Slashdot has been knocked off the web for good, seemingly due to the fact that several of the daily stories it linked too were running the new "counter-attack" DoS protection.
I mean seriously guys, you can really do this! By the way, Slashdot is running a highlight on similar miracles, next up: Free Energy, Perpetual Motion Machines, and a method to turn lead into gold!
The truth is, the Hubble is still very capable, in fact more so than when it was launched. It needs new batteries and gyros, and as long as we're there, some new science instruments, and it'll keep going happily for a long time to come yet.
You know what, give that 486 sitting in your basement, if given a spiffy new graphics card, a few more megs of RAM, and a new hard disk, and it'll be more capable than it was when you first brought it home, but guess what? It will still be more cost than it is worth.
Just keeping the Hubble alive is dangerous beyond keeping your 486 alive. You might say, well, instead of scrapping it, lets just leave it up there. When it crashes headfirst into Podunk, Kansas because we figured out too late that the guidance system was damaged beyond repair, you can tell Billy Bob and Mary Sue why they won't ever see their Dear Old Aunt Cletus again.
The point is: take the Hubble out of service and out of orbit while we still know we can. We can keep repairing it for a while, but some day, it'll be nothing more than a dented up tin can, crashing into someone's barn. Take it out now, and we might even be able to scrap some parts from it, before we send it hurtling into the ocean, to put a good sized hole through some poor fish. But the point is to make sure we don't make the mistake and send it into Podunk.
Look at that 486 and ask yourself, is it really worth the investment?
Fortunately, we have mechanisms in place, like the electoral college to prevent such tyranny of the majority out of the executive branch.
And if Gore had been elected over Bush, you'd be arguing for the abolishment of the electoral college.
While allowing for the majority to vote on individual bills would be useless, when it comes to elected officials, majority rule is more than appropriate, it is necessary. The electoral college is a method of disenfranchisment for people who do not hold the same opinion as the majority of those living in their states. This problem becomes increasingly obvious for those that live near a state border between states with radically different political opinions.
Consider an individual who voted Republican, and lived on the Washington side of the Washington - Idaho border. His vote is totally nullified by the electoral college, eliminating his opinion in the electoral college as Washington voted for Bush, yet were his voted counted a mile east, in Idaho, he would have been part of the Republican majority. The inverse also applies. The end result for the election was, even though Gore recieved.5% more of the popular vote than Bush, the oligarchical system of the electoral college swung the vote to be.9% in favor of Bush.
This is disenfranchisment of the minority opinion in each state, and is as wrong as was taxation without representation. The reason that congress and the senate are so bad these days is not a result of direct election, but because they are the ones with the most cash for campaigning, and the toleration our country has of such abomiable practices as gerymandering.
I ought to say I'm sorry for calling you an idiot, but I won't, since
it seems you've brought your best thinking to the debate, at least once
you got done whining.
Ok, I guess I don't understand where this is coming from, at least where I
am from, one doesn't insult others one is involved in a debate with, and
when one does do this, by error, or otherwise, they apologize, but then
you may be from somewhere where this does not happen.
Determinism is dead. Heisenburg's Uncertainly Principle shot it...
Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle says nothing about determinism in the
real world. It simply says, whenever I measure a system I will have some
error in my momemtum and position, as measured by dp and dx. Further more
it says this error cannot be eliminated due to the fact that to measure
some system, I must alter that system in order to do so. However, most
physicists will point out that just because we can only speak of
probabilities when we talk about such things, it does not necessarily
indicate that the Universe does not operate on deterministic principles.
In fact it says nothing either way. The theory of Quantum Mechanics is
incomplete, and is not the "correct model" of the Universe, just a damn
good one. It is an unfortunate flaw of our measurments that they
introduce error, however, if Laplace's Demon were to exist, and were able
to measure without disturbing the system, Heisenburg's Uncertainty
Principle does not apply. Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle merely
gives us a hard upper limit on our ability to analyze a system, saying
that for all practicle purposes, Laplace's Demon is impossible. However
the theory behind it is no less sound because of it.
and Godel's Incompleteness Theorem buried it.
Again, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is only a comment on the ability of
our minds, or any other machine to solve highly complex equations. It
merely states that there are some problems for which we cannot derive an
answer. This does not mean that such answers do not exist, merely that we
are unable to prove so. The halting problem is an excellent example. (I
am assuming you are familiar with the Incompleteness Theorem, so I'm not
going to summarize it). One of the favorite versions of the halting
problem in Finite Automata is the one of a Turing Machine being given a
string of length N, where N is greater than 0, no other bounds. This
string is composed only of the characters "(" and ")", and the Turing
Machine must validate the string as being correct or incorrect. Of
course, due to the bounds on N, it obviously suffers from the halting
problem. This does not mean there isn't an answer, just that we cannot
necessarily find it.
