Or, in summary: Genetic algorithms can yield solutions that are smarter than a human alone staring at the problem will think of.
In other words, it's a problem solving tool that makes our solutions better. That alone is its singular selling point. The only other detail is explaining which classes of problems it is useful for, and giving examples of where it has worked (to show that it's not just theory).
As far back as a couple years ago, I've seen emails sent from Yahoo to Hotmail just vaporize into thin air, intermittently of course. This is just one of the "features" of Hotmail, and is probably just a poor and misfiring attempt at blocking spam. The behavior has caused a number of my friends to leave Hotmail for other free services.
How often does this actually happen in real-world populations, rather than contrived examples?
Fairly frequently when you're talking about salaries. Let's say the average salary for a region might be $40,000. Well, if you take into account that the minimum salary is $0, and the maximum salary is not $80,000, but instead upwards of millions of dollars, then clearly the curve showing the number of people with each salary has a long tail on the right side (because there are few people making huge salaries, but these salaries are very high). Anytime you have a long tail on the right side, most of the people are below average, and thus, the median is below average.
Think about this for a time, or maybe draw it on paper, and you will see.
My dad is a senior reporter with a local NBC affiliate, and I've clued him in to quite a few stories about our current voting machines.
His assignment editor, and more troubling, the News Director [Hi, Forrest!] have routinely ignored the story.
Well, then since you have a connection AND an interest, do what's necessary to bring the two together and find a way to make the voting machine problems interesting to the general public. They ARE interesting to the general public, so this should be an easy task, you just have to show them where the attention-getting drama is.
Are you suggesting we should ignore all the lesser crimes to make sure the biggies get maximum attention?
If you have to prioritize crimes, I think it's pretty straightforward how to do it. First, you put the crimes where a victim can get hurt. Second, you put the crimes where a victim loses something they had. Then when you're done with those, you settle the cases of people who think they're entitled to something.
Rape/murder go into the first category, theft of a car goes into the second category, and RIAA claims go into the third category.
A private venture with limited funding absolutely must get the most efficient use of resources or they are toast... If you want efficiency, look at smaller private operations like Scaled Composites.
I'm pretty tired of the whole "we are at war" stuff. We are certainly not at war. Check the Constitution. We are only at war when Congress declares that we are. We have not been at war since 1945.
Renaming a thing does not change what it is. (Wouldn't it be great if governments and their populations figured that out?)
War, by dictionary.com, is "A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties."
If a congressman holds up a duck and says it is a rock, which is it?
Actually the turing machine served as the basis of the first hardware, not software.
It's usually John von Neumann who is given credit for inventing the modern concept of the "stored program" in the mid 40's. So if I had to pick a single person to label the inventor of software, I think I would probably choose him. Turing could perhaps be labelled a father of computing.
But then again, those are all just subjective labels.:) The important thing is to acknowledge which contributions they each made and try to do it correctly without letting the labels get in the way. And for that, I turn you to the expert:
Does it include additional costs like maintenance costs, administrator salary, electricity, etc.
At an estimated 300W per machine and 7 cents a KWH, that's $14M just for the electricity to run those machines, not including air conditioning for that many machines. So is the figure quoted JUST for the computing hardware?
Principles are not the same as principals.... Also, CEO's plural is "CEOs".
I concede "principals", but according to the rules established by the US Government Printing office, a coined plural of an acronym such as CEO is formed by adding an apostrophe and an s, thus making "CEO's" correct.
then you might want to choose something that suggests professionalism, reliability, and easy for kids to use.
The retarded bird says unprofessional, flaky, and unattractive.
You could just as well be making fun of Big Bird there. Principles are not the same as CEO's. Principles are generally aware that they're watching over children.
I noticed a significant increase in the amount of spam I received last week.
So did I, an explanation would be appreciated. The amount of spam I receive roughly quadrupled, and it always seems to show up in bursts of roughly 16 emails at a time.
That is, Eve can switch particles on you, but if the state is not the same as the original, you can find out.
Except that you can't find out, because your means of finding out is through the classical channel, which Eve has also compromised. In essence, both parties are holding a perfectly secure conversation with Eve. They just don't know it's Eve.
Please note the most important part of the article:
"Again, Alice and Bob share a secret key k unknown to Eve."
