Do not apologise! Many thanks for that link. I like the way it ties in with the "overestimation of one's own level of skill/knowledge" studies so closely - but pushes the scope of them even further (for example unwillingness, or even refusal, to learn).
By "he selected for it by spraying a field with roundup" do you mean "the electricity company attempted to clear an area around their transmission lines, and failed to do so because of some of the stock being contaminated"? 'Cos that's the version from the documentary.
They don't need to lobby the crap out of the politicians when they *are* the politicians. (In particular Democrat ones). You've even got an ex-Monsanto guy in SCOTUS.
Soy? Look at the ingredients for any ready-made foodstuff, or sauce - you'll find soy extracts in a whole load of things. Worst of all in the soy example is that GM stock was deliberately mixed with non-GM stock, so that it would be impossible to remove from the supply chain, unless you specifically have your own pure strain.
Rice? They're only selling GM rice to the chinese, I can't imagine that's a very big market for rice, no, not at all.
And were I on a jury, I'd be arguing for acquittal. You do have a 2nd amendment to protect yourself from the tyrany of the government, and Monsanto *are* the government (see my other post this story) - and everything else has been tried, hasn't it?
I know it's not an animal, but would genes from the bacterium bacillus thuringiensis being stuck in corn ("bt-corn") be scary enough for you? It's certainly in no way related to cross-breeding plants.
"Higher yields and better nutrition could save literally millions of lives."
You misspelt "Higher yields and better nutrition could mean that there are far more hungry adult mouths that need to be fed."
You've failed to understand the exponential function. You and millions of others. You're not solving any problem, you're simple moving it in time, and making it larger in the process.
I don't think the problem is that Monstanto's paying off the governments, it's that monsanto _is_, in part, the government. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread778572/pg1 I've seem similar charts for big pharma, big oil, and big banking/finance - they've all got so many fingers in the pie there's literally nobody who actually represents the people, they all represent big business.
Don't delay for too long - as the proportion of vaccines that contains thiomersal decreases (something it's been doing for a decade now), the number of reported cases of ASDs has increased! That mercury was clearly keeping autism at bay!
What's more shocking is that at least one of the real rocket scientists who helped put men on the moon can, and will if sparked off, prove that the earth is only 6000+ years old, using the bible as his only source. (I know this, as I've met one, and was *ordered* by my friends to not spark him off.)
3 scientific degrees from Ivy league universities, and a job at NASA doesn't mean you're batshitproof, alas.
The problem is entirely due to poor PRNGs (poorly seeded, more like). You get precisely no more scurity from using 3072-bit keys than using 1024-bit keys. If the prime generation process is deterministic and reproducable due to bad seeding, then generating identical 1536-bit primes is exactly as likely as generating 512-bit primes.
Looking at their figures and charts, and assuming all other things were equal, I would expect about 300-350 2048-bit keys to have been found.
And his algorithm's completely unworkable too, as it's O(n^2) in the number of keys. Fortunately there exist O(n log n) approaches which would be a hundred of thousand times quicker (and which Lenstra probably used).
Bollocks. Now RTFA. Random number generation in some implementations is very flawed, and your entire conclusion is demonstrably false (and Lenstra has 12000 examples as proof).
This is the third time you've posted your totally useless (or "naive" as Lenstra calls it in his paper) algorithm. Your technique would take 10 years (I trust Lenstra's estimate, I've not verified it myself) on his data set.
The problem is that you have to make flawed keys. How do you know you're using the same flawed algorithm as (some subset of) the masses? If you aren't, then there's basically zero chance of a collision. (It's effectively trial division.)
Do you take a bomb on to a plane in order to guarantee your safety? The chances of there being 2 bombs on a plane is minimal, right?
Now were you to find one factor using your technique, which cannot be pure luck, it must because you're using the same flawed algorithm used by (a subset of) the masses, then it would indeed be worth persevering, as you discover how big that subset is. But I must reiterate, you'll never even find one factor just by pure chance.
There are tens of trillions of pairs. You're the guy they predict will take 10 years to achieve what they did in an hour.
You need to combine and conquer in order to actually get results before the certificates expire. (A back of a fag packet calculation implies that a naive GCD tree could crack them all in less than a day using GMP.)
"... but if you seriously think that the crap that's been happening in airports for the last 14 months is "reasonable", well, I hope you've enjoyed the Kool-Aid."
Crap like the suicide bomber in Russia who killed several dozen and injured about a hundred?... Outside security. So no scanner in security would have stopped it. Nor any security pat down. Nor...
If all you're doing is preventing one particular threat, those who want to harm you will do *something else*.
Slashdot Mirror
Do not apologise! Many thanks for that link. I like the way it ties in with the "overestimation of one's own level of skill/knowledge" studies so closely - but pushes the scope of them even further (for example unwillingness, or even refusal, to learn).
"During 1998, over 95% of Schmeiser's canola crop"
According to the documentary, those precentages were widely variable, and not independently evaluated but asserted by Monsanto.
By "he selected for it by spraying a field with roundup" do you mean "the electricity company attempted to clear an area around their transmission lines, and failed to do so because of some of the stock being contaminated"? 'Cos that's the version from the documentary.