Your arguements of "If we lack the ability to see if a system is
deterministic, then it must not be," are the same arguements used by
people in previous decades when arguing against theories for which things
cannot be immediately proven. In the end, none of our current work
disproves Einstein in a theoretical sense, it just comes close to proving
that he is wrong in a practicle sense. (Note, I say comes close because it's bad to say "proves" in science as really there is no proof, only disproof).
Practicle sense though says nothing about the underlying mechanics. Yes I
will agree that we will never be able to sample alpha particle emissions
in such a way that we can predict future events in that system. However,
they still are not "random". You may argue (and correctly so) that the
uncertainty principle guarentees you a generator that is thus impossible
to reproduce. However, other sources cannot be reproduced either. A
simple radio reciever is a chaotic enough system that even should you have
a similar reciever in another room, attempting to capture the same values,
the EMR from my speakers, computer, and the differences in shielding in my
office as opposed to yours will be introducing enough noise, that my
values will be significantly different than yours.
Jaz, as I said before, next time you call someone an idiot, make sure you
know what you are talking about. Screw that, make sure you have the basic
skills required to read a post submitted in English. You're methods seem to be "skim the post, without reading the actual content, then post a long winded discussion based on imperfect knowledge of what was actually posted". I've fully read your post, you ought to have the decency to fully read mine first. Several of your points are moot because you don't even know what I was stating in very clear terms.
Furthermore, if you want to have a discussion, it is usually best not to
call people names. All it does is highlight your own personal inadequacy.
If you have to resort to insults from the start to make your point, then
you really aren't showing much faith in your point to begin with. For
shame, I am called an idiot by someone on the internet, what do I have
left to live for? He must be a masterful debater, and filled with
knowledge to use a word such as idiot! Grow up or shut up.
Furthermore: I will agree that, baring some greater power introducing an
element which is inherently unpredictable, yes, the one could calculate
the current state of m mind and predict ahead of time my arguments. The
same goes with coin flips, given a "Diety Computer", i.e. one which is
truly omniscient, you could accurately predict future results. The same
probably even extends to alpha particle emissions. Quantum physics is not
set in stone, and has many flaws, yet it is a good model, as I do not deny
that even if we believe it is possible, it is highly improbable that we
could in practice build such a machine.
I'd like to see a reference to back up your assertion of the
non-existence of random numbers. But that's just intuition, not a rigorous
argument.
Random numbers can only exist in a universe where there are
non-deterministic events. While some events are so extremely complex that
they seem non-deterministic, our current knowledge of the laws that govern
this universe imply otherwise.
I don't know personally where you are pulling your "traditional CS
definition" of a random number (well obviously on Google, and the internet
is always right, isn't it!), but it's wrong. The definition of a random
number does not state that it must be uniform distributed. Furthermore,
stemming from my earlier assertion that you lack the skills necessary to
read a post on slashdot, had you read my post you would notice that I
stated that uniformity of distribution was merely a admirable quality of
a generator, not something required by definition.
Uniform random numbers can be translated into any other possible
distribution, leading them to be the most useful. Some, if not most, of
these transformations cannot be run in reverse. While some of the simple
ones can (weibull), others cannot (cauchy). If your source happens to
have a nasty distribution, it's not very useful in the long run, using a
source which doesn't have well defined properties (lava lamps for example)
is therefor a bad idea when other fully tested methods exist.
The fact of the matter is this: no method you have mentioned is any better
than using an LCG with a properly chosen seed. In fact, they are inferior
because they lack the ability to produce reproduceable sequences, where
an LCG offers you that ability. I can easily generate a number using an
LCG which you cannot predict, simply by seeding my generator with a
suitably complex process, such as your mouse movements, or the intervals
between your keystrokes. If I want to get really fancy, I'll use an
external device which samples noise on a radio frequency, line noise on
the power source, and then use that with your mouse movements and key
strokes to provide a suitably random seed. Volia, random numbers.
However should I have a scientific application, where I need to actually
reproduce my results, I set the seed to your SSN, and then I am free to
alter my model while keeping the same input.
Time series data from radioactive decay will generate truly random numbers in a non-uniform distribution. (Prerequisite: belief in quantum physics.)
Wrong, they are not "truly random" anymore than anything else for which you have imperfect knowlege. Using radioactive decay does nothing more than make your system more expensive, as other forms are just as random for all intents and purposes.
Use one good one (many bits long) to seed your PRNG.
Did you even RTFA? Or my post? We're talking about a single number, between one and ten, and an integer to boot. Your comment is entirely out of context, and similar to saying "Paying $1 for a blade of grass is a good thing, because if I had a few billion blades of grass, I could use it to much my state".
Demonstrably wrong statements, an abusive tone and gratuitous play of buzzwords does nothing to make you look less an idiot.
Since when is an LCG a buzzword? Most people have never even heard of one. As for probability and chaos theory, if we're calling those buzzwords, don't let me ever hear you say Quantum Mechanics, or even Mathematics.
