I actually appreciate the "it's a dupe" postings. I'm getting a little old, and I think "didn't I see this somewhere, or did I dream it?"
...or, the dupe could be a glitch in the matrix.
Shoot. A quick check tells me that about 90 people have already used that "glitch in the matrix" joke. I guess this is yet another dupe of a message about a dupe, responding to someone complaining about dupes.
But if quantum computers are millions of times faster, is it that big of a deal for encryption? Can't you exponentially increase the difficulty of breaking encryption just by adding bits to the key? Because in that case, 20 extra bits would do the trick.
The blurb mentioning "can do that calculation millions of times faster" was the understatement of the day (with this sentence coming in a distant second).
Trillions of billions of millions certainly qualifies as millions. It's just a gross understatement.
Another method is to add 1/47347200th (i'm sure we can compute a better fraction) of second per seconds to make time always accurate.
You're implying also changing some other constants then. One example of many, C, as in E=MC**2, is the constant speed of light in a vacuum, which is a fixed value, if measured in meters per second (or miles per hour, or whatever). Your solution, by changing what "second" means would implicitly change the definition of C or change the definition of the length of a meter. It would also either change the number of seconds in an hour, or change the length of a mile, or change the definition of C, in miles per hour. Some other constant(s) would have to change, to keep all the equalities accurate.
I.e. I don't think that world leaders would look at the figures and go "Hrmmmmm...when you say extinct...how extinct?"
I think it's a different circumstance if the scientists say "it's a very real possibility - say 1 in 6 - that the earth will get hit, and our models (which are probably accurate, but not certain) predict a 50-50 chance of extinction. But all it will cost is $400,000,000 (or $15 from every man, woman, and child on earth)."
Under those circumstances, the politicians would probably argue it out until it was too late.
See also: Global Warming.
Re:WTF is the General Number Field Sieve...
on
RSA-640 Factored
·
· Score: 1
Follow up:
Big O(2^640)=1.4E+21
Big O(2^1024)=9.6E+25
So it'd be about 70,000 times harder to factor (using the same algorithm) RSA-1024 vs RSA-640. So 70,000 times as many machines, or 70,000 times as long, or 70,000 times as fast of processors, or some combination multiplying to 70,000.
At least that's what my quick calculations show.
Re:WTF is the General Number Field Sieve...
on
RSA-640 Factored
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Yes it does scale up, but the time roughly doubles with each digit added (RSA-641 would take twice as long as RSA-640).
Actually, it's not quite that bad. Big-O notation helps you to calculate the time it takes to run these algorithms, and there's a formula that helps you determine order-of-magnitude runtime for each digit. (Big-O calculations don't tell you how long it will take in hours, but it WILL help you approximate runtime relative to runtime that you already know.) For instance you can calculate how many times longer RSA-1024 would take as compared to RSA-640. It's a lot longer!
The Number Field Sieve Big O notation is on wikipedia. You can calculate it with n=640 and with n=1024, and see how much bigger the O is for n=1024. That will give you an idea as to how much longer (or how much more computation) 1024 would take, relative to 640.
Do your own research, but this is just one of those things that makes a small company's stock go haywire!
The Company that makes LRAD technology is called American Technology Corporation.
Looks like they are losing money but small enough that something like this might cause the stock to jump!
Full disclosure: I'm in.
Watch and learn, kids. Next, the SPAM will start going out, touting the stock (not from me!). In a couple months, the bottom will drop out. But between now and then, there's money to be made.
ok, so you have something that's quiet (which means that it makes no noise - also means calm and unmoving, as in "a quiet lake"). Can you have something that's more quiet?
I suppose if quiet means that it makes little noise, maybe. hmm seems like a poor choice of words. How about Quieter?
Reminds me of a question my son asked me. "Dad, if there's a fire in the kitchen, and I make the fire better, what did I do?"
Just as I suspected. No women on Slashdot - just guys who "speak as females".
It's a joke.
I'm glad I don't have to deal with the question of who I'm most genetically like. But that's, I think, what the question is all about. Yeah, you can't really call them "parents". The way I think about it is this: I have something in common with every person on Earth. More in common with some than others. (beliefs, experiences, color of skin, color of hair, preferences in hobbies, etc.)
If I ran into my "biological parents", it'd be purely a case of - "wow, I have something in common with these people" in the same way that if you run into someone who likes the same obscure movie as you. Interesting, yes. Life changing, no. (Unless it ended up being Bill Gates - then I'd go after some of that "beer money" that he got. Free as in Beer, my a$$, Dad.)
