It is sortof a negative result.
It has been known for forty years that many (10,000s) of difficult problems share a common difficulty, that makes them prohibitive to solve: NP-completeness. It was proven in the 70s that if you can solve one NP-complete problem fast, you can solve them all fast. This new result claims to prove that you cannot solve any NP-complete problem "fast".
Some nerdy NP-complete problems are, for instance: how to make a certain circuit (CPU) using as few NAND gates as possible (i.e. faster hardware cheaper) or how to wire your motherboard as efficiently as possible (both how to draw the wires, and how to place the components). This says that it might ake more than a human lifetime (or Sun's) lifetime to solve any NP-complete problem.
Some would like to see it as good news for cryptography, since it make some ciphers provably hard (however I am not aware of any such cipher -- unless it is proven that RSA is in NPC or in NPI).
Military robots are the future of war. We will see robot armies fighting each other. Consider what kind of surveillance state you can create by millions of robotic insects, using swarm intelligence / smart dust to report on everyone.
Maybe mankind ends up like in matrix, but with opposing robot armies trying to kill the last survivors from the superpowers, who are hiding deep down underground, kept alive by fading nuclear reactors...
So if your saving gets wired away due to a "computer error" on your part (like malware installed by a flash ad or smth), you should eat the losses? Have no claim to have your money back?
Telemarketer comes up with a list. Telemarketer sends list to the Do-Not-Call team. Do-Not-Callers do the compare, and return only the numbers that were on the telemarketer's list that doesn't match the no-call list.
Just slightly related, Sweden actually had an opt-out list for email marketing.
Let's just say, having a public list of email adresses that are not allowed to be spammed did not work out too well.
Every serious investigation on the UFO phenomenon has concluded that they are real (US, Soviet, British, Feench, Mexican, Brazilian miliaries for instance). That is not the issue anymore.
The issue is to understand what we are seeing. Remember, UFO is not the same as ET. There is no single explanation that could explain the vastly different type of reports. One of the difficulties is that there is no clear border what reports to accept. The cases get continuously more and more wicked and logic defying.
UFOs are called 'UAP' (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) by the Brits, and to save you the trouble, it concludes that:
* "Aerial phenomena of the type consistent with those reported as UAP, and with exceptional characteristic, certainly exists..."
but
* There is no evidence that the phenomena is anything but naturally occuring.
The first point is interesting, since it is the conclusion of many military reports (US, French COMETA, Soviet, Mexican, Brazilian...) published on the topic. It shifts the debate from whether UFO:s are real or not, to discussing what they might be.
The one park of the equation that does not exist right now is the conversion of that money into tangible assets like food clothing and shelter without leaving traces.
I thought it is accepted that Hydra Scylla is by far the best. It is estimated to have a strength of over 3000+ ELO; it haven't been rated since it has never lost a competitive game...
Actually, most of them says just "our partners" instead of business partners. That includes anyone they happen to give the data to.
And even without the provision about changing on will, what to stop them from doing that anyway? Are policies somehow legally binding? (Just curious, since I have examples where companies have publicly stated in their policies that "we will never ever do X", and then went on and done X anyway)
Suppose you had a definitive, 100% guaranteed answer to the "discovered vs invented" question. What would it allow you to do that you couldn't do before? What could you predict? What would you gain? You can own an invention, but not a discovery.
So the answers to your questions aren't nothing x 3, but rather in lines with patenting and making money.
I was about to say something similar. Programming contests shows that a person loves programming. However, TopCoder, ACM or univ or Valadolidl (sp) stuff are not ideal. Those competitions are more about coming up with a witty function quickly (within an hour or so per task) rather than engineer a program.
The ICFP programming contest would be a far more better meter, since the contest is long enough to require the programmer to create several tools, and/or and an architecture that they can extend during the contest (it's three days, but believe me, the guys we are talking about produce in three days code that would take weeks for the mortals to produce).
Basically all excellent programmers I have met has their own framework of reusable code/classes/modules (in their favourite language), and they prefer to use it. They might even be passionate enough about it to accept lower pay in order to find a job where they can use it instead of tools decided by management.
As already stated, The Phoenix lights is still a disputed case (at best).