As for demonstrateably wrong statements, I'm sorry but taking things out of context, or making assinine assumptions doesn't prove them wrong. As for an "abusive tone", I'll take what ever tone I like when someone responds in an offensive manner to my posts.
All of this changes nothing: charging $1 for a random number at some Con is about the dumbest thing I've heard; the article itself is amateur and not worthy of notice; you'd have to be dumb to buy anything from a coder who can't even bound his algorithm.
You should read up on chaos theory and probability before you call someone an idiot jaz. Random numbers don't exist period, even taking them from external sources is still pseudo-random generation, it just adds the further complication that you cannot control or predict how the noise will interact, and so can't guarentee that it will be uniform, the most useful sort of random number, as it can be translated into any other random number.
Furthermore, my point was not to use a pseudo-random number generator (and by the way, using a Lehmer Congruential Generator will produce better results than sampling a lava lamp for sure, never use rand(), it has horrible properties), my point was this:
Given a source of noise, translating that noise to a number between 1 and 10 is amazingly easy. You are controling your input device's range, and you know what possible values it produces, so it's a simple matter of finding where the generated number lies within that range.
And while pseudo-random numbers which seem more random than others (truly random numbers do not exist period) are valuable, one of them is not. Why the hell would I want to pay $1 to a bunch of wannabe's for a number between 1 and 10? Or any other single random number.
Next time you call someone an idiot, make sure you know what you are talking about first.
Who would pay $1 for a random number, not even a random number, but one from someone who is such a horrible coder, that they can't even get a program to bound the number between 1 and 10 reliably! Random number generation is one of the easiest and most simplistic algorithms in existance.
I think this Con sounds as amateur as the article, a bunch of wannabes who get together to feel good about the fact that they don't seem so stupid when all the smart people are elsewhere.
But we aren't talking about my drinking habits at all. Did you RTFA? They track the product, not who buys it. They track what areas it is purchased in, and which products were also in stock, as well as the comparitive price.
And yes, I know if you purchase with a credit card they can tell who purchased it, but guess what? They already can! The gov't already can get ahold of your credit card history and track every single purchase!
It's a good thing they can too, considering the number of criminals who are arrested because of this, and conversely the number of people who are aquitted because their credit card bill confirms their alibi.
Actually I have read the Patriot Acts, and agree that they strip our rights away. But when it comes down to it, I still hold my position, you are overreacting in classic slashdot fashion.
Yes, we have a right to privacy, which is why I never give out my SSN to anyone but those who absolutely need it, I use a T number of my drivers license, and only use encrypted connections for accessing remote computers. I refuse to answer personal questions on surveys, and don't think the gov't has any right to subpeona a library for the lists of the books I read.
However, you can cry out "Protect your rights or you won't have them!" but you have failed to realize the central issue of this, balance and moderation. Yes, we should all protect our right to Privacy, but there are certain points where you draw the line between Reasonable and Ridiculous. If we were arguing about National ID's or subpeonas to libraries, then yes, I would say they are going to far. But what beer I drink?
I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous, first off, Budwiser doesn't attach your name to the bottle. Second, they have a right to track their inventory and to plan for the future.
Saying we must protect every scrap of right to privacy this dearly is akin to saying that, because we have a right to be free from harm, we should protest sports, after all, that guy could hit you!
With all rights and laws there are reasonable restrictions and limitations to those rights. You have a right to drive, so long as it does not interfere with my right life in a reasonable manner. The same is for privacy. You have a right to privacy, but Budwiser also has a right to information about it's sales, within reasonable levels.
Frankly, I don't want Budweiser knowing when I choose to buy their beer versus another brands.
Is just classic slashdot overreaction. I swear, if there were an article talking about medical records, some slashdotter, or even an editor more likely, would post the comment "Frankly, I don't want my doctor to know my current medical conditions."
It's ridiculous people. Yes, privacy is important, but only in certain areas. Budwiser has just got an extremely good system for controlling where they send products, what they sell them for, and which companies are competing with them, and how well the competition is going.
It's not like Bud is handing over your drinking habits to the US gov't, and the US gov't upon seeing a southerner switch to a light beer declaring "ARGH! He must be a terrorist! I bet he stopped watching NASCAR too!"
Bud is just managing their stock, and trying to determine how the market truly feels about their product, and the prices they charge. It's all about managing their stock of beer, and where they will advertise.
Please, leave your tin foil hats at home before you post.
While I agree that Slashdotters in general are way to up on their horses about free as in beer when it comes to digital sources, I'm not a huge fan of paying for an on-line Washington Post. I already subscribe to the printed version, but use the website for up to date information.
Now if they could somehow extend my print subscription into an on-line subscription too, I'd be all for that. But then again, for a media giant like the Post, you would think they would have the money to maintain a free news site.
Not to mention the "freedom of the press" bit they jump on whenever it suits their purposes. I always thought the reason behind this was to get information to the people. Adding subscription costs to an on-line site pulls it out of reach from the less fortunate.
