AS far as I know, Emacs already supports the mouse wheel. I know I've scrolled with the mouse wheel, although it's some obscure option to turn that on. I find that I don't really use the mousewheel that much anyway though, it takes too long to move your hand from the keyboard to the mouse.
So apparently this is a dupe, but it's the first I've seen of it, so I found it interesting. I looked at the picture of the remote here and I think I like it. Just the other day I was looking at one of those remotes that come with digital cable boxes these days, and there were way too many buttons there. To make matters worse, almost every remote these days has just about as many buttons, but they are generally organized differently, making it harder to switch TV's. How often do people visiting a friend's house have to ask their friend to do something like change the volume, because the remote is overly complicated? I like the idea of a remote with just a couple of buttons.
This is called "willful blindness," and it is much more likely to increase your exposure to liability rather than eliminate it. It's one thing for a person who doesn't know any better to inadvertently establish an unsecured access point. It's entirely another matter for someone who knows what he's doing to knowingly create an unsecured access point. If another person uses this AP to spam the world, download kiddy porn, etc., you're going to find yourself in a lot of hot water.
As another example of this, a student at my university recently got into some trouble for running a Tor Onion Router. His node ended up being the exit point for an attack on a French web site, and the web site owners tracked it back to his IP address and contacted the school's administration. I haven't heard what the final decision was, but the administration was not happy about it.
Bill Gates was and is a nerd. Microsoft is not Bill Gates. Yes, Bill seems to be a good bussiness person, and he was also lucky to have started his company when he did since they filled a need at the right time. This is a large part of Google's success now, there were search engines before, but Google's was markedly better and therefore filled the need for good web search. I think the fact that Bill is a nerd is demonstrated pretty well by the fact that he gave up his position as CEO and is now the Chief Software Architect. Over the past few years, I think Microsoft has started to show some more innovation than they did for a few years, and while there are other factors such as the fact that there is now some viable competition for Microsoft, I suspect Bill's change in position is also a factor in this.
Given the way there is an accepted set of beliefs and opinions prevalent on slashdot, I'm skeptical that Slashdot would work, thought it sounds you were too. It is an interesting idea, and there are good points about it.
Imagine if Darwin had submitted the Origin of Species to Slashdot, which presumably at the time would have generally accepted some sort of intelligent design theory (I'm sure someone will argue with this, but just accept it for the sake of argument). I suspect in this sort of environment the Origin of Species would have been met with arguments similar to those against intelligent design today.
I suspect slashdot peer reviewing would encourage research that agrees with the prevailing ideas. This is probably good overall, but many of the most important scientific breakthroughs have been in direct contrast to the widespread beliefs of the time, and it would be a shame to see these modded down just because they didn't agree with everyone else.
Reminds me of this paper where they argued that large computations can actually be completed faster by slacking off for a few months and then buying a faster computer.
It's a shame you haven't been modded any higher than you have yet. This is a very informative post. I hadn't heard that SAT falls into another category, GI yet, but I knew SAT was NP-Complete. I knew PRIMES is in P, but factorization is quite a bit different than PRIMES.
How small of a subset is factorization of SAT? Aren't some subsets of SAT (like 2-SAT) in P?
If RSA-1024 is only 8000x as complex as RSA-640, I wouldn't bet on it lasting too much longer. A machine with 80 Operons did RSA-640 in about half a year, and there are definitely much more powerful computers out there. Plus, computer power has historically grown exponentially, so it shouldn't be that long until enough computing power would be available, even if it's not today. Of course, increasing the key size of RSA is a lot easier than increasing computing power (unless someone manages to make a quantum computer), so some variant of RSA will probably be safe, provided no holes are found.
Could using a less efficient, but parallelizable algorithm work? If GNFS can only run on 1 CPU, it seems like it's easier to add more CPUs, and while a parallelizable brute force algorithm for example is still going to be 2^O(poly(N)) (barrowing from another post), it's a lot easier to make the constant multiplier on this smaller than it is for the GNFS. In the general case it will still be really easy to make a key that can't be factored in a feasible amount of time, it seems that a less efficient but parallelizable algorithm would bring the next RSA number or two into the realm of possibilities. It shouldn't be too hard to find the equivalent computation power of 160,000 Opterons (hmm.. that's a bigger number than I was expecting), especially given that historically computing power has been growing exponentially.
