Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Link to Original Source
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."
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
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.
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.
ssh -X user@host xterm?
Damn hard that is!
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.