Of course you can always take the route some fellows I know did. They connected their broadcast to the town railroad tracks, and four a fifteen minute period broadcast a "We are invading your world, surrender or die" kind of bit. They managed to get out of their fast enough that they weren't caught, but as far as I know, everyone in a ten mile radius picked it up on every station.
You'd think the Germans would have more trust for the Iris, I mean, they both like their beer, both have some good brews in their country, so who cares if they have read hair!
My personal experience has been horrible with on-line job applications. When I finally accepted my current position, I asked the head of HR how effective they really were. He said that most of the time HR makes it's hires from recommendations, and paper applications, and that on-line applications tended to be placed in the "read later pile", or worse yet, added to a computer database, which was then searched for key phrases. The end result? While my on-line application never came up in their searches, my paper based one was their top pick (and it was the exact same application).
I never said that inventors don't have a right to make money off their inventions, as a matter of fact, it's essential, so they have the money to invest in new work.
However there is such a thing as Humanitarian, and it has nothing to do with extorting free labor. It has everything to do with making sure that what you have invented is available to those who need it at a low cost, so that obtaining it, if it serves some vital purpose (eg medical, nourishment, shelter, etc), is a very real possibility.
People who think that money is the be all end all, and are only looking at the profit side of the equation ought to sit back and think long and hard about what it really buys them, and whether our world would be better served if they shaved a bit off the profit, and gave some of their invention to those who need it.
This isn't just rhetorical, it's what I have done with my work, and what a lot of noted inventors have done.
He is patenting the device, and I for one applaud him for letting people use it. Where has our world gone that we call humanitarians fools? Last I checked, "you can't take it with you", and when it comes down to it, with the brains he has, I am sure he will find a job, especially as a Doctoral candidate. I applaud him for thinking of the wellfare of others before thinking of a new sports car like most of america.
I'm interested in the uses of this machine behind eyeglasses. I've been working on several projects where we are creating instrumentation, and have been surprised to find that optics are both difficult to find in specific diameters and focal lengths, and rather expensive when you do find the optics you need.
While not a big deal to major corporations who don't balk at shelling out $20 a lens for custom work, for academic projects and independant research, that is a significant chunk of the cost of our prototype, considering the ease and realtive low cost involved in obtaining a microcontroller these days.
I imagine that, since he can make eye glasses, producing DCX, PCX, DCV, and PCV lenses would be easy too. I'd love to see this kind of machine available at academic institutions for producing parts for research.
The issue is this: This sort of vanity claus could, down the road, horribly pollute the software. Right now it may seem silly, but 10 derivitive works down the road, with a few libraries with similar restrictions, and you have page after page of useless acknowledgements that you must print on every piece of documentation, and display in every single program. It's information pollution, almost as bad as pop-ups, it dillutes the content so someone can push their company or institution.
It actually is that easy, I've grabbed songs in that fashion. All you need is a full duplex card, and an audio cable, a great way to rip the audio from "unrippable" formats.
" Geez, when you get a speeding ticket does this mean the state is watching your every move waiting for you to screw up?! Seriously, people read peoples blogs, right? Maybe someone at MS actually reads his site and when he saw what was done, he mentioned it, and things went on from there. Naw, much more likely that MS is watching every move all 50,000 employees are making."
Are you a moron or do you just play one on slashdot? Someone from Microsoft Security noticed his blog the very next day. Let's think about this... who do you give out your blog to? Friends and family... if they see something they think is bad, they'll tell you first so you can remove it and not get in trouble. The people who would rather see you reported... those would be not friends or family wouldn't they? People who do not have your blog site.
These people went digging for this, there isn't some magical happy page which grants a gateway to anything you want on the internet and don't know about. There are search engines where you look for things you know you want.
MS Security found his page, they were watching for it, and looking for it. Either his page, or pages which mentioned Microsoft. They found it less than 24 hours later.
The cops don't catch someone everytime they are speeding, but MS evidently does.
It's not like he said "Wow! Windows must really suck for them to want G5's!", he just stated what he saw, nothing defamatory. It's a well known practice to purchase the products of competetors so you can compare them with your own, or even work on a cross platform version.
I don't see how what he did was wrong at all. I also don't buy the "security" bull shit his boss fed him. IMHO, this was seen as an embarassment to microsoft and the decided to grind the poor guy under their heel.
The most disturbing part of this, however, is that MS Security was either watching his blog, or running searches on all MS related postings to scan for things they didn't like. MSBig Brother is watching evidently, and firing poor joe's for it when they feel like. I personally don't like the idea of the titan breathing down my neck every day.
This probably means that MS Security is reading this posting right now. Good thing I never hope to be employed by the evil giant, because Microsoft, all I want to say to you is SUCK IT!
This is a raw deal, firing an employee for nondefamatory, nonsecurity breaching posting. Becareful what you say in the future as MSBig Brother makes itself available to other employers.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot has been knocked off the web for good, seemingly due to the fact that several of the daily stories it linked too were running the new "counter-attack" DoS protection.
