Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:This will NO break any encryption algorithms... (Score 1) 318

by neural.disruption (#35340698) Attached to: No P = NP Proof After All

Oversimplifying what P=NP would mean for dummies:
1) you have a problem known to be slow to solve(in NP)
2) you create a description of your problem as a sequence of logical operations (if you can make a logical circuit for it this can be done)
3) you translate that description in a special formulation known as CNF using just 3 variables(this point was already proven as possible and fast for all NP problems)
4) ??? - you take your newly developed polynomial time 3 SAT CNF solving algorithm and use it to compute a solution to the problem stated at 1)
5) $$$ - you now have a polynomial time algorithm to solve the problem stated at 1)

P - Polynomial time = Fast to solve even for very large inputs (finding if a given number is even)
NPC - Non determinisctic polynomial time complete = Very very slow to solve for somewhat large inputs (finding a solution for the travelling salesman problem with lots of cities)
NP - Non deterministic polynomial time = Contains all problems that are in P in addition to many others that aren't in P.
CNF - Conjunctive normal form = A way to write boolean algebra expressions(sequences of logical operations)
SAT - Satisfiability = Find out if there are any values for the variables that make a boolean expression true

P.S. for those still reading:
As for prime factorization it is known that it is in NP and in Co-NP but AFAIK there exists no proof as to whether it is in NPC, co-NPC or P. But we also know it to be in FNP and we know that if P=NP then FP=FNP and vice versa, hence prime factorization would be solvable in polynomial time by a turing machine as all FP problems are.

See your favourite boolean algebra/logics book for CNF and SAT and your favourite computation theory book for Complexity.

Comment: Re:Mayeb Not a Bad Thing? (Score 1) 331

by neural.disruption (#35076170) Attached to: The Microsoft High-Profile Exodus Continues

You realize that EyeToy is just an USB camera, right?

Also you realize that Kinect has lots of IR detectors and emitters besides the camera, and is being used in lots of research lately, right?

But bollocks maybe the non-MS researchers behind the holograms, the interactive interfaces and such are just lazy lads copying EyeToy.

Comment: Re:Gross oversimplification (Score 1) 191

by neural.disruption (#33552036) Attached to: Child Abuse Verdict Held Back By MS Word Glitch

Actually it was quite different than the OJ Simpson case, a council of judges was formed to judge this case, one of the defenders lawyers was arrested for being involved. One politician was accused but turned out to be innocent(or so they say). They took six years to review what they have supposedly because of the high number of witnesses, and many of the accused were found out to be innocent and freed. Also other politicians tried to politicize the case to attack the governing party. There is the possibility of a bad judgement but one can only know for sure after the decision is public.

Yes 2000 pages is an overkill, but word could handle it if the user was competent.

Comment: Re:Microsoft's fault (Score 2, Insightful) 191

by neural.disruption (#33551984) Attached to: Child Abuse Verdict Held Back By MS Word Glitch

Yes, it's Microsoft's fault that you have to spend 3 or more years in high school learning how to produce a simple document, and another two years or more in college learning how to make more complex documents. Who else would you blame?

Of course I think colleges everywhere should create a MS Word PHD, for those poor users that after 10 years using a computer don't know that caps lock is the cause of their text being all in uppercase.

Comment: Re:Gross oversimplification (Score 1) 191

by neural.disruption (#33551932) Attached to: Child Abuse Verdict Held Back By MS Word Glitch

Well we will only know for sure what proof they have when the document gets to the public, meanwhile we have only the customary whining about anything no matter how insignificant on both sides of the trial, but for outsiders today this is somewhat of a "tradition" in our country even outside the justice system. If you're not whining you're for sure conspiring to do something that will take the food out of the workers mouth.

And of course we have Carlos Cruz trying to save his ass, with his site and speeches, and being given more TV time than any other person involved in the case just because he was a national celebrity.

Comment: Re:stop misusing "refute" (Score 1) 127

by neural.disruption (#32495370) Attached to: Venture Capitalists Lobby Against Software Patents

Have you ever heard of proofs by contradiction? Or more importantly counter examples?

For something better rephrased (for the sake of logical analysis) as "All venture capitalists would not invest if it wasn't for software patents" you only need a venture capitalist saying the opposite, in fact you have a whole bunch of them saying that.

You can say it isn't significant because "Most VCs would not invest..." but thats not the issue there, and I suspect that a well made statistical analysis would indicate a strong correlation between being a VC and believing in the uselessness of software patents.

Comment: Re:How many ways are there to do simple things? (Score 1) 694

by neural.disruption (#31903588) Attached to: Why Computer Science Students Cheat
No it would flag as the wrong answer. Also most of the time its easy to check if someone cheated for sure, just asked about the purpose of every line, and tell them to modify the program to do something else, if they can't they cant even tell you what they've done they've cheated for sure.

Comment: Re:So tell me... (Score 1) 191

by neural.disruption (#31471806) Attached to: OpenBSD 4.7 Preorders Are Up
I'm currently using OpenBSD on a 233mhz pentium mmx with 64megs of ram, with X running. You know why? Because most"lightweight" linux distro would not even run the installation right (have you ever tried to use a livecd with 64megs? why the hell would I want a livecd for old computers with low specifications? Oh wait there is no text install...).

Apart from deli linux and fluxbuntu(that is strangely more lightweight than damn small linux) that were kind of slow.

Comment: Re:As a writer of crappy code.. (Score 1) 623

by neural.disruption (#31402786) Attached to: Whatever Happened To Programming?
I said done more in depth, after all you mentioned OS programming and I can't even begin to imagine the amount of hacking that one needs in Common LISP or Scheme to do what is normally done Assebly and in C or other mid/low level imperative language.
By depth I mean freedom to manipulate the computer with little abstractions getting in the way.

And yes it can still be done in C - Linus, GNU et all have proven it :).

But the point was that there is need to use low level programming and make everything from the quantum level up, but it really helps to know how the abstractions ones uses are implemented(or at least know what is a linked list, heap, ...) to make the best fitting choice to a particular problem.

Brain off-line, please wait.