Seriously now.

The only intelligent people I know are the ones that are good in math. Every professor I had in my life, either in anything math-related or not, was (I eventually got to know) good in math.

So this brings me one old idea, that isn't as wrong as people thought. IQ tests really tell how intelligent someone is, it doesn't matter what other people say about the existence of other "intelligences", it's bullshit. The only intelligent conversations I ever had were with people with high IQ. So fuck the other ones.

Do you people agree?


PS: What do you guys think about this idea: an alien invasion that tests everyone's IQ and kills everyone below 120?

well.. i was just wondering because i really like 4chan. and i'm a perverted 13 year old otaku. very perverted. no wonder i have guy friends and no boyfriend.. ::sighs:: haha.!! oh well. but are there any girls on 4chan.?

Analysis kind of stuff and rings and fields. How completely useless.

Secrets of the trade

1. Have a constantly curious mind with an insatiable appetite for knowing how things work.

2. The fundamentals of computer engineering may be a bit dry, but without grasping them well, you can't be a good hacker.

3. Stay patient. Never stop testing your hacking tools by keeping up with the latest developments in the community and being hands-on.


Confession of a computer hacker

Hacking is not a five-minute job

Skilled hackers can take months to find a weakness in computer systems

The first thing most of us notice about a website is its interface, design and how user-friendly it is.

   Not to people who has a passion for hacking. Hackers usually gets a thrill from discovering loopholes and weakness in computer systems and web applications.

   It's like finding treasure, much like how a scientist would feel after establishing a new finding.

   While hackers are often seen as people who gain unauthorised access to computers to steal secrets or money, publicise a cause or simply show off their skills, security engineers tries to attack websites to make them more secure.

   In tech parlance, they are a "white hat".

   There was a lot of talk about a cyber war between the US and China at the time and hackers attacking each other's websites.

   One of the biggest misconceptions about hacking is that it is done in five minutes or less, racing against the clock that is ticking ominously.

   It's not what the movies make it out to be - entering a line of code and having a series of numbers spinning endlessly at the click of a button.

   Established, skilled hackers take months, even years, to discover one vulnerability.

   They then work with companies and developers to patch the holes, before presenting their findings at global security gatherings including the Black Hat and Def Con hacking conferences.

   Being responsible in declaring vulnerabilities - which involves security researchers reporting bugs to relevant Internet companies - is an important part of being ethical.

   The payoffs are attractive, even for people who do not have security-related day jobs.

   Facebook, for example, offers cash rewards to security researchers who discover vulnerabilities on the website.

   Rewards of the "bug bounty" programme start from US$500 and has no upper limit.

   What differentiates seasoned hackers from "script kiddies", or skiddies, are the tools they use.

   Script kiddies is a derogatory term used in hacker culture, referring to unskilled people who use scripts or programs developed by others to attack computer systems and networks and deface websites.

   It's not uncommon for hackers to let out scripts on the Internet disguised (as something) to help skiddies hack, but actually reformat their computers when applied.

   And while some think that an e-mail account is one of the most elementary hacking jobs that may exist, in reality, it may not be the case.

   It's easy only when people do silly things like use 12345 as a password.

   If you use a complex password, it's definitely not a five-minute job.

   Most hackers - generally men - have habits the average person might consider geeky.

   While many of us simply hit "proceed anyway" when warned of a dubious security certificate, security enthusiasts explore the details of the warning message.

   Another secure way of protection is try not to shop at unsecured websites.

   Make sure the URLs begin with https, which indicates secure connection over a computer network.

   Never hacked into a website illegally as there are criminal prosecution and lawsuits hackers can face if they do not use their skills responsibility

   You don't have to practise hacking on real websites to be good at this. People set up artificial testing environments in their own home-made labs to hone their skills.

   If you work as a security expert for a company, that can also be ground for research.

   But acquiring hacking skills isn't easy.

   Some people think they can be good after a few days. You need patience to get a good grasp of the fundamentals.

so here I am, sitting in the plysics lab at my school, waiting for my first optics class to start (yes, summer school, alas).  tell me, my fellow /sci/entists, what am I in for?

Just because he doesn't come to your house and do magic tricks for you doesn't mean he's not real.

Consciousness doesn't exist.

Mexican named 'THE JOBS GIRL'

Maths genius, 12, scored max result in national exam

TALENT: Paloma Noyola was called 'The Next Steve Jobs', after Apple's late founder, by US magazine Wired.

Mexico has found a new heroine, from a state plagued by drug violence: A 12-year-old math whiz who was dubbed "The Next Steve Jobs" by a US magazine.

   The youngest of eight children from a modest family, Paloma Noyola was thrown under the media spotlight when Wired, a magazine which focuses on emerging technologies, featured her on its cover two weeks ago.

   She has appeared in national newspapers and on cable news, dubbed "La Nina Jobs" - "The Jobs Girl" - with photographers and cameramen chasing the girl nicknamed after Apple's late founder.

   This week, she travelled from her hometown of Matamoros, in the northeastern state of Tamaulipas, to the hustle and bustle of Mexico City for a mental maths competition.

   She said: "I'm very happy. If you want it, you can do it."

   With so much attention on the girl, Tamaulipas state officials who flew in with her shielded Noyola from the press pack.

   She sat alone at a large table and was whisked away after the contest organized by the Tecnologico de Monterrey university ended. She did not win the contest.

   Last year, the girl, whose school lies next to a dump across the US border, wowed the country when she scored the maximum 921 in the national standardised exam, the best in Mexico.

   Her father died of lung cancer last year and her family earns an income from selling scrap metal and food in Matamoros, a city tormented for years by a turf war between drug cartels, AFP reported.

   While Paloma made the cover of Wired, it was her teacher's radical methods that featured prominently in the magazine's story.

   Mr Sergio Juarez Correa, 32, saw the Spanish and maths scores of his entire class dramatically improve after he implemented a new approach, allowing students to tap into their own curiosity and self-learning to solve problems.

   He took inspiration from the "minimally invasive education" concept of Mr Sugata Mitra, a professor of educational technology at British's Newcastle University.

   While Paloma garnered attention for acing the national exam last year, nine other students scored more than 900 in the maths test.

/sci/ has been getting boring recently.  Let me attempt something new.  This is a math puzzle I heard about ages ago.

There are N boxes, each with a real number such that no two boxes have the same number.

The first box is opened so that you can see its contents.  You can a) choose this box or b) discard this box and open the next one [with which you repeat the procedure].  If you choose a), and the current box contains the largest number, then you win $1000.  If you choose b), then you will not be given the option of going back to the discarded box.  Of course, discarding all the boxes means that you lose by default.

What is the strategy to optimize your chances of winning, and what is this probability?

N=1, P=1
N=2, P=1/2
N=3, choosing the 1st box gives P=1/3, but if you discard the 1st box and choose the next largest box, you get P=3/6=1/2 > 1/3.
N>3, ...?

I don't get the Axiom of Choice. All it seems to say is that if you have a bunch of piles of objects, it is possible to pick exactly one item from each pile. Well big fucking whoop, what's the big deal? Why is this so controversial?