Buy a Neo FreeRunner phone and use a folding bluetooth keyboard. I'm using the developer's pre-release version of the FreeRunner (Neo GTA01) and I use my bt kbd with it all the time. The iGo folding keyboard fits in my front pocket.
You can run QTopia, the Openmoko software stack, or even a couple of (nearly) all python software stacks for the phone (Zad/Underground or zhone). All are based on Linux, of course.
The hardware list for the FreeRunner is: * GSM phone * only GPRS mobile internet:-( * WiFi * GPS * Full bluetooth (host & client) * Full USB (host & client) * micro SD slot * 2 accelerometers * 400 MHz cpu * 128 MB sdram * 256 MB flash (but of course you mostly use the 8GB microsd you put in it) * 640x480 touchscreen (great resolution, but a little small at 2.8")
The act of concealing is an evil act, just like spreading misinformation is also an evil act.
Say what? Concealing is *absolutely not* an evil act.
For example: when someone with power over you is doing evil, and you act to stop them, and you try to conceal your identity and/or the ways you try to stop them, that is good, not evil. If you broadcast to everyone everything you do, then the people who are evil and powerful will walk all over you.
Concealing may be evil, depending on the circumstances. Misinforming is more likely to be evil, but still depending on the circumstances.
Evil actions are those that hurt people (or, to a lesser extent, other living things).
And that has nothing to do with the fact that "double" is nonsense when applied to temperature unless you're talking about kelvins. (Moreso, obviously, when one omits the units one is measuring with.)
I used approximations to point out your error without bogging down in details. Apparently it didn't work.
The problem with the information you gave doesn't require a degree in "alchemy" to see - you didn't say degrees C or F; or kelvins; for the temperature, and double room temperature in degrees C is very different than double room temperature in degrees F or in kelvins.
The only sane way to calculate "multiples" of temperature is in kelvins, and room temperature is about 293 kelvins. Double would mean 586 kelvins, which is about 316 degrees Celsius.
Whenever e.g. the rate of chemical reactions are proportional to the temperature, it always means the temperature in kelvins.
Resistance is inversely proportional to the surface area orthogonal to the direction of current flow, which is presumably basically the square of the width.
But all of the possible solutions happen, we are just (mostly) restricted to interacting with a slice of the wavefunctions (Hugh Everett demonstrated this in 1957).
So the universe (multiverse?) is *completely* deterministic; we just happen to live in a thin 'quantum' slice of it. Quantum mechanics and the randomness of it is purely an artifact of how the processes that are us are formed of thin slices of the deterministic quantum wave functions, and the fact that any of the different slices yield an 'us'. (Since the slices can't interact with one another (again, see Hugh Everett), each slice yields one 'us' that appears to have just observed a random event.)
The main thrust of Everett's 1957 PhD thesis was demonstrating that the physics of QM shows that the whole universe "sees" (again, mostly) the same slice, i.e. the same result of the "random" interaction.
The IP I see for www.partidocolorado.org is 64.233.179.121 from my home account, which has a reverse dns of ghs.l.google.com. From my server account in California, it resolves to 64.233.179.121, reverse DNS of hs-in-f121.google.com.
In case of simple automated filters obscuring that IP, those numbers again are 64dot233dot179dot121 and 64dot233dot179dot121.
Dotster.com has always made me happy. I haven't really used anyone else (other than Network Solutions back when there was no choice), so I can't say whether others are better, but I've had no problems with Doster.
No, changing your door choice changes your chances of winning from 1/3 to 2/3.
When you choose one door out of three, and one of those three was pre-chosen randomly to be "the winner", your chance of having picked the right door is 1/3. At least one of the other two doors is not the winner, so the fact that Monty can show you that one is not the winner doesn't change your chance of having chosen the winner.
HOWEVER, now your chance is the same (1/3), but the chance of either the door you chose or the remaining door closed door being the winner is 100%. Therefore the chance that the remaining door is the winner is 2/3. Switch doors to double your chances.