But, I'm fairly certain I know who my biological "parents" are - my real parents. So I can't really speak from experience.
it's not illegal, only if you have insider, non-public information about the company. in fact, you SHOULD be touting the stock as much as you can.
No, I believe it is illegal. Check out this article about people who were charged for using Pump and Dump tactics, which I believe are illegal. (I am not a lawyer, but if it sounds sleazy, it could be illegal.)
EPS (ttm)=0.92 means that their Earnings Per Share for the Trailing Twelve Months was 92 cents a share. On a $7.47 share price (when I looked at the link, above), that's about 12% Earnings return on the share price (or a PE Ratio of 8.08).
That's really not a horrible return. Not great, but not bad, considering some tech companies LOSE money. It's only as high as it is because the stock price is beaten down so badly. Of course, you need to consider FUTURE earnings, not past, when buying a stock.
I'm no stock guru, but I do have what most would consider a sizeable portfolio, and I am in Novell at just over $6 (full disclosure here) for a few grand. So, yes, if I could encourage buying without touting the stock, I would. But I can't; that might be illegal.
As far as the public is concerned, Apple and the Mac "introduced" them to the first inexpensive window/mouse personal computer. The first such system designed for the masses.
Sorry, but I disagree. $2495 in 1984 dollars isn't really "designed for the masses". Yes, a better price than earlier machines, but a far worse price than later machines. But it's a price-point-in-time. To argue that this is the "first" just doesn't make sense.
I could argue that e-Machines or Packard Bell, or some white-box manufacturer was "the first" to make it affordable for the masses, because they beat that price by a factor of 10 or more in real dollars.
Basically, you have two variables there - price and functionality. Unless your argument is that the definition of "inexpensive for the masses" is $2500 or less (in 1984 dollars), it just doesn't hold up. The Mac wasn't the first in functionality. And it wasn't reasonably priced for the masses (as compared to today's systems). $2495 in 1984 was about 3% of the price of an average HOUSE! A little steep for the average person, for a "disposable technology unit" that would clearly depreciate to scrap value in three years.
If you're like me, and not a Gamer, you probably found yourself scratching your head wondering what the heck this article was about (even after reading the links).
Slashdot Mirror
2) Get a 900 number that charges $350 for the first minute, and call it - so Google owes you $350
3) Prank phone calls, connecting your favorite Pastor to a pr0n advertiser
4) Connect two competing advertisers, just for fun ("You called me", "No, YOU called ME!")
5) Call your cousin in China, who happens to work for a Google advertiser. Free Long Distance!!!
6) Call your favorite phone-sex operator (assuming she advertises on Google) - all on Google's tab.
7) Write a script to perform any of the above functions multiple times in an endless loop - achieving the Slashdot affect by phone.
Wonder of these would work. I don't encourage you to try any of them! (Kids, don't try this at home!)
You may have some close friends that you want to "but". I think I'll pass.
Shoot. A quick check tells me that about 90 people have already used that "glitch in the matrix" joke. I guess this is yet another dupe of a message about a dupe, responding to someone complaining about dupes.
But isn't IE an integral part of the operating system, as Microsoft told us a few years back?
The blurb mentioning "can do that calculation millions of times faster" was the understatement of the day (with this sentence coming in a distant second).
Trillions of billions of millions certainly qualifies as millions. It's just a gross understatement.
You're implying also changing some other constants then. One example of many, C, as in E=MC**2, is the constant speed of light in a vacuum, which is a fixed value, if measured in meters per second (or miles per hour, or whatever). Your solution, by changing what "second" means would implicitly change the definition of C or change the definition of the length of a meter. It would also either change the number of seconds in an hour, or change the length of a mile, or change the definition of C, in miles per hour. Some other constant(s) would have to change, to keep all the equalities accurate.
That would never fly.
Here's an explanation of who They are.
7 cents, not $15.
It's been a long day!
I think it's a different circumstance if the scientists say "it's a very real possibility - say 1 in 6 - that the earth will get hit, and our models (which are probably accurate, but not certain) predict a 50-50 chance of extinction. But all it will cost is $400,000,000 (or $15 from every man, woman, and child on earth)."
Under those circumstances, the politicians would probably argue it out until it was too late.
See also: Global Warming.