If GNFS isn't parallelicable, why did they use 80 Operons? Maybe this was to speed up something like multiplying large numbers together?
Re:One of Bill Gates' dreams...
on
RSA-640 Factored
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Well, he certainly failed miserably at using less than 640k.
Re:Processor time?
on
RSA-640 Factored
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Does anyone know of something like the GIMPS to factor these RSA numbers? It seems like if 80 Opterons can do it in 5 months, a massive distributed network of computers donating idle time could do this in a much shorter amount of time, such as churning out a new factorization every few weeks. I have a feeling the larger RSA numbers quickly become much more complicated to factor. Does anyone know the complexity class of factorization?
Besides, even if they did have evidence for ID (as opposed to merely lack of evidence to the contrary, which is all they actually have)
"Lack of evidence to the contrary" is all evolution has as well. Science can't prove anything, it can just not disprove things. You make experiments that attempt to show a theory is false, and if you repeatedly fail at doing this, you have more confidence in the theory. Now, with intelligent design, it's difficult or impossible to come up with an experiment to falsify it, where scientists generally accept that this can and has been done with evolution repeatedly.
Sure, we can ignore the facts because we don't like them. People do this all the time. Just because we don't like them doesn't make them wrong though, so we can choose what we believe, our beliefs can easily be incorrect.
...as well as substituting a much greater unknown, that being, "who is the designer?"
"Where did all this matter, energy, and the laws of physics come from?" is also a pretty big unknown, which probably also leads to the metaphysical or supernatural. It seems like both explanations build off of something that is outside the realm of science. Yes, intelligent design uses supernatural explanations for a lot more than evolution, both eventually have to appeal to something outside the realm of science.
But it's okay if children who learn to believe everything they're taught are taught that about evolution?
I haven't read the article, and I would guess there are hidden motives here, but the summary say they are now going to teach material that goes against evolution. I think any evolutionist accepts that evolution is not a complete theory. I hear often in these types of discussions on Slashdot "Evolution is a scientific fact! We may not understand all the mechanisms and finer points of it, but the fact that evolution occurs is undeniable." Why then can we not teach our children the things we don't understand about evolution now? I would think this would encourage the progress of science, as our children would not grow up thinking we have a perfect explanation for everything, but know that there are things we don't know, and that this would encourage them to go out and find that knowledge themselves.
Ahh, HL2 takes several minutes to load for me, and several minutes for each level, and then 30 seconds here and there to load checkpoints. I think that's just something that comes with a game the size of HL2. Once everything is loaded though, it runs well.
What resolution do you run at? I run at 1024x768, my monitor's native resolution. I've got a gig of system RAM, but if 512 isn't enough there's something seriously wrong with Half-Life. Is the rest of your system responsive? On my laptop, in Windows, everything's been decaying recently and it runs like an original Pentium now. I don't have my graphics options turned up to like super-extreme or anything, but I'm pretty sure most things are on High. My guess is there's something else going on with your computer, since you're computer's definitely powerful enough to handle Half-Life 2.
I chose to pay for Cedega since it's a relatively low cost, it lets me play games while still using Linux and if Cedega makes money it will show the game makers that there is a market for computer games and encourage them to release Linux versions.
I use Cedega to play Half-Life 2 on an Athlon XP 2200+ and a Geforce 4 Ti 4200 128MB. It runs really smoothely. I've never played it on a comparable computer under Windows, so I can't say if there's a framerate drop, but the framerate is still high enough, and that's really what matters.
One of Linux's biggest problems is the lack of device drivers for common devices, especially newer video cards. Let's face it, companies like ATI and NVIDIA aren't going to release fully open-source drivers. It would be wonderful if they would, but it would also be wonderful if we had flying cars.