I have a BS in math (not statistically oriented, but I had the normal discrete math sequence) and I still had to think about this a lot before I switched answers from the wrong one to the right one:-)
I think all we can do is reduce risk of death lower & lower, and hence increase average lifespan higher & higher.
Even if we were to get ourselves transfered to ubiquitous, distributed, highly redundant hardware, there is some chance that the sun will go supernova, or, much more likely, that some intentional or unintentional worm will subvert our selves & backups.
A few billion years of life is the best we can hope for, IMO;-)
I love how they pitch the term sneaker-net (to mean carrying thumb drives from somewhere that has internet access back to the school) as if Walter Bender invented the term:
by what OLPC president Walter Bender calls "sneaker-net."
Thinking more about it, in the case of unordered dictionary lookup, it makes more sense to consider the dictionary to be an input, which brings you back to the O(n) time you listed. If you consider using Grover's algorithm to invert a function, it is ~O(2^n).
The run time complexity is O(n) which is linear (this is obvious), and hence the problem is in P.
I believe algorithmic complexity is rated based on the size of the input, not the size of the search space (obviously, since search space is a concept specific to this problem).
If you add one bit to the input of a dictionary lookup, it implies that you would on average go through twice as many entries to find the key, so the complexity of unordered dictionary lookup is exponential on the size of the input.
I recognize that Grover's algorithm "only" reduces the complexity from O(f(n)) to O(f(n)^.5). However, if f(n) = 2^n, and n is 1000, Grover's algorithm reduces the complexity from 2^80 to 2^40. If your computer tests 1 billion results per second, that reduces the computation time from about 40 million years to about 20 minutes.
The set of problems that fall in that range of requiring between a day and a few hundred million years due to having to test between 2^50 and 2^90 possibilities may be fairly small, but it includes a lot of interesting stuff (e.g. brute force tests of lots of hardware designs by mixing up components) and Grover's makes a VAST difference for that set.
Wrong (emphasis mine). Factoring is in NP but not (known to be) NP complete. Which means that factoring is not (known to be) NP-Hard. (The only NP-hard problems in NP are NP-Complete problems) A more colloquial way to explain it is that NP-hard problems are at least as hard as NP-complete problems, yet factoring is "easier" than NP-complete problems.
You are absolutely right. I made two mistakes - first I said NP hard when I just meant "in NP". Second, I was just totally wrong - I thought factoring was known not to be NP complete. The computational complexity of factoring is apparently almost completely unknown - it might be in P, NP, coNP, NP complete. It is known to be in BQP (via Shor's algorithm).
Do you even know what you are talking about? Grover's algorithm is not used to solve NP complete problems!! You've already said it -- it's a way to look up an unordered dictionary.
I certainly do not have any formal training in complexity theory, but I know Grover's algorithm is much more than just a way to look up entries in an unordered dictionary. Grover's algorithm can be used to invert any function. Not that Wikipedia is the best of all possible sources, but quoting the Wikipedia article: In addition, it can be used to solve NP-complete problems by performing exhaustive searches over the set of possible solutions.
You may be right that unordered dictionary lookup is not an NP complete problem. I can't find any references for it either way, and certainly don't know a proof myself. However, Grover believes that Grover's algorithm is proven to be the fastest way to find an entry in an unordered dictionary using a quantum computer.
Do you have an example of asymmetric encryption that is secure against quantum algorithm? PK is broken by Schor's algorithm (if you have a big enough quantum computer), and per Scott Aaronson (an algorithmic complexity professor at MIT), elliptical encryption is also demonstrated to be vulnerable. He appeared to imply in that same discussion that all asymmetric algorithms were vulnerable...
Also read about Schor's algorithm, which is the known algorithm to factor large numbers in log(n) time *if your quantum computer has enough entangled qubits to represent the number*. Again, though, remember that FACTORING IS NOT NP COMPLETE, only NP hard. Other NP hard problems are harder than factoring (for example, any NP complete problem;-).
Also read about Grover's algorithm, which is a general algorithm to solve NP complete problems, and which HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE THE FASTEST way to solve the NP complete problem of lookup in an unordered dictionary. Grover's algorithm finds the answer in n^1/2. Obviously if the fastest algorithm to solve a specific NP complete problem is n^1/2, you cannot have a way to solve all NP complete problems in log(n).