Look up 1942 "Battle of Los Angeles", Project Hessdalen or some of the material released by various militaries (Mexico, Brazil) for better cases. At least the two first cases are generally agreed to be UFOs (ie unidentified).
Agree with parent. You might not even know today what you want to do in a few years.
My story: I worked my butt off for good grades. When interviewing for my first job, nobody asked to see my grades or even my diploma. I got the job.
A few years later I got bored of working as a programmer and wanted to go back to school, so I applied to a PhD program. Suddenly those grades were very important, and without them I would have never been accepted there.//T
On the positive side, there is a total of 1200 possible questions, and the 25 you get are picked at random out of these 1200, and you can buy books with all 1200 questions and all the correct answers. And being able to buy the right answers ahead of the exam is something positive??
Apparently your school system (or attitude towards it) is very, very, different to where I live.
When I buy a car, I can take a sludge hammer to it. I can chop it up into tiny pieces and re-sell it. I can repaint it, put new seats in, I can even replace the engine. Why should software be any different? Are there any other industries protected by such a strong veil? So there are no patents on any components in a car?
This results in an interesting question : say someone is buying a car which has patent protected components in it (say in the engine). Where did that person obtain the right to use that patented technology?
Some time ago I read another a related discussion about authorized resellers, how can a corporation stop anyone but their authorized reseller from selling their products? The explanation I read was by 'implicit licenses', which essentially grants a buyer the right to use the technology in the product. However non-authorized resellers would not the right to issue these 'implicit licenses'.
Since this discussion was on another internet forum, so it might be just full of it, and someone here should clarify this:-)
One of the things I liked about Sweden was that businesses have much less of a tendency towards unconscionable contract terms. But that's partly because it is a less capitalist place. ...and mostly because there are two sets of laws, one for deals between two businesses and one for deals between a business and a consumer. Consumers have rights that cannot be negotiated away, and there are laws that nullify unreasonable contracts for consumers.//T
For that particular video no original is needed. Just measure the distance between the rooftops and the object and it doesn't even shake syncronized.
It just was the first one I found with that blinking (=ftl?) thing so often described, but so seldom catched clearly on tape.
For footage on the real deal anyone should for instance check out the footage/investigation from Hessdalen or the films released by various military authorities (like Mexico).//T
While we all know how much we should believe what we see on the internet -- once you see one of those irl it kinda changes your perspectives. There is far more evidence for them than for that God guy anyway.
This is another example of corporations trying to clinge to their outdated business models.
Once upon a time it was a problem to distribute TV programs to the people, you had to centrally broadcast it to all at once, and what you broadcasted everyone watched, since that was the only way to see the content. TV ads, as we know them made sense back then.
Today, TV programs can like music and movies, be distributed individually and on demand. Trying to force ads in there is like avoiding to sell music digitally and only on say a CD. It is doomed to just annoy the customers, and there will be pirated versions available in a form the (potential) customers would prefer(ie. music as mp3s, TV shows as xvids - without the ads).
Sooner or later the old business model will change. One guess is that the replacing model could be some more extreme version of todays product placement -- ads and content merge in a way that makes them hard- or unseparable.//T
Absolutely. The problem is that the *AA and friends have not gotten and probably will never get the fact that their stranglehold on the packaging and distribution of content is about to die a painful death. If they had anticipated that in the early 90s and adapted to it, they'd be rakin' it in by now from all sides
Actually there is more to blame than the companies. At least where I live (Sweden) corporations dealing with IP has a problem with accounting of the value of their IP. What is the value of the right to sell, say 10,000, copies of a song?? Under the current rules, the value of this asset is 0. But if you burn 10,000 copies to CD:s and stock them, that is an asset with an value of 10,000 x X!
It is backward, yes. But companies that don't have enough assets on paper are forced into bankrupcy. This is one problem for IP companies leaving the physical medium model of business. And that part is not their fault.//T
I would recommend to watch "the great global warming swindle" (available at your favourite bt tracker).
Regardless what your stance on the issue is, one should always listen to both sides. This documentary contains lots of interviews with (chosen) climate scientists about their views on the issue. One intersting argument they make there is that the levels of carbon dioxide usually rise *after* the warming, and not before (and maybe this is one fact GP claimed that Gore was fast and loose with?). An alternative theory for the cause of global warming pointed out in the documentary is the relation between sunspots and temperature (like for instance
the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum).
