is being made towards the implementation and use of elliptic curve cryptography?
I have read a lot about it and it seems to be the direction public-key crypto is going nowadays. Have you done any serious work in this field? and if so, when do you think the public will start to see it implemented full force?
Everyone nowadays is on a real kick. They think that they can diagnose every single illness and problem with themselves. Without any knowledge other than what the internet says or a book says. Well I have one thing to say to them. Stop trying to diagnose yourself!
One important thing was said to me during my psychopathology class and it has stuck with me ever since. (Roughly):
"You are going to learn about many different psychological diseases, their symptoms and causes. Just because you learn about it though, doesn't mean you are qualified to diagnose yourself. Your problems always seem amplified to yourself, so you never really get to see the actual picture of what you are doing and what's happening to you. So, right now I am going to tell you all, you very likely aren't bipolar, don't have any personality disorders, aren't schizophrenic, and don't have any of the diseases the book talks about. If you feel you do have any of them, go and see a professional and don't diagnose/treat yourself. It's that simple. You will avoid a lot of hardship that way."
Well, I think that applies to all of these people who think their bodies are hosts for bug larvae, or people who are determined that every big evil corporation is actively trying to kill them, or that their small problems in their life are so huge that the world must be collapsing and the sky must be falling...
You likely aren't sick, but if you honestly feel you are, go see a qualified professional and get it checked out properly. At least that way you can try to find the root of the real problem, and not live your life in fear and horror of these imaginary deamons that are haunting you. Stop attacking these windmills blindly.
Also, I would like to point out that there isn't a giant conspiracy orchestrated by the doctors and psychologists to steal your money and keep you sick/kill you.
I found myself trying to see the numbers that colourblindness would lead you to see. You know, cover up the right hand side and guess what the number is. Even if you can see colours, you can make out hte light/dark differences and see the numbers that colour-blind people would see first.
Has had incredibly strict regulation on backdoors and "easter eggs".
Backdoors = Instant firing. Not permitted whatsoever.
Easter Eggs = Depends on the company, some companies I have worked for have let these go through, others fire on spot, and others actually have a process to "approve" the easter eggs before implementation.
Either way, I was too busy programming real code to even have time to worry about coding backdoors and easter eggs.
Wow, I don't ever have to work again..
on
Cornucopia of Spam
·
· Score: 1
Let's see, I receive ~ 75-100 spams a day
@ $500 per spam...
so that's about 37500-50000 a day... 365 a year..
wow... I'll be rich! Rich beyond dreams of avarice! Hoorah! I knew there was a good reason I kept all of those spam receiving e-mail addresses.
I'd say discovering an algorithm is similar to discovering a new useful chemical compound. (Like Nylon).
It hypothetically always existed, it was just our creativity and knowledge that allowed us to make use of it.
Mathematics exists, algorithms are a form of applied mathematics, thus they "exist", and are "discovered", but like useful organic chemical compounds, they are also "created".
So really, when it comes down to it. You can take either side of the issue and be reasonably correct. Algorithms are both created and discovered. IMHO.
yeah, but I was hoping that I may be able to explain it to those who have a basic understanding.
I know for a fact that it isn't the "exact" definition of the dot product, but the definition I gave works well for vectors in Rn, which is what most people who are going to read it and understand on slashdot know about.
Now, if I felt that the majority would understand another vector space where I can easily define a dot product, I would have defined it differently. If I felt that defining it exactly would be appropriate I would have as well, but when you are dealing with certain spaces, the "cosine" of the angle loses its meaning.
I know that the more correct def'n is reliant on what type of space you are dealing with. I just don't think it's appropriate to explain in too technical terms when I am trying to make it easier to understand.
Sometimes easier to understand = less accurate detail.
But I understand what you are saying. Sometimes it's fun to be pedantic. I know I catch myself doing it more than once or twice. ^_^
A proof of the Riemann's hypothesis (RH) about the non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta-function is presented.
We are going to show you beyond a shadow of a doubt that the non-trivial zeros of the zeta-function are of the form 1/2 +- i*theta_n.
