Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

+ - Alternatives to Slashdot post beta? 8

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Like many Slashdotters, I intend to stop visiting Slashdot after the beta changeover. After years of steady decline in the quality of discussions here, the beta will be the last straw. What sites alternative to Slashdot have others found? The best I have found has been arstechnica.com, but it has been a while since I've looked for tech discussion sites."

+ - Slashdot BETA Discussion-> 60

Submitted by mugnyte
mugnyte (203225) writes "With Slashdot's recent restyled "BETA" slowly rolled to most users, there's been a lot of griping about the changes. This is nothing new, as past style changes have had similar effects. However, this pass there are significant usability changes: A narrower read pane, limited moderation filtering, and several color/size/font adjustments. BETA implies not yet complete, so taking that cue — please list your specific, detailed opinoins, one per comment, and let's use the best part of slashdot (the moderation system) to raise the attention to these. Change can be jarring, but let's focus on the true usability differences with the new style."
Link to Original Source

+ - Dice, what are you getting by butchering Slashdot ? 2

Submitted by Taco Cowboy
Taco Cowboy (5327) writes "Before I register my account with /. I frequented it for almost 3 weeks. If I were to register the first time I visited /. my account number would be in the triple digits.

That said, I want to ask Dice why they are so eager to kill off Slashdot.

Is there a secret buyer somewhere waiting to grab this domain, Dice ? Just tell us. There are those amongst us who can afford to pay for the domain. What we want is to have a Slashdot that we know, that we can use, that we can continue to share information with all others.

Please stop all your destructive plans for Slashdot, Dice."

Comment: Re:remote desktop vs windows (Score 2) 197

by poizan42 (#43467623) Attached to: Wayland 1.1 Released — Now With Raspberry Pi Support

Flickering and architectural problems. The first is purely cosmetic, but is impossible to fix without making chances to the core protocol. The second means that an order of magnitude more work is required to add new functionality than what could be done with a more modern design.

Daniel Stone explains the problems with X11 in great details here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIctzAQOe44

Comment: Re:remote desktop vs windows (Score 1) 197

by poizan42 (#43467559) Attached to: Wayland 1.1 Released — Now With Raspberry Pi Support

obviously by ssh admin he means whoever administrates access to ssh, and would allow X forwarding in the sshd_conf file...

You are incorrect. X forwarding still requires giving your local host permission to the x server.

I don't know which distro you use, but usually that is enabled unless whoever administrates access to ssh disables it.

Comment: Re:remote desktop vs windows (Score 1) 197

by poizan42 (#43467547) Attached to: Wayland 1.1 Released — Now With Raspberry Pi Support

Well, assuming that the ssh admin has permitted ssh forwarding. And that you invoked your ssh client with the appropriate flags. And that you export the DISPLAY variable on the remote host. And that you set your xhost permissions on your own host.

Other than that, nothing to be done.

You mean

ssh -X user@host xterm?

Damn hard that is!

Comment: Re:Can someone explain... (Score 1) 262

by poizan42 (#41130515) Attached to: Solid State Quantum Computer Finds 15=3x5 — 48% of the Time

You can easily check if a factorization is correct using a conventional computer. Of course factorizing 15 is pretty useless in itself, but you have to start somewhere. To put things into perspective, assume you have a number with 1000 digits, and you want to factorize that. The best known conventional algorithm for doing that is the General Number Field Sieve with which the factorization would take in the order of 1.4 * 10^43 operations. Assuming you had a computer capable of executing a trillion operations per second it would still take about 4.6 * 10^23 years, which is 33 trillion times the age of the universe!

Now assume you had a quantum computer with enough qubits - we would need at least 3322 qubits. Let us say that it is otherwise a pretty crappy quantum computer as it only gets the factorization right 0.1% of the time. Now we try to use our quantum computer. It gives us an answer in the order of just a few billion operations. Even if it is quite slow and only capable of 1 million operations per second, it would still give an answer in less than an hour. This answer is probably wrong, however we can easily check that using our conventional computer. Checking if a number divides another is FAST. It can actually be done in slightly more than just the size of the input - the existence of a factor in a 1000 digit number would take the order of maybe 100,000 operations to check - in much less than a second.

So the time it takes to validate the answer is negligible here. We just keep on asking the quantum computer to try again until we get it right. So how long would it take? After 10000 tries we would have gotten the correct result with a probability of 99.995%. So if every try takes 1 hour, we would be pretty sure to have succeeded in less than a year (10000 hours = 1 year 1 month 21 days 6 hours). So even with this big but crappy quantum computer we would be able to factorize the integer in less than a year instead of 33 trillion times the age of the universe.

It's later than you think, the joint Russian-American space mission has already begun.

Working...