My experience suggests otherwise. I'd say you're lucky if you find one in three hundred who can really do a job effectively. Particularly for programming positions. We get an egregious number of blatantly incapable people applying for positions.
If you are paying hundreds of dollars for books just to answer a few questions, you are really revealing a lack of street smarts on top of a lack of degree. There are multiple, commonly used strategies to get around that cost. Buying the books outright is for rich kids whose time is worth so much it's cheaper to buy the books than to invest their time in a workaround. If you feel like your books are expensive, you're not in that category.
There's no anti-intellectual bent here. There's a small, vocal sub-population with that viewpoint. Slashdot is a lot of people. The people who post on any given topic are, as in many forums, the people with the most partisan views and the need to spew them.
But the actual statistics say otherwise. The stats say the non-degreed person earns enough less that the degreed person is typically ahead by age 35-40. There are surely exceptions, but that is where the averages land you.
The wikipedia entries for copper and nickel seem to suggest that nickel is the more dangerous of the two.
And as for Al Gore... well the good news is that hydrogen fusion as a power source will both necessitate and make easier all of us leaving earth in the comparatively short-run. Hydrogen fusion will make the earth unlivable in maybe 100K years, which will force us all off our asses in plenty of time for the sun's red-giant phase.
I watched the first half season worth of season one (7 episodes), and not a single one was good, or even not bad. Just terrible, really terrible. Painful to watch even. Did it take a radical turn for the better later on?
Integer factorization is not (yet) np-complete, so technically no one can do what you are asking
You've got it backwards. A problem being NP-complete means you can reduce any problem in NP to it.
The problem "does N have a nontrivial factor smaller than m?" is in NP. A solver for that can easily be used to factor integers.
even if they have a legitimate proof of p=np.
Technically speaking, a legitimate proof that P=NP implies that every problem in P is NP complete.
What we're talking about is not proofs but rather unproven algorithms which seem to scale because they aren't run on hard inputs.
I had it exactly right. They cannot use a 3-sat solver on "does N have a nontrivial factor smaller than m?" because the latter is not in np-complete. A solver for the latter can indeed be used to trivially factor integers, but since it isn't what they have they can't. Nor can anyone with an np-complete solver trivially do that.
And yes, of course a legitimate proof implies that every problem in P is NP complete. That's obvious. But it doesn't screw RSA because RSA security is based on the fact that an efficient algorithm for factoring integers is unknown, not that such doesn't exist, and everyone knows that.
Proving P=NP by (for example) finding a polynomial time solution to a #P-complete problem won't immediately kill RSA because it's unclear (to me at least) how that would map to an efficient factoring algorithm. But a constructive proof such as what Romanov claims, i.e. an efficient 3-SAT solver, immediately deals a death blow to RSA, AES and everything else but one-time pads. That's because all these systems are polynomial time reducible to some 3-SAT instance.
As far as I know, there's no proof of that. If there was, they would be in the class np-complete rather than np-hard.
Exactly. The security of RSA has nothing to do with p/np but with the lack of an efficient algorithm for factoring. p=np only proves an efficient algorithm exists, but doesn't supply it. It could be many, many years (or never!) after p=np that such an algorithm is discovered.
I don't know, my tz5 takes jpg rather than RAW, and I've taken 2GB in a week's vacation, not even very aggressively (about a thousand shots). The poster described taking thousands of shots. So he may already be on jpg rather than raw.
Why is solid state media unrecoverable? I'd think that it's really just the case that recovery companies haven't caught up yet. I can't think of any physical reason recovery wouldn't be possible.
Slashdot Mirror
My experience suggests otherwise. I'd say you're lucky if you find one in three hundred who can really do a job effectively. Particularly for programming positions. We get an egregious number of blatantly incapable people applying for positions.
If you are paying hundreds of dollars for books just to answer a few questions, you are really revealing a lack of street smarts on top of a lack of degree. There are multiple, commonly used strategies to get around that cost. Buying the books outright is for rich kids whose time is worth so much it's cheaper to buy the books than to invest their time in a workaround. If you feel like your books are expensive, you're not in that category.
I'd say it suggests you were exposed to the wrong colleges/universities. The good ones are nothing like what you describe.