It is based on the construction of an infinite family of operators D^{(k,l)} in one dimension, and their respective eigenfunctions \psi_s (t), parameterized by continuous real indexes k and l.
To do this, we are going to use the operators D^{(k,1)} and their respective vectors \psi_s (t), such that using D^{(k,1)} on \psi_s (t) will produce k*(\psi_s (t)), where k is some non-zero constant. Unfortunately though, we have to show a way to product all of these operators. So the "construction of" the operators will be contained within the proof.
Orthogonality of the eigenfunctions is connected to the zeros of the Riemann zeta-function.
These \psi_s (t) vectors are also all at "right-angles" to eachother. So their cross products = 0.
Due to the fundamental Gauss-Jacobi relation and the Riemann fundamental relation Z (s') = Z (1-s'), one can show that there is a direct concatenation among the following symmetries, t goes to 1/t, s goes to \beta - s (\beta a real), and s' goes to 1 - s', which establishes a one-to-one correspondence between the label s of one orthogonal state to a unique vacuum state, and a zero s' of the \zeta.
Z(s') = Z(1-s') is true. Thus, we can show that there is a connection between the follwing symmetries: t goes to 1/t, s goes to \beta -s (where beta is a real number), and s' goes to 1 - s'
In Q.M. we can show then a correspondence between one of these orthogonal states to a unique vacuum state (from Quantum Mechanics), and thus a solution of the zeta function.
It is shown that the RH is a direct consequence of these symmetries, by arguing in particular that an exclusion of a continuum of the zeros of the Riemann zeta function results in the discrete set of the zeros located at the points s_n = 1/2 + i \lambda_n in the complex plane.
From these neat little tricks, we can show that the Riemann Hypothesis must be true, because these things are true.
A ASCII char is stored in 1 byte of space A Unicode char is stored in 1 word of space and a lot of assembler commands are stored in 1 doubleword of space.
Having coded a lot of assembler for motorola and intel processors, this is the language that was always used around me. A byte always meant just that 8 bits. While a word and double word mean 16 and 32 respectively.
There is a term for a 64-bit one, but for the life of me I don't remember.
Ozone also gives a nice mellow high
on
Ozone As Pesticide
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Having worked around tesla coils and other equipment that creates/gives off a lot of ozone, I can tell you, if you are going to die some way, this is probably one of the best.
You get very very high if the concentration of ozone in the air gets too high. It's a very mellow high as well.
I don't know how dangerous to your brain it is though. It hasn't caused any major problems for me yet. But around electrical equipment that gives off sparks, it's really easy to get a build up of ozone gas, or as we call it at work, happy gas.:-)
Plus ozone definitely has a distinct smell, I find.
Just some interesting tips.
Yes though, ozone is deadly, and I am not recommending "recreational" use of ozone. I have to inhale it, you don't.
Actually, I'd be more worried about a treason investigation. If releasing the code actually does damage to national security, and they don't have the blessing of the state (so to speak), then considering the relations of China and US as of late. This would be a very serious concern.
actually french fries weren't made by the french in france, but rather Belgium (source).
even then though, the evidence is sketchy. In reality the reason they are called French fries is because the way of cutting the potatoes is called "to french". Cutting a potatoe in long, slender slices is to french the potatoe. (Not to be confused with a different more modern "to french").
I have used Mathematica, Maple and Matlab, and I can state that my favourite is Maple.
Maple is an excellent tool for doing almost anything. It's also Canadian, so that's a small plus for me as well. (I am Canadian)
Mathematica is at par or a notch better than Maple, but the "Canadian" nature of Maple, plus the fact that more people I know use Maple so there is more help available pushes Maple above Mathematica (For now.)
I personally just found Matlab to be incredibly frustrating to use. I didn't like the interface at all, and I found it was way too slow, unlike Maple and Mathematica, whose interfaces are fast, clean, and smooth.
Folding at home allows anyone with spare computer cycles to help out and further mankind's understanding of how the proteins fold to their lowest/near lowest energy state and how they interact in the body.
