If you pay $30/mo extra or subscribe to any tier of Uverse TV, it is unlimited.
If I enjoyed suffering, yes.
I have Frontier FiOS, with a static subnet. All TV comes through the inter tubes. No caps. No Comcast, AT&T or other largely hated communications corporation. Any service with an illiterate first letter (Uverse, Xfinity etc.) is to be avoided at all costs.
It's very impressive indeed. Wireless point to point at that frequency is magical. We used to think 5GHz was heady stuff when we were developing the 802.11 specs. That's p-mp, but still, the front end devices dictate what's possible.
The website was originally named because it was a trading site for "Magic the Gathering" cards. It's an acronym for "Magic The Gathering Online Exchange". It's not a mountain named Gox.
This should fixed. It's time to name a mountain Gox.
Is there a reason why using the hardware entropy source to change the state of a quality PRNG those few hundred thousand times per second wouldn't work?
That is a normal construct. It's even codified in SP800-90A with the additional input option on the Reseed() function.
I read it too, and I fail to see the breakthrough. There are plenty of pseudo random number generators, such as the Mersenne Twister, with very long periods, so just occassionally XORing even a poor quality random number into the feedback loop, is enough to make it completely unpredictable.
This proof is about proving mathematically that an algorithm is a good entropy extractor. MT has no such proof. It doesn't even meet the definition of an entropy extractor and isn't cryptographically secure. For algorithms in the same class, PCGs are currently top of the pile, but they still aren't secure.
They claim to have an algorithm for a secure two input extractor (where the two inputs are independent) which can extract from low entropy source. 'low' means less than 0.5. Single input extractors suffer from an absence of proofs that they can extract from sources with min-entropy less than 0.5.
I fail to see that it is useful, because real world sources have min-entropy much higher that 0.5. Low entropy inputs is a problem mathematicians think we have, but we don't. We engineer these things to be in the 0.9..0.999 range.
On top of it, these two papers are as clear as mud. I tried and failed to identify an explicit construct and ether I'm too dumb to find it or they hid it well. I did find an implication that the first result uses a depth-4 monotone circuit that takes long bit strings and compresses them to 1 bit and the second paper extends this with a matrix multiply. That sounds both inefficient and more expensive than an additional small source needed to use the cheaper 3-input BIW extractor.
My take is that there have been two breakthroughs in extractor theory in recent years. Dodis's papers on randomness classes and extraction with cbc-mac and hmac for single input extractors and the BIW paper for three input extractors. Both useful in real world RNGs.
I may be wrong though. I've asked a real mathematician to decode the claims.
I would prefer a desktop. More storage, more CPU, more memory and I can leave it and come back to it exactly as it was the next day. Alas they only offer laptops. Big corporations lack flexibility. But I'll live with my first world problems.
Most of the DVDs I have are music and are not from the USA, where I live. So region coding is a barrier to my legitimate use of persons DVD imports protected under the Berne Convention.
Despite the hypothesis being wrong ( that cell phones cause brain cancer) and people ridiculing you for asking the question, the question is a good one.
You hear the claim (it's in this thread) that non ionizing radiation can't cause cancer. However organic chemicals look nothing like ionizing radiation but some of them certainly do cause brain cancer and some of them protect against it. So how did the "radiation has to be ionizing to cause cancer" thing become true or relevant to toxicity of cell phones? I don't know. We know ionizing radiation can cause cancer. That doesn't say anything about whether or not anything else causes cancer. Microwave radiation from leaky microwave ovens can cause cataracts. A smaller amount cannot. So in some ailments, the amount of radiation matters.
The reason we know cell phones don't cause cancer is because we have a massive amount of data of people using cell phones and the data doesn't show them getting cancer due to the phone. If phones did cause cancer, it would stick out like a sore thumb in the data.
Slashdot Mirror
If you pay $30/mo extra or subscribe to any tier of Uverse TV, it is unlimited.
If I enjoyed suffering, yes.
I have Frontier FiOS, with a static subnet. All TV comes through the inter tubes. No caps. No Comcast, AT&T or other largely hated communications corporation. Any service with an illiterate first letter (Uverse, Xfinity etc.) is to be avoided at all costs.
$10 per 50GBytes?
That's $0.02/MByte
If you have the temerity to take your AT&T phone across the border to Canada, they will charge you $2.00/MByte. 100X more.
It's very impressive indeed. Wireless point to point at that frequency is magical. We used to think 5GHz was heady stuff when we were developing the 802.11 specs. That's p-mp, but still, the front end devices dictate what's possible.
Pedantic? Yep!
Necessary technical detail? Yep!
How necessary? 8 times as necessary!
6 GB/s is fucking awesome!
6Gb/s, not as impressive.
But if Comcast was selling it as a service, they would cap you after 3 seconds of full bandwidth use.
A team that big wouldn't work.
Just offer anonymity, immunity and a reward > $12,000,000/467.
Only the first to squeal gets the offer.
It's MTGOX, not Mt. Gox.
