Quite interesting for anyone in supercomputing, or just plain old curiosity.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQw7c-PliB4
6. Re:35 years of computer time by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  If it's an option we should ALWAYS be talking ancient giant sea-scorpions.
7. Re:35 years of computer time by Da+Cheez · 2010-08-09 04:26 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  This is explained. From TFA: Finally, we were able to distribute the 55,882,296 cosets of H among a large number of computers at Google and complete the computation in just a few weeks. Google does not release information on their computer systems, but it would take a good desktop PC (Intel Nehalem, four-core, 2.8GHz) 1.1 billion seconds, or about 35 CPU years, to perform this calculation.
8. Re:35 years of computer time by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 04:30 · Score: 0
  
  If you read tfa, you'll see that they answer your question.
9. Re:35 years of computer time by Dumnezeu · 2010-08-09 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  I'll make it easier for you: it's over nine thousand!
  
  --
  Yes, it's sarcasm. Deal with it!
10. Re:35 years of computer time by hatten · 2010-08-09 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  Uhm, well, RTFA?
  
  Finally, we were able to distribute the 55,882,296 cosets of H among a large number of computers at Google and complete the computation in just a few weeks. Google does not release information on their computer systems, but it would take a good desktop PC (Intel Nehalem, four-core, 2.8GHz) 1.1 billion seconds, or about 35 CPU years, to perform this calculation.
11. Re:35 years of computer time by bruckie · 2010-08-09 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  Um, they did. From the article:
  
  it would take a good desktop PC (Intel Nehalem, four-core, 2.8GHz) 1.1 billion seconds, or about 35 CPU years, to perform this calculation
  
  --
  There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't.
12. Re:35 years of computer time by Eil · 2010-08-09 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  They did in TFA.
13. Re:35 years of computer time by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 19:01 · Score: 0
  
  RTFA.
  "Finally, we were able to distribute the 55,882,296 cosets of H among a large number of computers at Google and complete the computation in just a few weeks. Google does not release information on their computer systems, but it would take a good desktop PC (Intel Nehalem, four-core, 2.8GHz) 1.1 billion seconds, or about 35 CPU years, to perform this calculation."
  They even gave the processor model, which I think is an Intel Core i7-920.
35 years?!!! by line-bundle · 2010-08-09 03:41 · Score: 0, Redundant

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?
1. Re:35 years?!!! by Cruciform · 2010-08-09 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  They started it on an ENIAC emulator and then sped it up according to Moore's Law.
  All very proper.
2. Re:35 years?!!! by Canazza · 2010-08-09 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  it was probably 35 CPUs running for a Year. or 70 running for 6 months. article is BS
  
  --
  It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
3. Re:35 years?!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 03:59 · Score: 0
  
  Why start so late? Perhaps the Atanasoff-Berry Computer, which was what the ENIAC was based on, would be a better starting point?
4. Re:35 years?!!! by interval1066 · 2010-08-09 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  No no no, Brin started the computation 35 years ago on his TRS-80, then upgraded hardware as his career started taking off.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
5. Re:35 years?!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  TFA.
  
  Finally, we were able to distribute the 55,882,296 cosets of H among a large number of computers at Google and complete the computation in just a few weeks. Google does not release information on their computer systems, but it would take a good desktop PC (Intel Nehalem, four-core, 2.8GHz) 1.1 billion seconds, or about 35 CPU years, to perform this calculation.
  Was that so hard?
6. Re:35 years?!!! by Flambergius · 2010-08-09 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  From the article (www.cube20.org): "Google does not release information on their computer systems, but it would take a good desktop PC (Intel Nehalem, four-core, 2.8GHz) 1.1 billion seconds, or about 35 CPU years, to perform this calculation."
  Maybe read the article next time.
  
  --
  Computers are useless. They can only give you answers - Pablo Picasso
7. Re:35 years?!!! by Arrepiadd · 2010-08-09 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  Which, most likely, ends up being 140 years (as the computer has 4 cores) and not 35 but, as someone already mentioned, this sort of metric is close to meaningless.
8. Re:35 years?!!! by Bigjeff5 · 2010-08-09 04:31 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Obviously the "computer" is one of Google's datacenter machines, which you could equate to a modern enterprise level server. Being too specific doesn't help nearly as much as you think it does. Furthermore:
  1 computer running for 35 years = 35 computer years.
  35 computers running for 1 year = 35 computer years.
  70 computers running for 6 months = 35 computer years.
  140 computers running for 3 months = 35 computer years.
  420 computers running for 1 month = 35 computer years.
  12,600 computers running for 1 day = 35 computer years.
  Google gave them 35 computer years worth of time on one of their clusters, for all we know it could have been an hour of total time on the cluster (though that would be 300,000+ machines, so probably not). It probably wasn't more than a few months of actual time calculating.
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
9. Re:35 years?!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 05:30 · Score: 0
  
  It was the unreliability that decided it.
  All the cycles dedicated to unreliability have been dedicated to the Virtual Ashcroft and Virtual Cheney projects.
The simulation cheated... by TheRedDuke · 2010-08-09 03:41 · Score: 1

It was supposed to solve it, not rearrange the stickers.
1. Re:The simulation cheated... by arb+phd+slp · 2010-08-09 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  If ever a computer comes up with that solution, then I owe Kurzweil an apology for doubting him, since the Singularity will indeed be upon us.
  
