An existing large enough quantum computer would make ssh much less secure, but as long as not everyone can afford his own quantum computer, it would still be magnitudes more secure than telnet. It's still a difference if e.g. your encrypted banking password can be read by the government, or if it can be read by anyone having access to a computer in between.
Patrick Moore pronounces it 'Oor-a-nuss'. Is that what you mean?
The trouble with this is that the word 'union' is not pronounced 'ooon-e-on'.
So what? The English language isn't exactly famous for speaking similarly written words the same way. Hey, you can even have the same spelling and different sounds: I'll read this book tomorrow. I've read that book yesterday.
Oh, and how many different pronounciations of the letter 'a' do you find in the following sentence? "I want to have another image of a bathing ape!"
Well, computing the odds is a problem: You can of course calculate the odds based on the cards alone. But there are not only cards, there are people, and the behaviour and character of those people enters into the odds. If someone isn't very good at bluffing, and you know it, this very much reduces the odds that he is bluffing without you noticing it, assuming you are able to detect the signs of bluffing.
Of course this also means a good AI will have an unfair advantage, because it will have no problems at all to keep its "poker face".
Well, if you can switch between superconductivity and normal conductivity (maybe even with a large resistance in the non-superconducting state state), then it would make sense, I didn't RTFA, but I could imagine that this is possible by creating a magnetic field at the superconducting wire (large enough magnetic fields make superconductance break down). Then you could have e.g. superconducting state = no resistance = no voltage on the wire = 0, and normal conducting state = resistance = voltage on the wire = 1. Or alternatively, superconductance = no resistance = high current through the wire = 1, normal conductance = resistance = low current through the wire = 0.
Of course being able to efficiently simulate quantum systems would do a lot for many people. Let's start with quantum chemistry. When you deal with large molecules (as f.ex. in pharmacy), you are basically solving a large quantum system. The basic equations are well known, but the size of the problem is what makes it difficult. A quantum computer could resolve this problem. Or in other words, quantum computers might cause more health for the people.
Or think about material sciences. Again, the basic (quantum) equations are well known, but are too large to calculate directly. Again, a quantum computer might be very helpful. It's hard to say what advantages the new materials might bring us (maybe room-temperature superconductors?), but it's allmost certain that there will be some advantage.
But if you fail to do nothing, you do something. And since nowhere is stated what false does when it fails to do nothing, it's clearly a security risk!:-)
I personally wouldn't trust Excel to bring me to the moon... so if the Apollo program was worse, maybe the moon landing really was a fake after all?:-)
Well, I've gotten some book on computing history from the future through a time warp. Here's an interesting excerpt:
The first true artificial intelligence created was the famous "Mindboggler" program. Remarkably, it didn't come from classic AI research, but from code compression research. The goal of the development was to compress executable code into equivalent, but smaller executable code. One of its first applications was to compress its own code. It was a huge success: While the original executable had approximately 200 gigabytes, Mindboggler managed to shrink that into no more than 5 megabytes. When asked how it did it, it said it just fetched old programming textbooks from around 1980 from the archives and re-wrote its own logic following the rules therein.
Denying the importance of the Windows platform is an idea too silly to believe by anyone but a Linux or Mac fanboy who has no real world technology experience.
The article was not about the most important software, but about the greatest software.
If nobody knows what dark matter is and if it can't be directly measured or detected then how does one go about measuring its motion and the energy released and know therefrom that it was dark matter that collided with the non-dark matter and not an altogether different unknown substance?
Well, it's some substance we cannot see. Gravitating substance we cannot see is labeled "dark matter". So it cannot be "another substance" because that other substance would be dark matter anyway, by the very definition of "dark matter".
And if it was dark matter that collided with the non-dark matter then does this mean that it's no longer dark matter because it has now produced measurable energy?
Dark matter always has measurable energy (we measure it though its gravitational effect). Otherwise we wouldn't know about it. What dark matter doesn't do is to emit or absorb light. At least not enough for us to see it.
It's incredibly rude and petty to point something like that out. I suggest you mind your manners in the future.
Please re-read the last paragraph of your post which I was replying to, and then reconsider if you are really in a position to complain about rudeness.
What if I don't want to wait 30 minutes and use 1GB of RAM for a trivial 3MB file I want to compress?
Easy: Use the disk to store all data, then you'll need less than 1GB of RAM. This will not solve your time problem (quite the opposite!), but since your problem was to have to wait 30 minutes and use 1GB of RAM, your problem is solved by solving just one of the two partial problems.
Even, if you padd your solution so that it only shows a 1% improvement each time, you will get somewhere like 35000 euros.