To take your absurd motherboard example, understanding protein folding is more akin to understanding the principles of electromagnetism. It still won't tell you how the thing works.
Yeah, I was pretty tired when I came up with taht metaphor. Sorry for the painfulness of it.
I'll try to come up with a better one. It's pretty hard when it comes to proteins, dna and all.
Distraction definitely would be an excellent way to handle security. But you would make a big show about the base, and yet the "dullville" warehouse would still have high security, just not as obvious. This would be a "just in case" measure. In case someone accidentally found out about the warehouse.
The art of security is not to completely prevent someone from seeing something. That's impossible. Rather, you want to slow them down. ie. encryption that takes 100s of years. A safe that would take a long time to burn through or test all the combinations (thick walls, long combination). The goal is to slow them down, not completely stop them. Since stopping them is near impossible. (Unless you just kill them.)
Center for Environmental and Information Technology building.
Sounds like exactly what you want to do.
http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/earth/
Not sure about other universities and ecology, a lot of the prarie universities (Univ of Alberta, Univ of Calgary, Univ of Regina) have great agriculture programs, but I am not sure about ecology.
Slashdot Mirror
is being made towards the implementation and use of elliptic curve cryptography?
I have read a lot about it and it seems to be the direction public-key crypto is going nowadays. Have you done any serious work in this field? and if so, when do you think the public will start to see it implemented full force?
Everyone nowadays is on a real kick. They think that they can diagnose every single illness and problem with themselves. Without any knowledge other than what the internet says or a book says. Well I have one thing to say to them. Stop trying to diagnose yourself!
One important thing was said to me during my psychopathology class and it has stuck with me ever since. (Roughly):
"You are going to learn about many different psychological diseases, their symptoms and causes. Just because you learn about it though, doesn't mean you are qualified to diagnose yourself. Your problems always seem amplified to yourself, so you never really get to see the actual picture of what you are doing and what's happening to you. So, right now I am going to tell you all, you very likely aren't bipolar, don't have any personality disorders, aren't schizophrenic, and don't have any of the diseases the book talks about. If you feel you do have any of them, go and see a professional and don't diagnose/treat yourself. It's that simple. You will avoid a lot of hardship that way."
Well, I think that applies to all of these people who think their bodies are hosts for bug larvae, or people who are determined that every big evil corporation is actively trying to kill them, or that their small problems in their life are so huge that the world must be collapsing and the sky must be falling...
You likely aren't sick, but if you honestly feel you are, go see a qualified professional and get it checked out properly. At least that way you can try to find the root of the real problem, and not live your life in fear and horror of these imaginary deamons that are haunting you. Stop attacking these windmills blindly.
Also, I would like to point out that there isn't a giant conspiracy orchestrated by the doctors and psychologists to steal your money and keep you sick/kill you.
Well God Co. was considering suing them for infringing on their patent, but then realized they didn't have any lawyers.
Not trying to win, just trying to give a possible alternative way to generate hydrogen.
Well, you could always just get a vat full of Hydrochloric acid and toss in a lump of magnesium.
That produces hydrogen.
2HCl + Mg = MgCL_2 + H_2
(Now, I don't know how hard it is to get acid though.)
That's cool.
I found myself trying to see the numbers that colourblindness would lead you to see. You know, cover up the right hand side and guess what the number is. Even if you can see colours, you can make out hte light/dark differences and see the numbers that colour-blind people would see first.
Very cool, thanx for the site man. ^_^
Has had incredibly strict regulation on backdoors and "easter eggs".
Backdoors = Instant firing. Not permitted whatsoever.
Easter Eggs = Depends on the company, some companies I have worked for have let these go through, others fire on spot, and others actually have a process to "approve" the easter eggs before implementation.
Either way, I was too busy programming real code to even have time to worry about coding backdoors and easter eggs.
Let's see, I receive ~ 75-100 spams a day
@ $500 per spam...
so that's about 37500-50000 a day... 365 a year..
wow... I'll be rich! Rich beyond dreams of avarice! Hoorah! I knew there was a good reason I kept all of those spam receiving e-mail addresses.