Like I said, authentication can ONLY be done when there is already a secret key in common. Thus, your security is reduced to the security of the transmission of that secret key. Then quantum encryption only works as a key growing method.
I never understood how quantum cryptography is not vulnerable to normal man in the middle attacks. Anyone care to explain?
It is completely vulnerable to the man in the middle attack. There is no authentication provided by quantum cryptography, and authentication is the only prevention for the man in the middle attack. Most people hear statements like "Quantum cryptography is immune to evesdropping by the laws of physics" and assume that includes an immunity to the man in the middle attack, but it does not. (In particular, the principle of indistinguishable particles seems to prohibit quantum authentication.)
Alice <--> Man <--> Bob
Alice thinks she's talking to Bob, but is actually talking to Man on a completely secure channel. Likewise with Bob. All that Man must do is compromise both the quantum and the classical channel, and the man in the middle attack is successful.
The solution to this, is that there must be another classical method of authentication used, and then the maximum security of the connection is reduced to the security of that classical authentication method. After a connection is authenticated by classical means, the quantum encrypted connection can be used as a "key growing" connection, and can continue to share keys securely which can be used for further authentication in the future. Thus, a quantum encrypted connection which has been authenticated by a known good method (such as a trusted agent carrying a CD in a briefcase), can be used with confidence to grow keys and relay information in the future with a provably secure connection.
Slashdot Mirror
the insurance companies sure as hell aren't going to trust the computers.
Apparently you haven't met many of the drivers out there on the road...
Or, in summary: Genetic algorithms can yield solutions that are smarter than a human alone staring at the problem will think of.
In other words, it's a problem solving tool that makes our solutions better. That alone is its singular selling point. The only other detail is explaining which classes of problems it is useful for, and giving examples of where it has worked (to show that it's not just theory).
As far back as a couple years ago, I've seen emails sent from Yahoo to Hotmail just vaporize into thin air, intermittently of course. This is just one of the "features" of Hotmail, and is probably just a poor and misfiring attempt at blocking spam. The behavior has caused a number of my friends to leave Hotmail for other free services.
How often does this actually happen in real-world populations, rather than contrived examples?
Fairly frequently when you're talking about salaries. Let's say the average salary for a region might be $40,000. Well, if you take into account that the minimum salary is $0, and the maximum salary is not $80,000, but instead upwards of millions of dollars, then clearly the curve showing the number of people with each salary has a long tail on the right side (because there are few people making huge salaries, but these salaries are very high). Anytime you have a long tail on the right side, most of the people are below average, and thus, the median is below average.
Think about this for a time, or maybe draw it on paper, and you will see.
My dad is a senior reporter with a local NBC affiliate, and I've clued him in to quite a few stories about our current voting machines.
His assignment editor, and more troubling, the News Director [Hi, Forrest!] have routinely ignored the story.
Well, then since you have a connection AND an interest, do what's necessary to bring the two together and find a way to make the voting machine problems interesting to the general public. They ARE interesting to the general public, so this should be an easy task, you just have to show them where the attention-getting drama is.
Molecular manufacturing is "just around the corner"
If you're young, then maybe for your grandchildren.
I have a few black holes up for sale.... they contain everything you need and want... and as soon as we figure out gravity then we can unpack them...
:)
That's completely unnecessary. Black holes are self-extracting.
Are you suggesting we should ignore all the lesser crimes to make sure the biggies get maximum attention?
If you have to prioritize crimes, I think it's pretty straightforward how to do it. First, you put the crimes where a victim can get hurt. Second, you put the crimes where a victim loses something they had. Then when you're done with those, you settle the cases of people who think they're entitled to something.
Rape/murder go into the first category, theft of a car goes into the second category, and RIAA claims go into the third category.
A private venture with limited funding absolutely must get the most efficient use of resources or they are toast ... If you want efficiency, look at smaller private operations like Scaled Composites.
and Halliburton.
I have a ringtone so I can tell that it's my phone ringing.
*raises eyebrow* Vibrate doesn't tell you this?
I'm pretty tired of the whole "we are at war" stuff. We are certainly not at war. Check the Constitution. We are only at war when Congress declares that we are. We have not been at war since 1945.
Renaming a thing does not change what it is. (Wouldn't it be great if governments and their populations figured that out?)