They don't need to lobby the crap out of the politicians when they *are* the politicians. (In particular Democrat ones). You've even got an ex-Monsanto guy in SCOTUS.
Soy? Look at the ingredients for any ready-made foodstuff, or sauce - you'll find soy extracts in a whole load of things. Worst of all in the soy example is that GM stock was deliberately mixed with non-GM stock, so that it would be impossible to remove from the supply chain, unless you specifically have your own pure strain.
Rice? They're only selling GM rice to the chinese, I can't imagine that's a very big market for rice, no, not at all.
Had to look it up...
http://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2012/january/study1-big.jpg
Clarence Thomas.
The infection just gets everywhere, doesn't it?
If you opt for smoking rather than snus, then that's not tobacco's fault.
And were I on a jury, I'd be arguing for acquittal.
You do have a 2nd amendment to protect yourself from the tyrany of the government, and Monsanto *are* the government (see my other post this story) - and everything else has been tried, hasn't it?
I know it's not an animal, but would genes from the bacterium bacillus thuringiensis being stuck in corn ("bt-corn") be scary enough for you? It's certainly in no way related to cross-breeding plants.
"Higher yields and better nutrition could save literally millions of lives."
You misspelt "Higher yields and better nutrition could mean that there are far more hungry adult mouths that need to be fed."
You've failed to understand the exponential function. You and millions of others. You're not solving any problem, you're simple moving it in time, and making it larger in the process.
I don't think the problem is that Monstanto's paying off the governments, it's that monsanto _is_, in part, the government.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread778572/pg1
I've seem similar charts for big pharma, big oil, and big banking/finance - they've all got so many fingers in the pie there's literally nobody who actually represents the people, they all represent big business.
> > FYI not all hippies are against it. I'm an old hippy, and I think people who are refusing them are goddamned idiots.
> Hell, I'm a young-ish (early 30s) hippy and *I* think people who are refusing them are goddamned idiots.
I see a gap...
I'm a *middle-aged* hippy and I think people who are refusing them are goddamned idiots.
Don't delay for too long - as the proportion of vaccines that contains thiomersal decreases (something it's been doing for a decade now), the number of reported cases of ASDs has increased! That mercury was clearly keeping autism at bay!
What's more shocking is that at least one of the real rocket scientists who helped put men on the moon can, and will if sparked off, prove that the earth is only 6000+ years old, using the bible as his only source. (I know this, as I've met one, and was *ordered* by my friends to not spark him off.)
3 scientific degrees from Ivy league universities, and a job at NASA doesn't mean you're batshitproof, alas.
The problem is entirely due to poor PRNGs (poorly seeded, more like). You get precisely no more scurity from using 3072-bit keys than using 1024-bit keys. If the prime generation process is deterministic and reproducable due to bad seeding, then generating identical 1536-bit primes is exactly as likely as generating 512-bit primes.
Looking at their figures and charts, and assuming all other things were equal, I would expect about 300-350 2048-bit keys to have been found.
And his algorithm's completely unworkable too, as it's O(n^2) in the number of keys. Fortunately there exist O(n log n) approaches which would be a hundred of thousand times quicker (and which Lenstra probably used).
Bollocks. Now RTFA. Random number generation in some implementations is very flawed, and your entire conclusion is demonstrably false (and Lenstra has 12000 examples as proof).
This is the third time you've posted your totally useless (or "naive" as Lenstra calls it in his paper) algorithm. Your technique would take 10 years (I trust Lenstra's estimate, I've not verified it myself) on his data set.
If you RTFA, you'll see that they deliberately exclude the Debian fuckups from their sample set.
Bollocks. Google "APRCL" or "ECPP".
And typically we have good enough PRNGs, we just don't use good enough seeds, as the seed is the only source of entropy.
The problem is that you have to make flawed keys. How do you know you're using the same flawed algorithm as (some subset of) the masses? If you aren't, then there's basically zero chance of a collision. (It's effectively trial division.)
Do you take a bomb on to a plane in order to guarantee your safety? The chances of there being 2 bombs on a plane is minimal, right?
Now were you to find one factor using your technique, which cannot be pure luck, it must because you're using the same flawed algorithm used by (a subset of) the masses, then it would indeed be worth persevering, as you discover how big that subset is. But I must reiterate, you'll never even find one factor just by pure chance.
"... on all pairs ..."
There are tens of trillions of pairs. You're the guy they predict will take 10 years to achieve what they did in an hour.
You need to combine and conquer in order to actually get results before the certificates expire. (A back of a fag packet calculation implies that a naive GCD tree could crack them all in less than a day using GMP.)
[quote accent="Soutpark's hicks"]
Dey took our blowjurbs
[/quote]
"... but if you seriously think that the crap that's been happening in airports for the last 14 months is "reasonable", well, I hope you've enjoyed the Kool-Aid."
... Outside security. So no scanner in security would have stopped it. Nor any security pat down. Nor ...
Crap like the suicide bomber in Russia who killed several dozen and injured about a hundred?
If all you're doing is preventing one particular threat, those who want to harm you will do *something else*.
He should of course have said "or fewer".