I find it really funny that even with the counter-example given in the parent, the grandparent post still has a high score, while the parent post hasn't even been modded.
You may have a small point there. Nevertheless, I don't think Firefox will ever have so many bugs as IE does, and MOST of them are very quickly fixed.
The fact that ActiveX doesn't work on firefox is already a major factor against malware.
Now if we see the Microsoft case, they have specifically said that they will not release a new browser until Windows Longhorn is released. Now that's what I really call a sense of security:)
BTW, this page has a description of that bug, and some proofs of concept which no longer work on Firefox. There's also a comment in the end called "Why 5 Years?" which has some thoughts about the fact it hasn't been fully fixed yet.
If Microsoft doesn't put out a really good browser soon, firefox growth will go on strong I think.
What I and many others are doing is advising everyone they know to at least TRY out Firefox. Saying it will protect against most spyware is usually enough to convince everyone...
In some cases, that would not be good, since many applications want deterministic "random" sequences (also called pseudorandom sequences). This might be useful, for example, on:
a) When you want to be able to repeeat a computation (with pseudorandom sequences, you just have to print out the randomness seed in the beginning of the program in order to do this)
b) Online games which do repeated computations on several of the clients. In order to guarantee consistency among them, pseudorandom sequences can be used as long as the seed is chosen by the server and sent to them through the network before the game starts. I use this technique and I'm quite happy with it, meaning that I can have randomness in the game without increasing the network traffic.
Are you sure of what you're saying? I've never seen any statement that a QC will be able to solve NP complete problems in polynomial time. Do you have any references?
BTW, Shor's algorithm is a factoring algorithm, not a TSP one. I know you haven't affirmed this directly, but someone might infer it from your post...
Well, if we wanted to show that a QC can solve all NP problems in polynomial time, it would suffice to prove that one of the problems which QC's can solve in polynomial time is NP complete. If I know correctly, the problems which are known to have this characteristic (solvable in poly. time with a QC), are not known to be NP complete.
For example, the best algorithms currently known for factoring (on normal computers) are of sub-exponential time, not polynomial. But they aren't known to be NP complete, so with current knowledge, building a QC wouldn't allow us to solve any NP problem quickly with it...
Allow me to disagree. If life was found on Mars, I wouldn't doubt even for one second that there would be a very high probability of dozens of other planets having life, possibly intelligent one.
Unless it was questioned if life was transferred from Earth to Mars (be it nowadays - by the martian probes - or many years ago)...
Not trolling or anything, but what do you mean by general queries? When I search at google, I never feel affected by that problem... Care to give some examples?
Slashdot Mirror
I find it really funny that even with the counter-example given in the parent, the grandparent post still has a high score, while the parent post hasn't even been modded.
You, exactly...
Well, at least this has something to do with computers. This is not always the case :P
Japanese hentai movies perhaps?
See subject...
http://interviews.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=140 997&cid=11815179
No wiseguy, it's more like... this website is about "News for nerds", did you know?
I've seen far more interesting news being rejected...
You may have a small point there. Nevertheless, I don't think Firefox will ever have so many bugs as IE does, and MOST of them are very quickly fixed.
:)
The fact that ActiveX doesn't work on firefox is already a major factor against malware.
Now if we see the Microsoft case, they have specifically said that they will not release a new browser until Windows Longhorn is released. Now that's what I really call a sense of security
BTW, this page has a description of that bug, and some proofs of concept which no longer work on Firefox. There's also a comment in the end called "Why 5 Years?" which has some thoughts about the fact it hasn't been fully fixed yet.
So you're telling me that IE is no longer a fishing net for spyware?
Because you linked to that page on slashdot, that's why!
If Microsoft doesn't put out a really good browser soon, firefox growth will go on strong I think.
What I and many others are doing is advising everyone they know to at least TRY out Firefox. Saying it will protect against most spyware is usually enough to convince everyone...
Just in case anyone falls for this, no, it isn't true :)
No, because you're wrong...
The fact that n is prime doesn't mean that 2^n-1 is prime. The converse is true though - for 2^n-1 to be a prime, n needs to be a prime.
In some cases, that would not be good, since many applications want deterministic "random" sequences (also called pseudorandom sequences). This might be useful, for example, on:
a) When you want to be able to repeeat a computation (with pseudorandom sequences, you just have to print out the randomness seed in the beginning of the program in order to do this)
b) Online games which do repeated computations on several of the clients. In order to guarantee consistency among them, pseudorandom sequences can be used as long as the seed is chosen by the server and sent to them through the network before the game starts. I use this technique and I'm quite happy with it, meaning that I can have randomness in the game without increasing the network traffic.
If you read the entry page (www.mersenne.org), you would have seen this link:
Why participate?
Because it is. It may also be obvious for some, I don't contest that.
Are you sure of what you're saying? I've never seen any statement that a QC will be able to solve NP complete problems in polynomial time. Do you have any references?
BTW, Shor's algorithm is a factoring algorithm, not a TSP one. I know you haven't affirmed this directly, but someone might infer it from your post...
Well, if we wanted to show that a QC can solve all NP problems in polynomial time, it would suffice to prove that one of the problems which QC's can solve in polynomial time is NP complete. If I know correctly, the problems which are known to have this characteristic (solvable in poly. time with a QC), are not known to be NP complete.
For example, the best algorithms currently known for factoring (on normal computers) are of sub-exponential time, not polynomial. But they aren't known to be NP complete, so with current knowledge, building a QC wouldn't allow us to solve any NP problem quickly with it...
Good idea, thanks. The first one ;)
I'm sorry, but those aren't democratic leaders, although some of them were first elected on democratic elections...
The first one too? :O
Allow me to disagree. If life was found on Mars, I wouldn't doubt even for one second that there would be a very high probability of dozens of other planets having life, possibly intelligent one.
Unless it was questioned if life was transferred from Earth to Mars (be it nowadays - by the martian probes - or many years ago)...
Seems perfectly fine to me...
Not trolling or anything, but what do you mean by general queries? When I search at google, I never feel affected by that problem... Care to give some examples?