  --
  There's a perfect xkcd for my sig but I'm too lazy to look it up. sudo someone go find it.
Why approximate numbers? by Romario77 · 2010-08-09 03:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

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
1. Re:Why approximate numbers? by braeldiil · 2010-08-09 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  Because they weren't looking for the best solution, just ones that were 20 moves or less. So some of the items they have tagged as taking 20 moves might instead take 16-19.
2. Re:Why approximate numbers? by WorkerGnome · 2010-08-09 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  No--While they solved every position in 20 moves or less, they did not search for the optimal solution for each position. So if they solved a position in 20 moves, they stopped solving it, even if there was a possible 19 move solution.
3. Re:Why approximate numbers? by thehickcoder · 2010-08-09 03:54 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I believe the article said their solution algorithm did not search for optimal solutions, only for those that are 20 moves or less. (It has already been proven that there exist positions that can not be solved in less than 20 moves)
  So, they can probably give an upper bound on the number of positions solvable in 20 moves, but not an exact number.
4. Re:Why approximate numbers? by BitterKraut · 2010-08-09 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Distance 16 to 20 are estimates. Their sum is known, but not the exact distribution.
5. Re:Why approximate numbers? by grimJester · 2010-08-09 03:59 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  They quit testing moves when they found a solution in 20 moves for a given starting state. This means they don't know if a given starting state requires 20 moves. There may be an 18-move solution that they missed.
6. Re:Why approximate numbers? by Romario77 · 2010-08-09 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  That makes sense. May be in another 15 years we'll have exact numbers :)
7. Re:Why approximate numbers? by Rigrig · 2010-08-09 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  They only solved each position in 20 moves or less, not necessarily in the least possible moves for that position. Since there already was a known position that takes 20 moves this was sufficient to prove 20 moves is the maximum needed, and this sped up the solving by a factor of 1000ish.
  
  --
  **TODO** [X] Steal someone elses sig.
8. Re:Why approximate numbers? by Pixie_From_Hell · 2010-08-09 04:30 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  No, they've proved that the superflip (the position where all the edge pieces are flipped and the corners and centers are in place) is 20 face turns from solved. Thus before this new work it was already known that the general solution required at least 20 face turns, and this work says that 20 is sufficient. So 20 it is!
22 in the graphic?? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 03:44 · Score: 0

Why does the graphic on the left show 22 moves? if the number is 20
Good use of resources there, GOOG. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 03:45 · Score: -1, Troll

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.
Wow. What a revelation. I hope whatever fossil fuels were burned and associated CO2 that was ejected into the atmosphere was worth it.
Thank God we know how by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 03:47 · Score: 0