I mean seriously guys, you can really do this! By the way, Slashdot is running a highlight on similar miracles, next up: Free Energy, Perpetual Motion Machines, and a method to turn lead into gold!
The truth is, the Hubble is still very capable, in fact more so than when it was launched. It needs new batteries and gyros, and as long as we're there, some new science instruments, and it'll keep going happily for a long time to come yet.
You know what, give that 486 sitting in your basement, if given a spiffy new graphics card, a few more megs of RAM, and a new hard disk, and it'll be more capable than it was when you first brought it home, but guess what? It will still be more cost than it is worth.
Just keeping the Hubble alive is dangerous beyond keeping your 486 alive. You might say, well, instead of scrapping it, lets just leave it up there. When it crashes headfirst into Podunk, Kansas because we figured out too late that the guidance system was damaged beyond repair, you can tell Billy Bob and Mary Sue why they won't ever see their Dear Old Aunt Cletus again.
The point is: take the Hubble out of service and out of orbit while we still know we can. We can keep repairing it for a while, but some day, it'll be nothing more than a dented up tin can, crashing into someone's barn. Take it out now, and we might even be able to scrap some parts from it, before we send it hurtling into the ocean, to put a good sized hole through some poor fish. But the point is to make sure we don't make the mistake and send it into Podunk.
Look at that 486 and ask yourself, is it really worth the investment?
Fortunately, we have mechanisms in place, like the electoral college to prevent such tyranny of the majority out of the executive branch.
.5% more of the popular vote than Bush, the oligarchical system of the electoral college swung the vote to be .9% in favor of Bush.
And if Gore had been elected over Bush, you'd be arguing for the abolishment of the electoral college.
While allowing for the majority to vote on individual bills would be useless, when it comes to elected officials, majority rule is more than appropriate, it is necessary. The electoral college is a method of disenfranchisment for people who do not hold the same opinion as the majority of those living in their states. This problem becomes increasingly obvious for those that live near a state border between states with radically different political opinions.
Consider an individual who voted Republican, and lived on the Washington side of the Washington - Idaho border. His vote is totally nullified by the electoral college, eliminating his opinion in the electoral college as Washington voted for Bush, yet were his voted counted a mile east, in Idaho, he would have been part of the Republican majority. The inverse also applies. The end result for the election was, even though Gore recieved
This is disenfranchisment of the minority opinion in each state, and is as wrong as was taxation without representation. The reason that congress and the senate are so bad these days is not a result of direct election, but because they are the ones with the most cash for campaigning, and the toleration our country has of such abomiable practices as gerymandering.
I ought to say I'm sorry for calling you an idiot, but I won't, since it seems you've brought your best thinking to the debate, at least once you got done whining.
Ok, I guess I don't understand where this is coming from, at least where I am from, one doesn't insult others one is involved in a debate with, and when one does do this, by error, or otherwise, they apologize, but then you may be from somewhere where this does not happen.
Determinism is dead. Heisenburg's Uncertainly Principle shot it...
Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle says nothing about determinism in the real world. It simply says, whenever I measure a system I will have some error in my momemtum and position, as measured by dp and dx. Further more it says this error cannot be eliminated due to the fact that to measure some system, I must alter that system in order to do so. However, most physicists will point out that just because we can only speak of probabilities when we talk about such things, it does not necessarily indicate that the Universe does not operate on deterministic principles. In fact it says nothing either way. The theory of Quantum Mechanics is incomplete, and is not the "correct model" of the Universe, just a damn good one. It is an unfortunate flaw of our measurments that they introduce error, however, if Laplace's Demon were to exist, and were able to measure without disturbing the system, Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle does not apply. Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle merely gives us a hard upper limit on our ability to analyze a system, saying that for all practicle purposes, Laplace's Demon is impossible. However the theory behind it is no less sound because of it.
and Godel's Incompleteness Theorem buried it.
Again, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is only a comment on the ability of our minds, or any other machine to solve highly complex equations. It merely states that there are some problems for which we cannot derive an answer. This does not mean that such answers do not exist, merely that we are unable to prove so. The halting problem is an excellent example. (I am assuming you are familiar with the Incompleteness Theorem, so I'm not going to summarize it). One of the favorite versions of the halting problem in Finite Automata is the one of a Turing Machine being given a string of length N, where N is greater than 0, no other bounds. This string is composed only of the characters "(" and ")", and the Turing Machine must validate the string as being correct or incorrect. Of course, due to the bounds on N, it obviously suffers from the halting problem. This does not mean there isn't an answer, just that we cannot necessarily find it.
Your arguements of "If we lack the ability to see if a system is deterministic, then it must not be," are the same arguements used by people in previous decades when arguing against theories for which things cannot be immediately proven. In the end, none of our current work disproves Einstein in a theoretical sense, it just comes close to proving that he is wrong in a practicle sense. (Note, I say comes close because it's bad to say "proves" in science as really there is no proof, only disproof).