That's an interesting observation. Given that the size of the decompressor is also weighted in, you can even optimize this scheme by first writing the decompressor in an non-size-optimal way (e.g. expanding function calls into their calling functions, etc.) and then gradually improve your code without changing one bit of the algorithm!
Of course this assumes that you find that well-compressing algorithm first:-)
So, real intelligent compression would mean that different people decompressing the same article at different times would *not* get the same text but enough of the pertinent data would be the same that they all come away from reading the article with the same meaning.
I don't think your criterion could be met even if all those people would read the very same original text.
Slashdot Mirror
In Soviet Russia, chairs throw you!
An existing large enough quantum computer would make ssh much less secure, but as long as not everyone can afford his own quantum computer, it would still be magnitudes more secure than telnet. It's still a difference if e.g. your encrypted banking password can be read by the government, or if it can be read by anyone having access to a computer in between.
So what? The English language isn't exactly famous for speaking similarly written words the same way. Hey, you can even have the same spelling and different sounds:
I'll read this book tomorrow.
I've read that book yesterday.
Oh, and how many different pronounciations of the letter 'a' do you find in the following sentence?
"I want to have another image of a bathing ape!"
You mean human cloning?
Well, that's only for bosonic plutons. For a fermionic pluton it's spluton.
Well, computing the odds is a problem: You can of course calculate the odds based on the cards alone. But there are not only cards, there are people, and the behaviour and character of those people enters into the odds. If someone isn't very good at bluffing, and you know it, this very much reduces the odds that he is bluffing without you noticing it, assuming you are able to detect the signs of bluffing.
Of course this also means a good AI will have an unfair advantage, because it will have no problems at all to keep its "poker face".
Well, if you can switch between superconductivity and normal conductivity (maybe even with a large resistance in the non-superconducting state state), then it would make sense, I didn't RTFA, but I could imagine that this is possible by creating a magnetic field at the superconducting wire (large enough magnetic fields make superconductance break down). Then you could have e.g. superconducting state = no resistance = no voltage on the wire = 0, and normal conducting state = resistance = voltage on the wire = 1. Or alternatively, superconductance = no resistance = high current through the wire = 1, normal conductance = resistance = low current through the wire = 0.
Of course being able to efficiently simulate quantum systems would do a lot for many people. Let's start with quantum chemistry. When you deal with large molecules (as f.ex. in pharmacy), you are basically solving a large quantum system. The basic equations are well known, but the size of the problem is what makes it difficult. A quantum computer could resolve this problem. Or in other words, quantum computers might cause more health for the people.
Or think about material sciences. Again, the basic (quantum) equations are well known, but are too large to calculate directly. Again, a quantum computer might be very helpful. It's hard to say what advantages the new materials might bring us (maybe room-temperature superconductors?), but it's allmost certain that there will be some advantage.
You think so?
It's just an emulation of an existing card game. Nothing innovative.
No, the best software ever clearly is minesweeper.
But if you fail to do nothing, you do something. And since nowhere is stated what false does when it fails to do nothing, it's clearly a security risk! :-)
I personally wouldn't trust Excel to bring me to the moon ... so if the Apollo program was worse, maybe the moon landing really was a fake after all? :-)
FORTRAN?
But::it->*makes(the.code, &much->more() ));
The article was not about the most important software, but about the greatest software.
Well, it's some substance we cannot see. Gravitating substance we cannot see is labeled "dark matter". So it cannot be "another substance" because that other substance would be dark matter anyway, by the very definition of "dark matter".
Dark matter always has measurable energy (we measure it though its gravitational effect). Otherwise we wouldn't know about it. What dark matter doesn't do is to emit or absorb light. At least not enough for us to see it.
Please re-read the last paragraph of your post which I was replying to, and then reconsider if you are really in a position to complain about rudeness.
Interestingly I got the correct text in the first try. Unfortunately it was encrypted with a one-time pad, and I'm still struggling to get the key ...
Whoosh!
Easy: Use the disk to store all data, then you'll need less than 1GB of RAM. This will not solve your time problem (quite the opposite!), but since your problem was to have to wait 30 minutes and use 1GB of RAM, your problem is solved by solving just one of the two partial problems.
That's an interesting observation. Given that the size of the decompressor is also weighted in, you can even optimize this scheme by first writing the decompressor in an non-size-optimal way (e.g. expanding function calls into their calling functions, etc.) and then gradually improve your code without changing one bit of the algorithm!
Of course this assumes that you find that well-compressing algorithm first
I'm eagerly awaiting your decompressor.
Ok, please write the decompressor for this.
I don't think your criterion could be met even if all those people would read the very same original text.