I'd say discovering an algorithm is similar to discovering a new useful chemical compound. (Like Nylon).
It hypothetically always existed, it was just our creativity and knowledge that allowed us to make use of it.
Mathematics exists, algorithms are a form of applied mathematics, thus they "exist", and are "discovered", but like useful organic chemical compounds, they are also "created".
So really, when it comes down to it. You can take either side of the issue and be reasonably correct. Algorithms are both created and discovered. IMHO.
yeah, but I was hoping that I may be able to explain it to those who have a basic understanding.
I know for a fact that it isn't the "exact" definition of the dot product, but the definition I gave works well for vectors in Rn, which is what most people who are going to read it and understand on slashdot know about.
Now, if I felt that the majority would understand another vector space where I can easily define a dot product, I would have defined it differently. If I felt that defining it exactly would be appropriate I would have as well, but when you are dealing with certain spaces, the "cosine" of the angle loses its meaning.
I know that the more correct def'n is reliant on what type of space you are dealing with. I just don't think it's appropriate to explain in too technical terms when I am trying to make it easier to understand.
Sometimes easier to understand = less accurate detail.
But I understand what you are saying. Sometimes it's fun to be pedantic. I know I catch myself doing it more than once or twice. ^_^
Umm...
Information Superhighway and Hack Attack are not 2 words. They are two idioms(IANAEnglishMajor).
But I agree with you fully.
Quoi? Vous ne parlez pas francais?
Ah, c'est une belle langue. vous devriez apprendre francais autrefois. ^_^
(I know, it's an anglicism, but it's good enough.)
non-trivial zeros is like the following.
you have an equation
f(x) = x(x-2)
now, x=0 is a trivial zero, because well anything times 0 is zero, so it's trivial, let's ignore it.
while, x=2 is a non-trivial zero, because it is unusual.
(to the mathies out there: I know, I know, this isn't 100% accurate, but it's a good approximation as to what trivial and non-trivial mean.)
My bad..
I mean dot product... Sorry about that.
(for those of the unitiatied)
dot product means
A . B = sum(a_n*b_n), for all n.
cross product is something completely different.
A proof of the Riemann's hypothesis (RH) about the non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta-function is presented.
We are going to show you beyond a shadow of a doubt that the non-trivial zeros of the zeta-function are of the form 1/2 +- i*theta_n.
It is based on the construction of an infinite family of operators D^{(k,l)} in one dimension, and their respective eigenfunctions \psi_s (t), parameterized by continuous real indexes k and l.
To do this, we are going to use the operators D^{(k,1)} and their respective vectors \psi_s (t), such that using D^{(k,1)} on \psi_s (t) will produce k*(\psi_s (t)), where k is some non-zero constant. Unfortunately though, we have to show a way to product all of these operators. So the "construction of" the operators will be contained within the proof.
Orthogonality of the eigenfunctions is connected to the zeros of the Riemann zeta-function.
These \psi_s (t) vectors are also all at "right-angles" to eachother. So their cross products = 0.
Due to the fundamental Gauss-Jacobi relation and the Riemann fundamental relation Z (s') = Z (1-s'), one can show that there is a direct concatenation among the following symmetries, t goes to 1/t, s goes to \beta - s (\beta a real), and s' goes to 1 - s', which establishes a one-to-one correspondence between the label s of one orthogonal state to a unique vacuum state, and a zero s' of the \zeta.
Z(s') = Z(1-s') is true. Thus, we can show that there is a connection between the follwing symmetries:
t goes to 1/t,
s goes to \beta -s (where beta is a real number),
and s' goes to 1 - s'
In Q.M. we can show then a correspondence between one of these orthogonal states to a unique vacuum state (from Quantum Mechanics), and thus a solution of the zeta function.
It is shown that the RH is a direct consequence of these symmetries, by arguing in particular that an exclusion of a continuum of the zeros of the Riemann zeta function results in the discrete set of the zeros located at the points s_n = 1/2 + i \lambda_n in the complex plane.
From these neat little tricks, we can show that the Riemann Hypothesis must be true, because these things are true.