I've never understood why it is so important to hardware companies to keep their driver source code secret. I understand for software companies, since this is there product, but hardware companies I thought sold hardware. If the source code for some piece of hardware were freely available, I wouldn't think the company would lose too much money because their driver code is pretty useless to me unless I go buy the hardware from them. You can download drivers in binary form for free from most companies anyway, and they don't lose any money because the driver's aren't useful without their hardware.
And how long have we been studying global warming? I think 150 years of book keeping seems to make a more likely explanation than chalking it up to global warming which that I know of hasn't been studied nearly as long, nor is it very well-understood as of yet.
As one of those interns at Sandia National Laboratories, I can say it was an excellent experience. I learned a lot and got experience working with a software development organization that is very well organized. I got to meet some of the other interns, and have been really amazed by the breadth of work being done here. I've got some real world experience, something that looks good on my resume, and plenty of opportunities are opened up that I might not have had otherwise. Today I demoed the project I've been working on for my coworkers, and they were all very happy with it. I not only have a lot of experience to take away from here but I feel like I've also left behind something that will be useful for the people I've had the pleasure of working with for the last few weeks. And, in very non-Slashdot style, it looks like I got a girl out of it too:)
Slashdot Mirror
AS far as I know, Emacs already supports the mouse wheel. I know I've scrolled with the mouse wheel, although it's some obscure option to turn that on. I find that I don't really use the mousewheel that much anyway though, it takes too long to move your hand from the keyboard to the mouse.
So apparently this is a dupe, but it's the first I've seen of it, so I found it interesting. I looked at the picture of the remote here and I think I like it. Just the other day I was looking at one of those remotes that come with digital cable boxes these days, and there were way too many buttons there. To make matters worse, almost every remote these days has just about as many buttons, but they are generally organized differently, making it harder to switch TV's. How often do people visiting a friend's house have to ask their friend to do something like change the volume, because the remote is overly complicated? I like the idea of a remote with just a couple of buttons.
As another example of this, a student at my university recently got into some trouble for running a Tor Onion Router. His node ended up being the exit point for an attack on a French web site, and the web site owners tracked it back to his IP address and contacted the school's administration. I haven't heard what the final decision was, but the administration was not happy about it.
As the saying goes, "Still waters run deep."
Bill Gates was and is a nerd. Microsoft is not Bill Gates. Yes, Bill seems to be a good bussiness person, and he was also lucky to have started his company when he did since they filled a need at the right time. This is a large part of Google's success now, there were search engines before, but Google's was markedly better and therefore filled the need for good web search. I think the fact that Bill is a nerd is demonstrated pretty well by the fact that he gave up his position as CEO and is now the Chief Software Architect. Over the past few years, I think Microsoft has started to show some more innovation than they did for a few years, and while there are other factors such as the fact that there is now some viable competition for Microsoft, I suspect Bill's change in position is also a factor in this.
Imagine if Darwin had submitted the Origin of Species to Slashdot, which presumably at the time would have generally accepted some sort of intelligent design theory (I'm sure someone will argue with this, but just accept it for the sake of argument). I suspect in this sort of environment the Origin of Species would have been met with arguments similar to those against intelligent design today.
I suspect slashdot peer reviewing would encourage research that agrees with the prevailing ideas. This is probably good overall, but many of the most important scientific breakthroughs have been in direct contrast to the widespread beliefs of the time, and it would be a shame to see these modded down just because they didn't agree with everyone else.
Reminds me of this paper where they argued that large computations can actually be completed faster by slacking off for a few months and then buying a faster computer.
It's a shame you haven't been modded any higher than you have yet. This is a very informative post. I hadn't heard that SAT falls into another category, GI yet, but I knew SAT was NP-Complete. I knew PRIMES is in P, but factorization is quite a bit different than PRIMES.
How small of a subset is factorization of SAT? Aren't some subsets of SAT (like 2-SAT) in P?