Big O(2^640)=1.4E+21
Big O(2^1024)=9.6E+25
So it'd be about 70,000 times harder to factor (using the same algorithm) RSA-1024 vs RSA-640. So 70,000 times as many machines, or 70,000 times as long, or 70,000 times as fast of processors, or some combination multiplying to 70,000.
At least that's what my quick calculations show.
Actually, it's not quite that bad. Big-O notation helps you to calculate the time it takes to run these algorithms, and there's a formula that helps you determine order-of-magnitude runtime for each digit. (Big-O calculations don't tell you how long it will take in hours, but it WILL help you approximate runtime relative to runtime that you already know.) For instance you can calculate how many times longer RSA-1024 would take as compared to RSA-640. It's a lot longer!
The Number Field Sieve Big O notation is on wikipedia. You can calculate it with n=640 and with n=1024, and see how much bigger the O is for n=1024. That will give you an idea as to how much longer (or how much more computation) 1024 would take, relative to 640.
I know you were joking, but you said that the factors must either end with (1,9) or (3,3).
You forgot about (7,7).
The Company that makes LRAD technology is called American Technology Corporation.
Looks like they are losing money but small enough that something like this might cause the stock to jump!
Full disclosure: I'm in.
Watch and learn, kids. Next, the SPAM will start going out, touting the stock (not from me!). In a couple months, the bottom will drop out. But between now and then, there's money to be made.
But there are other ones, I'm sure, that caused loss of life. I just can't think of any.
ok, so you have something that's quiet (which means that it makes no noise - also means calm and unmoving, as in "a quiet lake"). Can you have something that's more quiet?
I suppose if quiet means that it makes little noise, maybe. hmm seems like a poor choice of words. How about Quieter?
Reminds me of a question my son asked me. "Dad, if there's a fire in the kitchen, and I make the fire better, what did I do?"
Let's compromise and give it to the Jenni-cam girl. What was her name again?
Just as I suspected. No women on Slashdot - just guys who "speak as females".
It's a joke.
I'm glad I don't have to deal with the question of who I'm most genetically like. But that's, I think, what the question is all about. Yeah, you can't really call them "parents". The way I think about it is this: I have something in common with every person on Earth. More in common with some than others. (beliefs, experiences, color of skin, color of hair, preferences in hobbies, etc.)
If I ran into my "biological parents", it'd be purely a case of - "wow, I have something in common with these people" in the same way that if you run into someone who likes the same obscure movie as you. Interesting, yes. Life changing, no. (Unless it ended up being Bill Gates - then I'd go after some of that "beer money" that he got. Free as in Beer, my a$$, Dad.)
But, I'm fairly certain I know who my biological "parents" are - my real parents. So I can't really speak from experience.
Moral of the story, do this when you are 17! Then you get to keep your BMW.
No, I believe it is illegal. Check out this article about people who were charged for using Pump and Dump tactics, which I believe are illegal. (I am not a lawyer, but if it sounds sleazy, it could be illegal.)
To be clear, Novell is profitable.
EPS (ttm)=0.92 means that their Earnings Per Share for the Trailing Twelve Months was 92 cents a share. On a $7.47 share price (when I looked at the link, above), that's about 12% Earnings return on the share price (or a PE Ratio of 8.08).
That's really not a horrible return. Not great, but not bad, considering some tech companies LOSE money. It's only as high as it is because the stock price is beaten down so badly. Of course, you need to consider FUTURE earnings, not past, when buying a stock.
I'm no stock guru, but I do have what most would consider a sizeable portfolio, and I am in Novell at just over $6 (full disclosure here) for a few grand. So, yes, if I could encourage buying without touting the stock, I would. But I can't; that might be illegal.
Sorry, but I disagree. $2495 in 1984 dollars isn't really "designed for the masses". Yes, a better price than earlier machines, but a far worse price than later machines. But it's a price-point-in-time. To argue that this is the "first" just doesn't make sense.
I could argue that e-Machines or Packard Bell, or some white-box manufacturer was "the first" to make it affordable for the masses, because they beat that price by a factor of 10 or more in real dollars.
Basically, you have two variables there - price and functionality. Unless your argument is that the definition of "inexpensive for the masses" is $2500 or less (in 1984 dollars), it just doesn't hold up. The Mac wasn't the first in functionality. And it wasn't reasonably priced for the masses (as compared to today's systems). $2495 in 1984 was about 3% of the price of an average HOUSE! A little steep for the average person, for a "disposable technology unit" that would clearly depreciate to scrap value in three years.
The DS is a Nintendo portable game system.