Now if they'd put the same effort in defeating the common cold...
They're counting double moves as one by BitterKraut · 2010-08-09 03:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
1. Re:They're counting double moves as one by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  Agree. A quarter turn is one move.
2. Re:They're counting double moves as one by allusionist · 2010-08-09 04:08 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  It's a bit subjective, honestly. I count 18 elementary moves - each of the 6 faces rotated in one of three ways - quarter clockwise, quarter counterclockwise, or half. Some people also consider slices (rotating the center but not the sides) an elementary move, giving 6 more elementary moves (each of the two slices rotated 3 ways) - I consider them two opposing edge rotations, just as you consider a half rotation two quarter rotations. In the end, however, all that matters is consistency - if you can solve a configuration in 10 moves (counting a single half-turn as two moves) and I say I can solve it in 9 (by counting it differently) that's when we have a problem. But in a case like this, since they are already setting an arbitrary target number of moves, it doesn't matter how they count them /so long as the results are compared to other results counted in the same way/.
3. Re:They're counting double moves as one by Volante3192 · 2010-08-09 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  So would you consider opening a simple 3-number combination lock 3 moves (left/right/left) or tens to hundreds of moves (left +1, left +1, left +1.... right +1 right +1....)?
  (Or s/temp/right/g; s/right/left/g; s/left/temp/g; ... i forget the details of direction)
4. Re:They're counting double moves as one by Pixie_From_Hell · 2010-08-09 04:35 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  They are just different metrics. What you're talking about is the quarter turn metric, and this proof is about the face turn metric. There is apparently a position that is known to be a distance 26 quarter turns from solved, so your answer would be at least 26.
5. Re:They're counting double moves as one by whoisisis · 2010-08-09 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  They don't need to actually rotate the cube to solve it in 20 or less moves, they just use rotation
  and symmetry as an argument as to why they don't bother also solving the "mirror" state.
  To solve it without rotating 180 degrees they just copy the solution, but reverse directions.
  Strictly speaking, you never need to rotate a cube to solve it, but it's practical to do so because
  you can only view the cube from one angel at a time.
6. Re:They're counting double moves as one by clone53421 · 2010-08-09 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  He wasn’t talking about rotating the entire cube, he was talking about rotating a single face 180 degrees.
  Normally I think of 3 primary moves for each face: F, F', and F2 for instance, corresponding to a 90 degree clockwise turn, a 90 degree counterclockwise turn, and a 180 degree turn.
  What he is claiming is that F2 shouldn’t count because it’s equivalent to either FF or F'F'. However, since F' is equivalent to FFF, should that not count either? As I see it, rotating one face through any degree turn is one move, whether that is 90, 180, or 270 (-90) degrees.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
7. Re:They're counting double moves as one by BitterKraut · 2010-08-09 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  By face rotations I didn't mean rotating or orienting the whole cube. I meant actual turns of cube faces against the rest of the cube. I am sorry if my choice of terms is misleading. English is not my native language.
8. Re:They're counting double moves as one by KingOfTheMoon · 2010-08-09 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. Judging from the "superflip" video, it also looks like they count rotating a center layer as one move, even though the video does it in two. They do it twice, so it takes 22 motions to solve in the video.
9. Re:They're counting double moves as one by BitterKraut · 2010-08-09 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the heads up, this had escaped me. Perhaps they proved their result only non-constructively, so we know it can be done in 20 moves, but we don't know how. Counting a slice turn as one move would be a little brazen.
35 years by redmond · 2010-08-09 03:59 · Score: 2, Funny

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
1. Re:35 years by madprof · 2010-08-09 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Just as a thought - how do you define 35 years of computer time?
  Like, which computer? I mean that's a pretty stupid definition because 35 years of my crappy desktop could be done quite easily whereas 35 years of a Cray XT5 Jaguar system might be a little trickier.
  Well done for doing a side though. I can't even do that.
Ok, great.... by interval1066 · 2010-08-09 04:00 · Score: 1

...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".'
Schrödinger's solution: by clone53421 · 2010-08-09 04:06 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:Schrödinger's solution: by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 04:13 · Score: 0
  
  Hence why I think Schrodinger, and most Quantum Physisists, are idiots.
2. Re:Schrödinger's solution: by Rhaban · 2010-08-09 06:59 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  In fact, Schroedinger's cat story was meant to show that quantum physics was just a model, and particles were not really in two different states simultaneously. But most people understood it the wrong way, and now most mentions of the cat experiment promote the oposite idea of what was the initial goal.
[off-topic] Gramar by pfiver · 2010-08-09 04:09 · Score: 1

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 Idle? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 04:10 · Score: 0

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?
Laplace Transforms for Rubik's cube... by clone53421 · 2010-08-09 04:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Laplace Transforms for Rubik's cube... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 07:31 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not sure I believe your claim of QED, but I could be misunderstanding. For example, suppose your sticker rearrangement put three white stickers on the same corner-piece. With this arrangement, there is no way to complete step 3.
2. Re:Laplace Transforms for Rubik's cube... by clone53421 · 2010-08-09 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  What I was trying to say by a “consistent” transformation system is that any cube which is solvable from A must also be solvable from X.
  To borrow another person’s analogy, though:
  If you took a cube in state B, put new stickers on top of the old ones so that it was solved S, then there would be some state X, reachable in 20 moves or less, at which point you could peel off all the topmost stickers and the cube would be left in state A.
  At this point, you could apply the same solution in reverse to go from A to B directly in 20 moves or less.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Wow by zoomshorts · 2010-08-09 04:18 · Score: 0

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!!!
Two steps. by Radak · 2010-08-09 04:19 · Score: 1

Step 1: Remove the stickers.
Step 2: Reapply the stickers,
1. Re:Two steps. by maxume · 2010-08-09 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  Why not just trade it for a nice box of crayons?
  
  --
  Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
2. Re:Two steps. by maxwell+demon · 2010-08-09 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  There is no cube which can be solved with two steps this way. The minimum (except for the trivial case of an already solved cube) is eight steps (that's for two rotated edge cubes: 1. Remove first sticker from first cube, 2. Remove second sticker from first cube, 3. Remove first sticker from second cube, 4. Remove second sticker from second cube, 5. Put first sticker at correct place, 6. Put second sticker at correct place, 7. Put third sticker at correct place, 8. Put fourth sticker at correct place).
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Zero moves... by flyingfsck · 2010-08-09 04:19 · Score: 1

Get a small titted girlfriend. They don't wear bras.