Practicle sense though says nothing about the underlying mechanics. Yes I will agree that we will never be able to sample alpha particle emissions in such a way that we can predict future events in that system. However, they still are not "random". You may argue (and correctly so) that the uncertainty principle guarentees you a generator that is thus impossible to reproduce. However, other sources cannot be reproduced either. A simple radio reciever is a chaotic enough system that even should you have a similar reciever in another room, attempting to capture the same values, the EMR from my speakers, computer, and the differences in shielding in my office as opposed to yours will be introducing enough noise, that my values will be significantly different than yours.
I understand wha
Jaz, as I said before, next time you call someone an idiot, make sure you know what you are talking about. Screw that, make sure you have the basic skills required to read a post submitted in English. You're methods seem to be "skim the post, without reading the actual content, then post a long winded discussion based on imperfect knowledge of what was actually posted". I've fully read your post, you ought to have the decency to fully read mine first. Several of your points are moot because you don't even know what I was stating in very clear terms.
Furthermore, if you want to have a discussion, it is usually best not to call people names. All it does is highlight your own personal inadequacy. If you have to resort to insults from the start to make your point, then you really aren't showing much faith in your point to begin with. For shame, I am called an idiot by someone on the internet, what do I have left to live for? He must be a masterful debater, and filled with knowledge to use a word such as idiot! Grow up or shut up.
Furthermore: I will agree that, baring some greater power introducing an element which is inherently unpredictable, yes, the one could calculate the current state of m mind and predict ahead of time my arguments. The same goes with coin flips, given a "Diety Computer", i.e. one which is truly omniscient, you could accurately predict future results. The same probably even extends to alpha particle emissions. Quantum physics is not set in stone, and has many flaws, yet it is a good model, as I do not deny that even if we believe it is possible, it is highly improbable that we could in practice build such a machine.
I'd like to see a reference to back up your assertion of the non-existence of random numbers. But that's just intuition, not a rigorous argument.
Random numbers can only exist in a universe where there are non-deterministic events. While some events are so extremely complex that they seem non-deterministic, our current knowledge of the laws that govern this universe imply otherwise.
I don't know personally where you are pulling your "traditional CS definition" of a random number (well obviously on Google, and the internet is always right, isn't it!), but it's wrong. The definition of a random number does not state that it must be uniform distributed. Furthermore, stemming from my earlier assertion that you lack the skills necessary to read a post on slashdot, had you read my post you would notice that I stated that uniformity of distribution was merely a admirable quality of a generator, not something required by definition.
Uniform random numbers can be translated into any other possible distribution, leading them to be the most useful. Some, if not most, of these transformations cannot be run in reverse. While some of the simple ones can (weibull), others cannot (cauchy). If your source happens to have a nasty distribution, it's not very useful in the long run, using a source which doesn't have well defined properties (lava lamps for example) is therefor a bad idea when other fully tested methods exist.
The fact of the matter is this: no method you have mentioned is any better than using an LCG with a properly chosen seed. In fact, they are inferior because they lack the ability to produce reproduceable sequences, where an LCG offers you that ability. I can easily generate a number using an LCG which you cannot predict, simply by seeding my generator with a suitably complex process, such as your mouse movements, or the intervals between your keystrokes. If I want to get really fancy, I'll use an external device which samples noise on a radio frequency, line noise on the power source, and then use that with your mouse movements and key strokes to provide a suitably random seed. Volia, random numbers. However should I have a scientific application, where I need to actually reproduce my results, I set the seed to your SSN, and then I am free to alter my model while keeping the same input.
Time series data from radioactive decay will generate truly random numbers in a non-uniform distribution. (Prerequisite: belief in quantum physics.)
Wrong, they are not "truly random" anymore than anything else for which you have imperfect knowlege. Using radioactive decay does nothing more than make your system more expensive, as other forms are just as random for all intents and purposes.
Use one good one (many bits long) to seed your PRNG.
Did you even RTFA? Or my post? We're talking about a single number, between one and ten, and an integer to boot. Your comment is entirely out of context, and similar to saying "Paying $1 for a blade of grass is a good thing, because if I had a few billion blades of grass, I could use it to much my state".
Demonstrably wrong statements, an abusive tone and gratuitous play of buzzwords does nothing to make you look less an idiot.
Since when is an LCG a buzzword? Most people have never even heard of one. As for probability and chaos theory, if we're calling those buzzwords, don't let me ever hear you say Quantum Mechanics, or even Mathematics.
As for demonstrateably wrong statements, I'm sorry but taking things out of context, or making assinine assumptions doesn't prove them wrong. As for an "abusive tone", I'll take what ever tone I like when someone responds in an offensive manner to my posts.
All of this changes nothing: charging $1 for a random number at some Con is about the dumbest thing I've heard; the article itself is amateur and not worthy of notice; you'd have to be dumb to buy anything from a coder who can't even bound his algorithm.