Slashdot Mirror
It is sortof a negative result. It has been known for forty years that many (10,000s) of difficult problems share a common difficulty, that makes them prohibitive to solve: NP-completeness. It was proven in the 70s that if you can solve one NP-complete problem fast, you can solve them all fast. This new result claims to prove that you cannot solve any NP-complete problem "fast". Some nerdy NP-complete problems are, for instance: how to make a certain circuit (CPU) using as few NAND gates as possible (i.e. faster hardware cheaper) or how to wire your motherboard as efficiently as possible (both how to draw the wires, and how to place the components). This says that it might ake more than a human lifetime (or Sun's) lifetime to solve any NP-complete problem. Some would like to see it as good news for cryptography, since it make some ciphers provably hard (however I am not aware of any such cipher -- unless it is proven that RSA is in NPC or in NPI).
Another talk on the same topic. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/pw_singer_on_robots_of_war.html
Military robots are the future of war. We will see robot armies fighting each other. Consider what kind of surveillance state you can create by millions of robotic insects, using swarm intelligence / smart dust to report on everyone.
Maybe mankind ends up like in matrix, but with opposing robot armies trying to kill the last survivors from the superpowers, who are hiding deep down underground, kept alive by fading nuclear reactors...
So if your saving gets wired away due to a "computer error" on your part (like malware installed by a flash ad or smth), you should eat the losses? Have no claim to have your money back?
Here's the way you do it...
Telemarketer comes up with a list. Telemarketer sends list to the Do-Not-Call team. Do-Not-Callers do the compare, and return only the numbers that were on the telemarketer's list that doesn't match the no-call list.
No. You prohibit phone advertising.
Just slightly related, Sweden actually had an opt-out list for email marketing. Let's just say, having a public list of email adresses that are not allowed to be spammed did not work out too well.
For instance 776 innocent men were forcefully tested in the search for Hagamannen
It is said that Swedish crime labs (SKL) DNA tests over 30,000 persons annually (which is ~1/300th of the population).
Their case really isn't as shoddy as it seems.
The case of existence is open and shut.
Every serious investigation on the UFO phenomenon has concluded that they are real (US, Soviet, British, Feench, Mexican, Brazilian miliaries for instance). That is not the issue anymore.
The issue is to understand what we are seeing. Remember, UFO is not the same as ET. There is no single explanation that could explain the vastly different type of reports. One of the difficulties is that there is no clear border what reports to accept. The cases get continuously more and more wicked and logic defying.
To give three examples of cases along the scale:
Easy to accept case (probably an unknown natural phenomenon): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessdalen_light
Classic case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident
"Wicked" case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_sun
The link to the official report from British Ministry of Defence is: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FreedomOfInformation/PublicationScheme/SearchPublicationScheme/UnidentifiedAerialPhenomenauapInTheUkAirDefenceRegion.htm
UFOs are called 'UAP' (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) by the Brits, and to save you the trouble, it concludes that:
* "Aerial phenomena of the type consistent with those reported as UAP, and with exceptional characteristic, certainly exists ..."
but
* There is no evidence that the phenomena is anything but naturally occuring.
The first point is interesting, since it is the conclusion of many military reports (US, French COMETA, Soviet, Mexican, Brazilian...) published on the topic. It shifts the debate from whether UFO:s are real or not, to discussing what they might be.
The one park of the equation that does not exist right now is the conversion of that money into tangible assets like food clothing and shelter without leaving traces.
You mean something like this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4953620.stm
At least a start I think.
I thought it is accepted that Hydra Scylla is by far the best. It is estimated to have a strength of over 3000+ ELO; it haven't been rated since it has never lost a competitive game...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_(chess)
Actually, most of them says just "our partners" instead of business partners. That includes anyone they happen to give the data to.
And even without the provision about changing on will, what to stop them from doing that anyway? Are policies somehow legally binding? (Just curious, since I have examples where companies have publicly stated in their policies that "we will never ever do X", and then went on and done X anyway)
So the answers to your questions aren't nothing x 3, but rather in lines with patenting and making money.
The ICFP programming contest would be a far more better meter, since the contest is long enough to require the programmer to create several tools, and/or and an architecture that they can extend during the contest (it's three days, but believe me, the guys we are talking about produce in three days code that would take weeks for the mortals to produce).