Look up Grover's algorithm and Schor's algorithm on Wikipedia, and you'll see that the GP is speaking beyond his knowledge.
I should say that I also made the mistake of thinking factoring was NP complete, and made a fool of myself on Scott's blog before the many, many people more knowledgeable than I about QC on that forum corrected me.
Cheaper, open from top to bottom, and you can do anything on it that a 400 mhz ARM linux computer can do.
As a bonus, super high dpi screen (480x640, 2.8"), GPS, full bluetooth (not that watered-down, headset-only crap most phones come with), 802.11 g, two accelerometers for potential phone-as-magic-wand fun, and of course it's not locked to any carrier and you get a linux terminal.
Downsides: about one month still until release (now you can only get the Neo1973 with no accelerometers or wi-fi), only GPRS for mobile internet (no EDGE or 3G), software still in alpha-beta until later this year.
BTW: is someone on the slashdot coding staff aware of the bug where preview resets your subject line to that of the parent? This is on Firefox 2.0.0.12 on Windows 2000 if it matters.
There is another factor. In closed source, often someone eventually checks the code. (Of course, often no one ever checks it.)
However, in closed source, everyone who checks the code reports to the same person. If the code is crap, or if it violates your privacy, and the person they report to either discourages people from speaking up, or is the author of the code, or is good friends with the author of the code, or explicitly supports the violation of your privacy, then nothing gets done.
Who cares if the code gets reviewed if the reviewer has no recourse and/or no incentive to improve it?
With open source code, if someone reviews it and sees something wrong, they get kudos for pointing out the problem or just fixing it. They'll get even more kudos if the code is busted for political or malicious reasons.
The court of opinion of other devs is the standard for good code in FOSS. This is a far better standard for end users than that of some byzantine, insular, in-bred in-house development community.
Slashdot Mirror
Buy a Neo FreeRunner phone and use a folding bluetooth keyboard. I'm using the developer's pre-release version of the FreeRunner (Neo GTA01) and I use my bt kbd with it all the time. The iGo folding keyboard fits in my front pocket.
:-(
You can run QTopia, the Openmoko software stack, or even a couple of (nearly) all python software stacks for the phone (Zad/Underground or zhone). All are based on Linux, of course.
The hardware list for the FreeRunner is:
* GSM phone
* only GPRS mobile internet
* WiFi
* GPS
* Full bluetooth (host & client)
* Full USB (host & client)
* micro SD slot
* 2 accelerometers
* 400 MHz cpu
* 128 MB sdram
* 256 MB flash (but of course you mostly use the 8GB microsd you put in it)
* 640x480 touchscreen (great resolution, but a little small at 2.8")
Say what? Concealing is *absolutely not* an evil act.
For example: when someone with power over you is doing evil, and you act to stop them, and you try to conceal your identity and/or the ways you try to stop them, that is good, not evil. If you broadcast to everyone everything you do, then the people who are evil and powerful will walk all over you.
Concealing may be evil, depending on the circumstances. Misinforming is more likely to be evil, but still depending on the circumstances.
Evil actions are those that hurt people (or, to a lesser extent, other living things).
And that has nothing to do with the fact that "double" is nonsense when applied to temperature unless you're talking about kelvins. (Moreso, obviously, when one omits the units one is measuring with.)
I'm done with this lame conversation.
I used approximations to point out your error without bogging down in details. Apparently it didn't work.
The problem with the information you gave doesn't require a degree in "alchemy" to see - you didn't say degrees C or F; or kelvins; for the temperature, and double room temperature in degrees C is very different than double room temperature in degrees F or in kelvins.
Your processors run at over 310 degrees Celsius?
The only sane way to calculate "multiples" of temperature is in kelvins, and room temperature is about 293 kelvins. Double would mean 586 kelvins, which is about 316 degrees Celsius.
Whenever e.g. the rate of chemical reactions are proportional to the temperature, it always means the temperature in kelvins.