War, by dictionary.com, is "A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties."
If a congressman holds up a duck and says it is a rock, which is it?
Actually the turing machine served as the basis of the first hardware, not software.
:) The important thing is to acknowledge which contributions they each made and try to do it correctly without letting the labels get in the way. And for that, I turn you to the expert:
:)
It's usually John von Neumann who is given credit for inventing the modern concept of the "stored program" in the mid 40's. So if I had to pick a single person to label the inventor of software, I think I would probably choose him. Turing could perhaps be labelled a father of computing.
But then again, those are all just subjective labels.
Alan Turing
John von Neumann
I don't mean to be picky, but I have my Automata Theory final in 5 hours
Good luck.
The (probably bogus) claim is that you might be able to control (accelerate) the release of the extra energy by external means.
What's so unbelievable about stimulated emission from an excited state? Can we say "lasers"?
Perhaps peon posting parent post prefers posts precognitively portending prematurely passing profiling.
Performance profiling presents plentiful possibilities per producing programs performing past previous paces.
Does it include additional costs like maintenance costs, administrator salary, electricity, etc.
At an estimated 300W per machine and 7 cents a KWH, that's $14M just for the electricity to run those machines, not including air conditioning for that many machines. So is the figure quoted JUST for the computing hardware?
They seem to be getting a better handle on why different Palladium rods give different results.
I expect this to occur, but I'd be interested to see the details from any sources you have for that.
Principles are not the same as principals. ... Also, CEO's plural is "CEOs".
I concede "principals", but according to the rules established by the US Government Printing office, a coined plural of an acronym such as CEO is formed by adding an apostrophe and an s, thus making "CEO's" correct.
What did these folks know that kept them working on it?
That you don't discard experimental results because they don't fit theory. You instead try to figure out why the experimental results occured.
then you might want to choose something that suggests professionalism, reliability, and easy for kids to use.
The retarded bird says unprofessional, flaky, and unattractive.
You could just as well be making fun of Big Bird there. Principles are not the same as CEO's. Principles are generally aware that they're watching over children.
Does it entirely matter if we lose JPEG?
Yes. Most digital cameras save their pictures as JPEGs. I happen to enjoy being able to use/adjust those pictures under Linux.
Maybe they could put the solar panels on poles?
That'd be great until a smarter moron comes around with a marker on a pole.
I noticed a significant increase in the amount of spam I received last week.
So did I, an explanation would be appreciated. The amount of spam I receive roughly quadrupled, and it always seems to show up in bursts of roughly 16 emails at a time.
That is, Eve can switch particles on you, but if the state is not the same as the original, you can find out.
Except that you can't find out, because your means of finding out is through the classical channel, which Eve has also compromised. In essence, both parties are holding a perfectly secure conversation with Eve. They just don't know it's Eve.
Please note the most important part of the article:
"Again, Alice and Bob share a secret key k unknown to Eve."
Like I said, authentication can ONLY be done when there is already a secret key in common. Thus, your security is reduced to the security of the transmission of that secret key. Then quantum encryption only works as a key growing method.
I never understood how quantum cryptography is not vulnerable to normal man in the middle attacks. Anyone care to explain?
It is completely vulnerable to the man in the middle attack. There is no authentication provided by quantum cryptography, and authentication is the only prevention for the man in the middle attack. Most people hear statements like "Quantum cryptography is immune to evesdropping by the laws of physics" and assume that includes an immunity to the man in the middle attack, but it does not. (In particular, the principle of indistinguishable particles seems to prohibit quantum authentication.)
Alice <--> Man <--> Bob
Alice thinks she's talking to Bob, but is actually talking to Man on a completely secure channel. Likewise with Bob. All that Man must do is compromise both the quantum and the classical channel, and the man in the middle attack is successful.
The solution to this, is that there must be another classical method of authentication used, and then the maximum security of the connection is reduced to the security of that classical authentication method. After a connection is authenticated by classical means, the quantum encrypted connection can be used as a "key growing" connection, and can continue to share keys securely which can be used for further authentication in the future. Thus, a quantum encrypted connection which has been authenticated by a known good method (such as a trusted agent carrying a CD in a briefcase), can be used with confidence to grow keys and relay information in the future with a provably secure connection.