The website was originally named because it was a trading site for "Magic the Gathering" cards. It's an acronym for "Magic The Gathering Online Exchange". It's not a mountain named Gox.
This should fixed. It's time to name a mountain Gox.
VN is an unbiaser, not an entropy extractor.
It's also fragile.
Why not just use analog hardware to do it; i.e. sampling of white noise?
Did you read the papers? That's what it is about.
They do outline a construction. It's not just an existence proof.
They do? It didn't seem very explicit at all.
Lots of mathematics though.
Is there a reason why using the hardware entropy source to change the state of a quality PRNG those few hundred thousand times per second wouldn't work?
That is a normal construct. It's even codified in SP800-90A with the additional input option on the Reseed() function.
Mersenne Twister is pretty much the standard for simulating a uniform distribution in a lot of scientific computing.
No. Permuted Congruential Generators are. There's no contest. MT is slower and doesn't pass TestU01.
MT is used for reasons of inertia.
I read it too, and I fail to see the breakthrough. There are plenty of pseudo random number generators, such as the Mersenne Twister, with very long periods, so just occassionally XORing even a poor quality random number into the feedback loop, is enough to make it completely unpredictable.
This proof is about proving mathematically that an algorithm is a good entropy extractor. MT has no such proof. It doesn't even meet the definition of an entropy extractor and isn't cryptographically secure. For algorithms in the same class, PCGs are currently top of the pile, but they still aren't secure.
They claim to have an algorithm for a secure two input extractor (where the two inputs are independent) which can extract from low entropy source. 'low' means less than 0.5. Single input extractors suffer from an absence of proofs that they can extract from sources with min-entropy less than 0.5.
I fail to see it as new because the Barack, Impagliazzo, Wigdersen extractor from 2007 did the same trick using three sources (A*B)+C where values from A,B and C are treated as elements in a GF(2^P) field and can operate with low min-entropy inputs. This is so cheap that the extractor is smaller than the smallest entropy sources. Intel published this paper using the BIW extractor for what is probably the most efficient (bits/s/unit_area and bits/s/W) to date.
I fail to see that it is useful, because real world sources have min-entropy much higher that 0.5. Low entropy inputs is a problem mathematicians think we have, but we don't. We engineer these things to be in the 0.9..0.999 range.
On top of it, these two papers are as clear as mud. I tried and failed to identify an explicit construct and ether I'm too dumb to find it or they hid it well. I did find an implication that the first result uses a depth-4 monotone circuit that takes long bit strings and compresses them to 1 bit and the second paper extends this with a matrix multiply. That sounds both inefficient and more expensive than an additional small source needed to use the cheaper 3-input BIW extractor.
My take is that there have been two breakthroughs in extractor theory in recent years. Dodis's papers on randomness classes and extraction with cbc-mac and hmac for single input extractors and the BIW paper for three input extractors. Both useful in real world RNGs.
I may be wrong though. I've asked a real mathematician to decode the claims.
I don't take my laptop home.
I would prefer a desktop. More storage, more CPU, more memory and I can leave it and come back to it exactly as it was the next day.
Alas they only offer laptops. Big corporations lack flexibility. But I'll live with my first world problems.
I agree totally.
Why is it some people agree that the free flow of goods and trade is economically good, but claim that the free flow of labor is not?
Not me. L1B -> Green card.
The tards who bang on about H1Bs don't even understand the details of the visa process because they've never been through it.
I'm on a call with him right now,
I don't open my work laptop after I go home.
It's very liberating.
Most of the DVDs I have are music and are not from the USA, where I live. So region coding is a barrier to my legitimate use of persons DVD imports protected under the Berne Convention.
I'm considering going and buying a copy now.
>Nyquist had 2-1 odds of winning.
That's why Ts must be greater than or equal to twice the bandwidth to avoid aliasing.
Arse. 1/Ts. Where's the edit function?
>Nyquist had 2-1 odds of winning.
That's why Ts must be greater than or equal to twice the bandwidth to avoid aliasing.
Yes, they really used Oberon
Very complex?
What's complex about it?
Despite the hypothesis being wrong ( that cell phones cause brain cancer) and people ridiculing you for asking the question, the question is a good one.
You hear the claim (it's in this thread) that non ionizing radiation can't cause cancer. However organic chemicals look nothing like ionizing radiation but some of them certainly do cause brain cancer and some of them protect against it. So how did the "radiation has to be ionizing to cause cancer" thing become true or relevant to toxicity of cell phones? I don't know. We know ionizing radiation can cause cancer. That doesn't say anything about whether or not anything else causes cancer. Microwave radiation from leaky microwave ovens can cause cataracts. A smaller amount cannot. So in some ailments, the amount of radiation matters.
The reason we know cell phones don't cause cancer is because we have a massive amount of data of people using cell phones and the data doesn't show them getting cancer due to the phone. If phones did cause cancer, it would stick out like a sore thumb in the data.
So why are there so few qbits in quantum computers? Why is the refrigeration system so huge?
If what you said was true they would just throw in an extra 250 qbits and break Diffie Helman.