Basically all excellent programmers I have met has their own framework of reusable code/classes/modules (in their favourite language), and they prefer to use it. They might even be passionate enough about it to accept lower pay in order to find a job where they can use it instead of tools decided by management.
My 2 cents.
Do a search and replace for the variable/function names, reorder lines that can be swapped etc. Express things in a different way.
Copyright protects the form and not the idea(s). As long as the code you use is distinct, the original copyright no longer applies to it.
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v10/n7/index.h tml
No papers by Sam Weiss or anything whose name sounds like the paper discussed. Or am I missing something?
Look up 1942 "Battle of Los Angeles", Project Hessdalen or some of the material released by various militaries (Mexico, Brazil) for better cases. At least the two first cases are generally agreed to be UFOs (ie unidentified).
Agree with parent. You might not even know today what you want to do in a few years. My story: I worked my butt off for good grades. When interviewing for my first job, nobody asked to see my grades or even my diploma. I got the job. A few years later I got bored of working as a programmer and wanted to go back to school, so I applied to a PhD program. Suddenly those grades were very important, and without them I would have never been accepted there. //T
Apparently your school system (or attitude towards it) is very, very, different to where I live.
This results in an interesting question : say someone is buying a car which has patent protected components in it (say in the engine). Where did that person obtain the right to use that patented technology?
Some time ago I read another a related discussion about authorized resellers, how can a corporation stop anyone but their authorized reseller from selling their products? The explanation I read was by 'implicit licenses', which essentially grants a buyer the right to use the technology in the product. However non-authorized resellers would not the right to issue these 'implicit licenses'.
Since this discussion was on another internet forum, so it might be just full of it, and someone here should clarify this :-)
For that particular video no original is needed. Just measure the distance between the rooftops and the object and it doesn't even shake syncronized. It just was the first one I found with that blinking (=ftl?) thing so often described, but so seldom catched clearly on tape. For footage on the real deal anyone should for instance check out the footage/investigation from Hessdalen or the films released by various military authorities (like Mexico). //T
"ok"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZWF9kCIcGo
While we all know how much we should believe what we see on the internet -- once you see one of those irl it kinda changes your perspectives. There is far more evidence for them than for that God guy anyway.
This is another example of corporations trying to clinge to their outdated business models. Once upon a time it was a problem to distribute TV programs to the people, you had to centrally broadcast it to all at once, and what you broadcasted everyone watched, since that was the only way to see the content. TV ads, as we know them made sense back then. Today, TV programs can like music and movies, be distributed individually and on demand. Trying to force ads in there is like avoiding to sell music digitally and only on say a CD. It is doomed to just annoy the customers, and there will be pirated versions available in a form the (potential) customers would prefer(ie. music as mp3s, TV shows as xvids - without the ads). Sooner or later the old business model will change. One guess is that the replacing model could be some more extreme version of todays product placement -- ads and content merge in a way that makes them hard- or unseparable. //T
Absolutely. The problem is that the *AA and friends have not gotten and probably will never get the fact that their stranglehold on the packaging and distribution of content is about to die a painful death. If they had anticipated that in the early 90s and adapted to it, they'd be rakin' it in by now from all sides
//T
Actually there is more to blame than the companies. At least where I live (Sweden) corporations dealing with IP has a problem with accounting of the value of their IP.
What is the value of the right to sell, say 10,000, copies of a song?? Under the current rules, the value of this asset is 0. But if you burn 10,000 copies to CD:s and stock them, that is an asset with an value of 10,000 x X!
It is backward, yes. But companies that don't have enough assets on paper are forced into bankrupcy. This is one problem for IP companies leaving the physical medium model of business. And that part is not their fault.
lso, what is the "other side" of the story?
I would recommend to watch "the great global warming swindle" (available at your favourite bt tracker).
Regardless what your stance on the issue is, one should always listen to both sides. This documentary contains lots of interviews with (chosen) climate scientists about their views on the issue. One intersting argument they make there is that the levels of carbon dioxide usually rise *after* the warming, and not before (and maybe this is one fact GP claimed that Gore was fast and loose with?). An alternative theory for the cause of global warming pointed out in the documentary is the relation between sunspots and temperature (like for instance the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum).
Intresting.