Ummm... I am thinking you may have gotten your definitions a bit confused.
On a intel processors
Byte = 8 Bits.
Word = 16 Bits.
DoubleWord = 32 Bits.
A ASCII char is stored in 1 byte of space
A Unicode char is stored in 1 word of space
and a lot of assembler commands are stored in 1 doubleword of space.
Having coded a lot of assembler for motorola and intel processors, this is the language that was always used around me. A byte always meant just that 8 bits. While a word and double word mean 16 and 32 respectively.
There is a term for a 64-bit one, but for the life of me I don't remember.
Having worked around tesla coils and other equipment that creates/gives off a lot of ozone, I can tell you, if you are going to die some way, this is probably one of the best.
:-)
You get very very high if the concentration of ozone in the air gets too high. It's a very mellow high as well.
I don't know how dangerous to your brain it is though. It hasn't caused any major problems for me yet. But around electrical equipment that gives off sparks, it's really easy to get a build up of ozone gas, or as we call it at work, happy gas.
Plus ozone definitely has a distinct smell, I find.
Just some interesting tips.
Yes though, ozone is deadly, and I am not recommending "recreational" use of ozone. I have to inhale it, you don't.
Actually, I'd be more worried about a treason investigation. If releasing the code actually does damage to national security, and they don't have the blessing of the state (so to speak), then considering the relations of China and US as of late. This would be a very serious concern.
actually french fries weren't made by the french in france, but rather Belgium (source).
even then though, the evidence is sketchy. In reality the reason they are called French fries is because the way of cutting the potatoes is called "to french". Cutting a potatoe in long, slender slices is to french the potatoe. (Not to be confused with a different more modern "to french").
Just some interesting facts.
I have used Mathematica, Maple and Matlab, and I can state that my favourite is Maple.
Maple is an excellent tool for doing almost anything. It's also Canadian, so that's a small plus for me as well. (I am Canadian)
Mathematica is at par or a notch better than Maple, but the "Canadian" nature of Maple, plus the fact that more people I know use Maple so there is more help available pushes Maple above Mathematica (For now.)
I personally just found Matlab to be incredibly frustrating to use. I didn't like the interface at all, and I found it was way too slow, unlike Maple and Mathematica, whose interfaces are fast, clean, and smooth.
Microsoft issues cease and desist to Oxford dictionary for use of hte word "Windows"
Apple issues cease and desist to Oxford dictionary for use of the words "Macintosh, and Apple"
Yahoo issues cease and desist to Oxford dictionary for use of the word "Yahoo"
geez, you can go on forever.
In case anyone doesn't know, google is a valid word that existed before google was even around. It stood for 10^100 , and a googleplex was 10^google .
well.. sorry...
more correctly.
Folding at home allows anyone with spare computer cycles to help out and further mankind's understanding of how the proteins fold to their lowest/near lowest energy state and how they interact in the body.
Is that better?
To take your absurd motherboard example, understanding protein folding is more akin to understanding the principles of electromagnetism. It still won't tell you how the thing works.
Yeah, I was pretty tired when I came up with taht metaphor. Sorry for the painfulness of it.
I'll try to come up with a better one. It's pretty hard when it comes to proteins, dna and all.
Distraction definitely would be an excellent way to handle security. But you would make a big show about the base, and yet the "dullville" warehouse would still have high security, just not as obvious. This would be a "just in case" measure. In case someone accidentally found out about the warehouse.
The art of security is not to completely prevent someone from seeing something. That's impossible. Rather, you want to slow them down. ie. encryption that takes 100s of years. A safe that would take a long time to burn through or test all the combinations (thick walls, long combination). The goal is to slow them down, not completely stop them. Since stopping them is near impossible. (Unless you just kill them.)
University of Waterloo just built a new
Center for Environmental and Information Technology building.
Sounds like exactly what you want to do.
http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/earth/
Not sure about other universities and ecology, a lot of the prarie universities (Univ of Alberta, Univ of Calgary, Univ of Regina) have great agriculture programs, but I am not sure about ecology.