Resistance is inversely proportional to the surface area orthogonal to the direction of current flow, which is presumably basically the square of the width.
But all of the possible solutions happen, we are just (mostly) restricted to interacting with a slice of the wavefunctions (Hugh Everett demonstrated this in 1957).
So the universe (multiverse?) is *completely* deterministic; we just happen to live in a thin 'quantum' slice of it. Quantum mechanics and the randomness of it is purely an artifact of how the processes that are us are formed of thin slices of the deterministic quantum wave functions, and the fact that any of the different slices yield an 'us'. (Since the slices can't interact with one another (again, see Hugh Everett), each slice yields one 'us' that appears to have just observed a random event.)
The main thrust of Everett's 1957 PhD thesis was demonstrating that the physics of QM shows that the whole universe "sees" (again, mostly) the same slice, i.e. the same result of the "random" interaction.
The IP I see for www.partidocolorado.org is 64.233.179.121 from my home account, which has a reverse dns of ghs.l.google.com. From my server account in California, it resolves to 64.233.179.121, reverse DNS of hs-in-f121.google.com.
In case of simple automated filters obscuring that IP, those numbers again are 64dot233dot179dot121 and 64dot233dot179dot121.
Dotster.com has always made me happy. I haven't really used anyone else (other than Network Solutions back when there was no choice), so I can't say whether others are better, but I've had no problems with Doster.
I did not say it doesn't matter if Monty must open a (losing) door every time. I didn't say anything about it either way (I should have).
Someone else already pointed this out (that it's important that Monty open a losing door every time) and I agreed with them.
Great point.
:-)
Honestly, I felt 'funny' about this one until I wrote a simulation
Heh, yup. Sorry, I also switched from answering you to answering the post to which you were replying.
No, changing your door choice changes your chances of winning from 1/3 to 2/3.
:-)
When you choose one door out of three, and one of those three was pre-chosen randomly to be "the winner", your chance of having picked the right door is 1/3. At least one of the other two doors is not the winner, so the fact that Monty can show you that one is not the winner doesn't change your chance of having chosen the winner.
HOWEVER, now your chance is the same (1/3), but the chance of either the door you chose or the remaining door closed door being the winner is 100%. Therefore the chance that the remaining door is the winner is 2/3. Switch doors to double your chances.
I have a BS in math (not statistically oriented, but I had the normal discrete math sequence) and I still had to think about this a lot before I switched answers from the wrong one to the right one
I read one of Marilyn Vos Savant's books, and in it she listed 9 as a prime...
She does seem to be brilliant, but everyone makes mistakes, and calling them on them will educate them if they were wrong, and educate you otherwise.
I think all we can do is reduce risk of death lower & lower, and hence increase average lifespan higher & higher.
;-)
Even if we were to get ourselves transfered to ubiquitous, distributed, highly redundant hardware, there is some chance that the sun will go supernova, or, much more likely, that some intentional or unintentional worm will subvert our selves & backups.
A few billion years of life is the best we can hope for, IMO
Uh, read the article. I was just pointing out the specific meaning Walter gave there...
er, of course I meant "and n is 80"
I was revising the post to find numbers that demonstrated my point, and failed to update a reference...
Thinking more about it, in the case of unordered dictionary lookup, it makes more sense to consider the dictionary to be an input, which brings you back to the O(n) time you listed. If you consider using Grover's algorithm to invert a function, it is ~O(2^n).
I believe algorithmic complexity is rated based on the size of the input, not the size of the search space (obviously, since search space is a concept specific to this problem).
If you add one bit to the input of a dictionary lookup, it implies that you would on average go through twice as many entries to find the key, so the complexity of unordered dictionary lookup is exponential on the size of the input.
I recognize that Grover's algorithm "only" reduces the complexity from O(f(n)) to O(f(n)^.5). However, if f(n) = 2^n, and n is 1000, Grover's algorithm reduces the complexity from 2^80 to 2^40. If your computer tests 1 billion results per second, that reduces the computation time from about 40 million years to about 20 minutes.