I'd almost guarantee the McDonald's manager training program uses those words to describe McDonalds managers.
Wishing doesn't make it so.
There's no anti-intellectual bent here. There's a small, vocal sub-population with that viewpoint. Slashdot is a lot of people. The people who post on any given topic are, as in many forums, the people with the most partisan views and the need to spew them.
But the actual statistics say otherwise. The stats say the non-degreed person earns enough less that the degreed person is typically ahead by age 35-40. There are surely exceptions, but that is where the averages land you.
Since they aren't holding much more energy than a gas tank or battery, can the risks due to catastrophic failure really be significantly greater?
The wikipedia entries for copper and nickel seem to suggest that nickel is the more dangerous of the two.
And as for Al Gore ... well the good news is that hydrogen fusion as a power source will both necessitate and make easier all of us leaving earth in the comparatively short-run. Hydrogen fusion will make the earth unlivable in maybe 100K years, which will force us all off our asses in plenty of time for the sun's red-giant phase.
Since this isn't hydrogen-hydrogen cold fusion, ITER would still be valuable, as hydrogen is the most abundant source fuel in the universe.
Poisonous, poisonous lead!
30 cubic meters unravels to a lot of linear meters when you break it down into planck volume pieces.
Oddly enough, it's hard to provide links into the nsa.
But my empirical evidence trumps their flawed analytics.
I don't know, you seem to think factorization is in np-complete while rsa think it is in np-hard. I'm going to go with rsa.
I watched the first half season worth of season one (7 episodes), and not a single one was good, or even not bad. Just terrible, really terrible. Painful to watch even. Did it take a radical turn for the better later on?
Integer factorization is not (yet) np-complete, so technically no one can do what you are asking
You've got it backwards. A problem being NP-complete means you can reduce any problem in NP to it.
The problem "does N have a nontrivial factor smaller than m?" is in NP. A solver for that can easily be used to factor integers.
even if they have a legitimate proof of p=np.
Technically speaking, a legitimate proof that P=NP implies that every problem in P is NP complete.
What we're talking about is not proofs but rather unproven algorithms which seem to scale because they aren't run on hard inputs.
I had it exactly right. They cannot use a 3-sat solver on "does N have a nontrivial factor smaller than m?" because the latter is not in np-complete. A solver for the latter can indeed be used to trivially factor integers, but since it isn't what they have they can't. Nor can anyone with an np-complete solver trivially do that.
And yes, of course a legitimate proof implies that every problem in P is NP complete. That's obvious. But it doesn't screw RSA because RSA security is based on the fact that an efficient algorithm for factoring integers is unknown, not that such doesn't exist, and everyone knows that.
Proving P=NP by (for example) finding a polynomial time solution to a #P-complete problem won't immediately kill RSA because it's unclear (to me at least) how that would map to an efficient factoring algorithm. But a constructive proof such as what Romanov claims, i.e. an efficient 3-SAT solver, immediately deals a death blow to RSA, AES and everything else but one-time pads. That's because all these systems are polynomial time reducible to some 3-SAT instance.
As far as I know, there's no proof of that. If there was, they would be in the class np-complete rather than np-hard.
Exactly. The security of RSA has nothing to do with p/np but with the lack of an efficient algorithm for factoring. p=np only proves an efficient algorithm exists, but doesn't supply it. It could be many, many years (or never!) after p=np that such an algorithm is discovered.
I don't know, my tz5 takes jpg rather than RAW, and I've taken 2GB in a week's vacation, not even very aggressively (about a thousand shots). The poster described taking thousands of shots. So he may already be on jpg rather than raw.
Why is solid state media unrecoverable? I'd think that it's really just the case that recovery companies haven't caught up yet. I can't think of any physical reason recovery wouldn't be possible.
What you've shown is well known, that if P=NP, there exists an algorithm that will solve crypto in polytime.
But RSA encryption relies on an efficient algorithm being unknown, not on its non-existence.
Glad you got to move on. :-)
You are right, here's RSA themselves on the subject:
http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2187
Yeah, USB sticks are horribly inconvenient to hand out.
3sat is traditionally written as conjunctions of disjunctions rather than the other way around.