If RSA-1024 is only 8000x as complex as RSA-640, I wouldn't bet on it lasting too much longer. A machine with 80 Operons did RSA-640 in about half a year, and there are definitely much more powerful computers out there. Plus, computer power has historically grown exponentially, so it shouldn't be that long until enough computing power would be available, even if it's not today. Of course, increasing the key size of RSA is a lot easier than increasing computing power (unless someone manages to make a quantum computer), so some variant of RSA will probably be safe, provided no holes are found.
If GNFS isn't parallelicable, why did they use 80 Operons? Maybe this was to speed up something like multiplying large numbers together?
Well, he certainly failed miserably at using less than 640k.
Does anyone know of something like the GIMPS to factor these RSA numbers? It seems like if 80 Opterons can do it in 5 months, a massive distributed network of computers donating idle time could do this in a much shorter amount of time, such as churning out a new factorization every few weeks. I have a feeling the larger RSA numbers quickly become much more complicated to factor. Does anyone know the complexity class of factorization?
Sure, we can ignore the facts because we don't like them. People do this all the time. Just because we don't like them doesn't make them wrong though, so we can choose what we believe, our beliefs can easily be incorrect.
But it's okay if children who learn to believe everything they're taught are taught that about evolution? I haven't read the article, and I would guess there are hidden motives here, but the summary say they are now going to teach material that goes against evolution. I think any evolutionist accepts that evolution is not a complete theory. I hear often in these types of discussions on Slashdot "Evolution is a scientific fact! We may not understand all the mechanisms and finer points of it, but the fact that evolution occurs is undeniable." Why then can we not teach our children the things we don't understand about evolution now? I would think this would encourage the progress of science, as our children would not grow up thinking we have a perfect explanation for everything, but know that there are things we don't know, and that this would encourage them to go out and find that knowledge themselves.
Ahh, HL2 takes several minutes to load for me, and several minutes for each level, and then 30 seconds here and there to load checkpoints. I think that's just something that comes with a game the size of HL2. Once everything is loaded though, it runs well.
What resolution do you run at? I run at 1024x768, my monitor's native resolution. I've got a gig of system RAM, but if 512 isn't enough there's something seriously wrong with Half-Life. Is the rest of your system responsive? On my laptop, in Windows, everything's been decaying recently and it runs like an original Pentium now. I don't have my graphics options turned up to like super-extreme or anything, but I'm pretty sure most things are on High. My guess is there's something else going on with your computer, since you're computer's definitely powerful enough to handle Half-Life 2.
I chose to pay for Cedega since it's a relatively low cost, it lets me play games while still using Linux and if Cedega makes money it will show the game makers that there is a market for computer games and encourage them to release Linux versions.
I use Cedega to play Half-Life 2 on an Athlon XP 2200+ and a Geforce 4 Ti 4200 128MB. It runs really smoothely. I've never played it on a comparable computer under Windows, so I can't say if there's a framerate drop, but the framerate is still high enough, and that's really what matters.
It's based on WineX, which was a Wine fork that had better DirectX support.
I've never understood why it is so important to hardware companies to keep their driver source code secret. I understand for software companies, since this is there product, but hardware companies I thought sold hardware. If the source code for some piece of hardware were freely available, I wouldn't think the company would lose too much money because their driver code is pretty useless to me unless I go buy the hardware from them. You can download drivers in binary form for free from most companies anyway, and they don't lose any money because the driver's aren't useful without their hardware.
And how long have we been studying global warming? I think 150 years of book keeping seems to make a more likely explanation than chalking it up to global warming which that I know of hasn't been studied nearly as long, nor is it very well-understood as of yet.
As one of those interns at Sandia National Laboratories, I can say it was an excellent experience. I learned a lot and got experience working with a software development organization that is very well organized. I got to meet some of the other interns, and have been really amazed by the breadth of work being done here. I've got some real world experience, something that looks good on my resume, and plenty of opportunities are opened up that I might not have had otherwise. Today I demoed the project I've been working on for my coworkers, and they were all very happy with it. I not only have a lot of experience to take away from here but I feel like I've also left behind something that will be useful for the people I've had the pleasure of working with for the last few weeks. And, in very non-Slashdot style, it looks like I got a girl out of it too :)