You should read up on chaos theory and probability before you call someone an idiot jaz. Random numbers don't exist period, even taking them from external sources is still pseudo-random generation, it just adds the further complication that you cannot control or predict how the noise will interact, and so can't guarentee that it will be uniform, the most useful sort of random number, as it can be translated into any other random number.
Furthermore, my point was not to use a pseudo-random number generator (and by the way, using a Lehmer Congruential Generator will produce better results than sampling a lava lamp for sure, never use rand(), it has horrible properties), my point was this:
Given a source of noise, translating that noise to a number between 1 and 10 is amazingly easy. You are controling your input device's range, and you know what possible values it produces, so it's a simple matter of finding where the generated number lies within that range.
And while pseudo-random numbers which seem more random than others (truly random numbers do not exist period) are valuable, one of them is not. Why the hell would I want to pay $1 to a bunch of wannabe's for a number between 1 and 10? Or any other single random number.
Next time you call someone an idiot, make sure you know what you are talking about first.
Who would pay $1 for a random number, not even a random number, but one from someone who is such a horrible coder, that they can't even get a program to bound the number between 1 and 10 reliably! Random number generation is one of the easiest and most simplistic algorithms in existance.
I think this Con sounds as amateur as the article, a bunch of wannabes who get together to feel good about the fact that they don't seem so stupid when all the smart people are elsewhere.
Come on Slashdot! You can do better than this!
But we aren't talking about my drinking habits at all. Did you RTFA? They track the product, not who buys it. They track what areas it is purchased in, and which products were also in stock, as well as the comparitive price.
And yes, I know if you purchase with a credit card they can tell who purchased it, but guess what? They already can! The gov't already can get ahold of your credit card history and track every single purchase!
It's a good thing they can too, considering the number of criminals who are arrested because of this, and conversely the number of people who are aquitted because their credit card bill confirms their alibi.
Actually I have read the Patriot Acts, and agree that they strip our rights away. But when it comes down to it, I still hold my position, you are overreacting in classic slashdot fashion.
Yes, we have a right to privacy, which is why I never give out my SSN to anyone but those who absolutely need it, I use a T number of my drivers license, and only use encrypted connections for accessing remote computers. I refuse to answer personal questions on surveys, and don't think the gov't has any right to subpeona a library for the lists of the books I read.
However, you can cry out "Protect your rights or you won't have them!" but you have failed to realize the central issue of this, balance and moderation. Yes, we should all protect our right to Privacy, but there are certain points where you draw the line between Reasonable and Ridiculous. If we were arguing about National ID's or subpeonas to libraries, then yes, I would say they are going to far. But what beer I drink?
I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous, first off, Budwiser doesn't attach your name to the bottle. Second, they have a right to track their inventory and to plan for the future.
Saying we must protect every scrap of right to privacy this dearly is akin to saying that, because we have a right to be free from harm, we should protest sports, after all, that guy could hit you!
With all rights and laws there are reasonable restrictions and limitations to those rights. You have a right to drive, so long as it does not interfere with my right life in a reasonable manner. The same is for privacy. You have a right to privacy, but Budwiser also has a right to information about it's sales, within reasonable levels.
I personally agree, the end comment on the story:
Frankly, I don't want Budweiser knowing when I choose to buy their beer versus another brands.
Is just classic slashdot overreaction. I swear, if there were an article talking about medical records, some slashdotter, or even an editor more likely, would post the comment "Frankly, I don't want my doctor to know my current medical conditions."
It's ridiculous people. Yes, privacy is important, but only in certain areas. Budwiser has just got an extremely good system for controlling where they send products, what they sell them for, and which companies are competing with them, and how well the competition is going.
It's not like Bud is handing over your drinking habits to the US gov't, and the US gov't upon seeing a southerner switch to a light beer declaring "ARGH! He must be a terrorist! I bet he stopped watching NASCAR too!"
Bud is just managing their stock, and trying to determine how the market truly feels about their product, and the prices they charge. It's all about managing their stock of beer, and where they will advertise.
Please, leave your tin foil hats at home before you post.
While I agree that Slashdotters in general are way to up on their horses about free as in beer when it comes to digital sources, I'm not a huge fan of paying for an on-line Washington Post. I already subscribe to the printed version, but use the website for up to date information.
Now if they could somehow extend my print subscription into an on-line subscription too, I'd be all for that. But then again, for a media giant like the Post, you would think they would have the money to maintain a free news site.
Not to mention the "freedom of the press" bit they jump on whenever it suits their purposes. I always thought the reason behind this was to get information to the people. Adding subscription costs to an on-line site pulls it out of reach from the less fortunate.
Arrrr. It does at that matey!
Of course you can always take the route some fellows I know did. They connected their broadcast to the town railroad tracks, and four a fifteen minute period broadcast a "We are invading your world, surrender or die" kind of bit. They managed to get out of their fast enough that they weren't caught, but as far as I know, everyone in a ten mile radius picked it up on every station.