The set of problems that fall in that range of requiring between a day and a few hundred million years due to having to test between 2^50 and 2^90 possibilities may be fairly small, but it includes a lot of interesting stuff (e.g. brute force tests of lots of hardware designs by mixing up components) and Grover's makes a VAST difference for that set.
You are absolutely right. I made two mistakes - first I said NP hard when I just meant "in NP". Second, I was just totally wrong - I thought factoring was known not to be NP complete. The computational complexity of factoring is apparently almost completely unknown - it might be in P, NP, coNP, NP complete. It is known to be in BQP (via Shor's algorithm).
I certainly do not have any formal training in complexity theory, but I know Grover's algorithm is much more than just a way to look up entries in an unordered dictionary. Grover's algorithm can be used to invert any function. Not that Wikipedia is the best of all possible sources, but quoting the Wikipedia article: In addition, it can be used to solve NP-complete problems by performing exhaustive searches over the set of possible solutions.
You may be right that unordered dictionary lookup is not an NP complete problem. I can't find any references for it either way, and certainly don't know a proof myself. However, Grover believes that Grover's algorithm is proven to be the fastest way to find an entry in an unordered dictionary using a quantum computer.
Do you have an example of asymmetric encryption that is secure against quantum algorithm? PK is broken by Schor's algorithm (if you have a big enough quantum computer), and per Scott Aaronson (an algorithmic complexity professor at MIT), elliptical encryption is also demonstrated to be vulnerable. He appeared to imply in that same discussion that all asymmetric algorithms were vulnerable...
Parent post is absolutely correct; grandparent is absolutely wrong.
;-).
Read Scott Aaronson's blog to get a clue about quantum computing.
Also read about Schor's algorithm, which is the known algorithm to factor large numbers in log(n) time *if your quantum computer has enough entangled qubits to represent the number*. Again, though, remember that FACTORING IS NOT NP COMPLETE, only NP hard. Other NP hard problems are harder than factoring (for example, any NP complete problem
Also read about Grover's algorithm, which is a general algorithm to solve NP complete problems, and which HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE THE FASTEST way to solve the NP complete problem of lookup in an unordered dictionary. Grover's algorithm finds the answer in n^1/2. Obviously if the fastest algorithm to solve a specific NP complete problem is n^1/2, you cannot have a way to solve all NP complete problems in log(n).
Look up Grover's algorithm and Schor's algorithm on Wikipedia, and you'll see that the GP is speaking beyond his knowledge.
I should say that I also made the mistake of thinking factoring was NP complete, and made a fool of myself on Scott's blog before the many, many people more knowledgeable than I about QC on that forum corrected me.
http://www.openmoko.com/
http://wiki.openmoko.org/
Cheaper, open from top to bottom, and you can do anything on it that a 400 mhz ARM linux computer can do.
As a bonus, super high dpi screen (480x640, 2.8"), GPS, full bluetooth (not that watered-down, headset-only crap most phones come with), 802.11 g, two accelerometers for potential phone-as-magic-wand fun, and of course it's not locked to any carrier and you get a linux terminal.
Downsides: about one month still until release (now you can only get the Neo1973 with no accelerometers or wi-fi), only GPRS for mobile internet (no EDGE or 3G), software still in alpha-beta until later this year.
BTW: is someone on the slashdot coding staff aware of the bug where preview resets your subject line to that of the parent? This is on Firefox 2.0.0.12 on Windows 2000 if it matters.
There is another factor. In closed source, often someone eventually checks the code. (Of course, often no one ever checks it.)
However, in closed source, everyone who checks the code reports to the same person. If the code is crap, or if it violates your privacy, and the person they report to either discourages people from speaking up, or is the author of the code, or is good friends with the author of the code, or explicitly supports the violation of your privacy, then nothing gets done.
Who cares if the code gets reviewed if the reviewer has no recourse and/or no incentive to improve it?
With open source code, if someone reviews it and sees something wrong, they get kudos for pointing out the problem or just fixing it. They'll get even more kudos if the code is busted for political or malicious reasons.
The court of opinion of other devs is the standard for good code in FOSS. This is a far better standard for end users than that of some byzantine, insular, in-bred in-house development community.