|
Kent Sharkey wrote: They've automated copy/paste?
Egg-f***ing-sackerly.
Another article I'm not going to bother to read, because where did the code examples come from, and how were they trimmed and massaged to get results that look "good"?
It will likely be a lot of years before something like this is done seriously and professionally.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
If they're trained on samples generated by humans, all we're going to end up with is with something like Windows.
|
|
|
|
|
Randomness sits at the heart of everything we do online. Many encryption algorithms depend upon randomly generated numbers to work, and that’s just one example of many. But how random is random? 4d6, pick the best 3
|
|
|
|
|
Oh come on!
I'm not even going to bother reading the article, because Computers Cannot Generate Random Numbers!
That's lesson one of programming class 000; it's burned into your brain before you even think of taking class 101.
Computers Don't Do Random!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently these efforts use various physical sources for random numbers. This project apparently aggregates these. However, I recently read an article which pointed out that over-randomizing and/or using too many sources often leads to less randomization, not more.
|
|
|
|
|
I can well believe that. Adding more "randomising factors" just makes the process more complicated -- but it's still a process, and therefore not random.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: but it's still a process, and therefore not random
If you read the article you'd read that they use lava lamps (which are pretty darn random), tremors in the earth (which are also pretty darn random) and other physical sources that are random.
They use those to generate a number which should be as random as their sources.
And then a few sources are combined to generate an even more random number (because random + random = more random).
The only pitfall is that if you know the values of, say some seismograph, you can reconstruct the random numbers generated at that time.
So the random numbers aren't suited for security purposes, but can be used in other scenario's, like picking a winning lottery number.
Just because you can't think of a way to generate random numbers doesn't mean no one can...
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: The only pitfall is that if you know the values of, say some seismograph, you can reconstruct the random numbers generated at that time.
So the random numbers aren't suited for security purposes, but can be used in other scenario's, like picking a winning lottery number.
Mark_Wallace wrote: Adding more "randomising factors" just makes the process more complicated -- but it's still a process, and therefore not random.
I just read the same, but said with other words
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: a few sources are combined to generate an even more random number (because random + random = more random).
Afraid not. Intersections become predictable, with multiple rounded sources -- and differences in the numeric ranges of the sources has an even more marked effect on predictability, and therefore lack of randomness.
Someone comes along every few years with wild claims of having invented "true computer randomness", but their claims only last a short time, until someone writes a routine that gives exactly the same results (without using 1960s tacky accoutrements or global indigestion).
Give it a month or two (or learn Z, and crack it yourself) (or program an AI to estimate the results) (or buy several pencils and a very thick notepad).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Apple CEO Tim Cook warned that Silicon Valley companies needed to take responsibility for the “chaos” they create in a speech Sunday at Stanford University. "Arioch! Arioch! Blood and souls for my lord Arioch!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Hampshire has installed what appears to be the first historical highway marker honoring computer programming Of course they picked a very important programming language for the honour
New state motto: Resume Next or Die
|
|
|
|
|
They picked Basic because the state isn't next to doesn't have a C.
(Edit: Geography error on my part; forgot that a sliver of New Hampshire touches the Atlantic between Maine and Massachusetts. What makes it even more dumb is I've been there.)
modified 17-Jun-19 12:55pm.
|
|
|
|
|
But they are next to a state that is next to a C. Wouldn't that make them C++?
(Running, ducking, and rolling)
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yes it is, New Hampshire has an amazing 13 miles of coastline which I will be visiting next week,.
|
|
|
|
|
Oops. Forgot. And I drove along part of it once for reasons I don't remember.
|
|
|
|
|
I just wish the article had given better directions to find it. We'll be driving right past the college and I might convince the wife to stop and take my picture with it but not if it is too far out of town.
|
|
|
|
|
But it's so basic. Just goto it.
|
|
|
|
|
Found another article about it that lists where it is.
367 Lebanon Street, Hanover, NH is about the spot. 3 miles from the interstate exit.
|
|
|
|
|
'user-friendly computer programming language'...
Aren't programming languages for the developer? Why should they be 'user-friendly'?
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Developers never see themselves as users.
And they're right, in a way -- they complain a shipload more than users do!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
One day there'll be a big "SKYNET WOS 'ERE" sign, but there'll be no-one around to write articles about it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
You really shouldn’t need a reason not to use your work device while on holiday, but just in case you do – McAfee says you’d be putting your company at risk by doing so. That's why I never use them when I'm not on holiday either
|
|
|
|
|
Sure I use them on holiday, as coasters for my lovely, cold beverage.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, what utter bollocks.
The security risk has got sod all to do with holidays; it's public wi-fi that's the problem, and all too many people connect to any old hotspot -- do you really think that mcdonalds and your local cafe have your company's best interests at heart?
Or your best interests for that matter?
It won't be a problem after Huawei has finished converting the world to 5G, anyway, because wi-fi will be everywhere, a bloody damned sight faster than it is now, and (if they don't give in to US and UK pressure to allow backdoors into everything) a damned sight more secure and private.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