You'd think the Germans would have more trust for the Iris, I mean, they both like their beer, both have some good brews in their country, so who cares if they have read hair!
"Crack suicide cells, ATTACK!"
:)
I'm sorry, I just had to
My personal experience has been horrible with on-line job applications. When I finally accepted my current position, I asked the head of HR how effective they really were. He said that most of the time HR makes it's hires from recommendations, and paper applications, and that on-line applications tended to be placed in the "read later pile", or worse yet, added to a computer database, which was then searched for key phrases. The end result? While my on-line application never came up in their searches, my paper based one was their top pick (and it was the exact same application).
Just my experience.
I never said that inventors don't have a right to make money off their inventions, as a matter of fact, it's essential, so they have the money to invest in new work.
However there is such a thing as Humanitarian, and it has nothing to do with extorting free labor. It has everything to do with making sure that what you have invented is available to those who need it at a low cost, so that obtaining it, if it serves some vital purpose (eg medical, nourishment, shelter, etc), is a very real possibility.
People who think that money is the be all end all, and are only looking at the profit side of the equation ought to sit back and think long and hard about what it really buys them, and whether our world would be better served if they shaved a bit off the profit, and gave some of their invention to those who need it.
This isn't just rhetorical, it's what I have done with my work, and what a lot of noted inventors have done.
One Linus Torvalds comes to mind at the moment...
He is patenting the device, and I for one applaud him for letting people use it. Where has our world gone that we call humanitarians fools? Last I checked, "you can't take it with you", and when it comes down to it, with the brains he has, I am sure he will find a job, especially as a Doctoral candidate. I applaud him for thinking of the wellfare of others before thinking of a new sports car like most of america.
I'm interested in the uses of this machine behind eyeglasses. I've been working on several projects where we are creating instrumentation, and have been surprised to find that optics are both difficult to find in specific diameters and focal lengths, and rather expensive when you do find the optics you need.
While not a big deal to major corporations who don't balk at shelling out $20 a lens for custom work, for academic projects and independant research, that is a significant chunk of the cost of our prototype, considering the ease and realtive low cost involved in obtaining a microcontroller these days.
I imagine that, since he can make eye glasses, producing DCX, PCX, DCV, and PCV lenses would be easy too. I'd love to see this kind of machine available at academic institutions for producing parts for research.
The issue is this: This sort of vanity claus could, down the road, horribly pollute the software. Right now it may seem silly, but 10 derivitive works down the road, with a few libraries with similar restrictions, and you have page after page of useless acknowledgements that you must print on every piece of documentation, and display in every single program. It's information pollution, almost as bad as pop-ups, it dillutes the content so someone can push their company or institution.
It actually is that easy, I've grabbed songs in that fashion. All you need is a full duplex card, and an audio cable, a great way to rip the audio from "unrippable" formats.
" Geez, when you get a speeding ticket does this mean the state is watching your every move waiting for you to screw up?! Seriously, people read peoples blogs, right? Maybe someone at MS actually reads his site and when he saw what was done, he mentioned it, and things went on from there. Naw, much more likely that MS is watching every move all 50,000 employees are making." Are you a moron or do you just play one on slashdot? Someone from Microsoft Security noticed his blog the very next day. Let's think about this... who do you give out your blog to? Friends and family... if they see something they think is bad, they'll tell you first so you can remove it and not get in trouble. The people who would rather see you reported... those would be not friends or family wouldn't they? People who do not have your blog site. These people went digging for this, there isn't some magical happy page which grants a gateway to anything you want on the internet and don't know about. There are search engines where you look for things you know you want. MS Security found his page, they were watching for it, and looking for it. Either his page, or pages which mentioned Microsoft. They found it less than 24 hours later. The cops don't catch someone everytime they are speeding, but MS evidently does.
It's not like he said "Wow! Windows must really suck for them to want G5's!", he just stated what he saw, nothing defamatory. It's a well known practice to purchase the products of competetors so you can compare them with your own, or even work on a cross platform version.
I don't see how what he did was wrong at all. I also don't buy the "security" bull shit his boss fed him. IMHO, this was seen as an embarassment to microsoft and the decided to grind the poor guy under their heel.
The most disturbing part of this, however, is that MS Security was either watching his blog, or running searches on all MS related postings to scan for things they didn't like. MSBig Brother is watching evidently, and firing poor joe's for it when they feel like. I personally don't like the idea of the titan breathing down my neck every day.
This probably means that MS Security is reading this posting right now. Good thing I never hope to be employed by the evil giant, because Microsoft, all I want to say to you is SUCK IT!
This is a raw deal, firing an employee for nondefamatory, nonsecurity breaching posting. Becareful what you say in the future as MSBig Brother makes itself available to other employers.
Actually no, we have small atmospheric nukes which generate an EMP and are currently used as a way to throw off enemy equipment.