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Graph of Count vs. Distance by sdo1 · 2010-08-09 04:22 · Score: 1

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?
1. Re:Graph of Count vs. Distance by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 07:46 · Score: 0
  
  I'm guessing that would be because the number of positions increases exponentionally, until you get to the point where positions begin to overlap.
How much computing power is this, really? by Entropius · 2010-08-09 04:22 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
1. Re:How much computing power is this, really? by ceejayoz · 2010-08-09 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  It's probably quite a bit lower for Google, as they probably just used idle cycles during periods of lower load on their datacenters.
2. Re:How much computing power is this, really? by Entropius · 2010-08-09 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  It's probably also a lot lower since much of the price of a supercomputer is the expensive Infiniband interconnect architecture. I imagine the way they're doing this is heavily compute-limited, not communication-limited, so you could do it on commodity desktops in spare time.
  Actually, you could probably do it on GPU's, come to think about it.
Obligatory XKCD by ryzvonusef · 2010-08-09 04:24 · Score: 2, Funny

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!
1. Re:Obligatory XKCD by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 09:04 · Score: 0
  
  Get out of 2names' head, Randall!
  http://xkcd.com/457/ [xkcd.com]
  I think that this XKCD is more appropriate.
Re:Enough! Super model by AnAdventurer · 2010-08-09 04:26 · Score: 1

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
Just set me back another three steps... by dan_linder · 2010-08-09 04:30 · Score: 1

Great, now I know I'm even WORSE at solving it than ever...
Dan
Linear prediction by PhasmatisApparatus · 2010-08-09 04:40 · Score: 1

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!).
1. Re:Linear prediction by cycleflight · 2010-08-09 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Is throwing the Rubik's Cube against a wall a valid solution? If so I think I have a valid solution to your query.
  
  --
  "...And who wants to make buttprints in the sands of time?" ~Bob Moawad
2. Re:Linear prediction by camperdave · 2010-08-09 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  Move 1: Dunk in paint.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Well then, by blair1q · 2010-08-09 05:15 · Score: 1

How many moves does it take to solve Farmville?
Though I'm not sure that answer matters much to its developers either.
step 0. by way2trivial · 2010-08-09 05:23 · Score: 1

purchase scissors

--
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Mayans already kew it. by topcoder · 2010-08-09 05:33 · Score: 1

Mayans knew this 1000 years ago, as they used this number for their numeric base!!!
P.S. Be prepared for 2012.
1 move bra unhook by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 06:05 · Score: 0

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.
Proving it required 35 years of computer time dona by QuietLagoon · 2010-08-09 06:09 · Score: 1

Proving it required 35 years of computer time donated by Google to get it done.
.
But... but... but... google hasn't been around for 35 years....
P = NP? by strangeintp · 2010-08-09 06:46 · Score: 1

What does Vinay Deolalikar have to say about this?
Hint: Parent poster wants you to stay single by Burning1 · 2010-08-09 06:47 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:Hint: Parent poster wants you to stay single by Surt · 2010-08-09 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  Yeesh, you sound whipped.
  Hint: the woman doesn't decide if you get a second date. We don't keep women around to make decisions, we keep them around to look pretty.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
2. Re:Hint: Parent poster wants you to stay single by roman_mir · 2010-08-09 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  you tell them, MC Vagina.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
3. Re:Hint: Parent poster wants you to stay single by Surt · 2010-08-09 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  That's a riot.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Obligaroty SMBC by chocapix · 2010-08-09 07:38 · Score: 1

Science doesn't happen overnight!
Poser! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 08:31 · Score: 1, Insightful

Wood nymphs don't WEAR bras!
Lower bound = upper bound (finally!) by johny42 · 2010-08-09 08:53 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
Time Cube by trynet · 2010-08-09 08:54 · Score: 1

I can see how this research could be helpful
The only way to win Farmville by OrangeTide · 2010-08-09 09:10 · Score: 1

...is to not play.

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
1. Re:The only way to win Farmville by blair1q · 2010-08-09 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  Correct.
  Castle Age is much better.
poor guys by Lem0nHead · 2010-08-09 11:34 · Score: 1

that's a sad day for Tomas Rokicki and John Welborn what are they gonna work on now?
At 34 ? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-09 17:56 · Score: 0

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.
God is Google by janerules · 2010-08-12 11:48 · Score: 1

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.
Try it yourself by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-13 07:34 · Score: 0

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.