Well, the usual reason is typically something like lost revenue. Possible reasons include your minor tourist destination being more famous for a horrible historical event than its services. Remember when everyone stopped using ReiserFS?
Ooh, you're really digging for something to be upset about, aren't you? Tell you what; go back to the Intel thread and we can continue discussing your education.
Congratulations, you are the seventh person to issue that correction. As (currently) the latest person to catch on and complain, might I ask you: do you think there will be an eighth? How about a ninth?
For what it's worth I personally actually have taken an introductory course in finite automata of both the deterministic and nondeterministic varieties; I just had professors who weren't very committed to precision when it came to explaining the nature of complexity classes, because they (quite rightfully) put absolutely no stock in my classmates. I think after reading all of the explanations presented and with the rest of my background knowledge I can actually take fault with yours: saying "are all the NP problems also P" is bad semantics because P is a subset of NP; the TSP is actually NP-hard, not NP-complete, unless you rephrase it as a question with a boolean answer (e.g. "Is there a circuit shorter than length x?"); and it is widely believed that we will never find a proof that P = NP, and if we do it will probably be so wildly complex and unwieldy that there will be no point, or alternatively even if we don't the whole matter will be rendered unnecessary by quantum computing.
Thanks, but it was a legitimate gaffe. My professors never spent enough time on the theory behind complexity classes, so I actually had less of an idea of what I was talking about than I thought; now I understand why there are complexity classes beyond NP-hard. And besides, who are we to deny others the satisfaction of making a sound correction?:) Live by the red ink, die by the red ink, as they say.
Congratulations, you're the first respondent to not correct "non-polynomial" as "non-deterministic polynomial." (Personally I blame lazy professors.)
There are lots of problems solvable by a deterministic Turing machine in polynomial time (I.e. problems known for certain to be in P) that still need unique solutions for each possibility, though. Think about searching a list: you have to go through every item until you find the right one; there's no way to do it that's easier. The point about the traveling salesman problem and other classic NP-hard (and their best friends, NP-complete) challenges is that you are working with finding combinations of items, and you must check all possible combinations; there is no easier way. We haven't proven that there's no easier way (and not due to lack of trying, mind you), but there aren't a lot of people who seriously believe we'll find one.
In case this actually slips anyone up: NP-hard means that, given a large number of options, and an answer that is a certain combination or ordering of those items, every possible combination or ordering must be evaluated to figure out the correct answer. "NP" stands for "non-polynomial," e.g. an exponential or factorial function of the number of items used.
Feel free to debate the facts. If you can figure out how to slap 13 mm thick lead shielding onto an aerial drone small enough to manoeuvre in a tight hallway and get a wireless transmitter powerful enough to work under up to 700 mSv, I'm sure you'll be rewarded for your efforts lavishly in both government and private-sector contracts.
As it so happens, the radiation was ridiculously problematic for electronics. The insertion of the first robots into the facility was delayed by months because they required special shielding. It was so bad that cables had to be used for communication, not the robots' native wireless transceivers. A flying drone would be totally useless, especially in the tight corridors of the plant and because it'd be too heavy to fly with the shielding. Sorry.
Let's keep going with it. InfoWorld from May 1981 says the same thing. Computerworld pushes the date back to March, and uses the term as though it were common (and not in all-caps.) That's as early as I can dig in publications.
Fair point; that was lifted from the Multics article I linked. Here's the oldest trademark I could find for 'email' (that wasn't French for 'enamel'), which I'm afraid I'm not experienced enough in the area to interpret. Interestingly, there's one from 1982 that claims 'No claim is made to the exclusive right to use the word "Email", apart from the mark as shown.' That might be just about enamel, but it could also suggest that 'e-mail' was already widely used. I'm sure if we really wanted we could look it up in old archives of Usenet postings and RFCs.
Slashdot Mirror
I think so Brain, but who gets all the gifts that the chipmunks wrap?
Well, the usual reason is typically something like lost revenue. Possible reasons include your minor tourist destination being more famous for a horrible historical event than its services. Remember when everyone stopped using ReiserFS?
Ooh, you're really digging for something to be upset about, aren't you? Tell you what; go back to the Intel thread and we can continue discussing your education.
No, pastebin fronts as a code-sharing site. :)
Seriously, how have they not been nuked from orbit by the powers that be? Or at least vigorously co-opted by the NSA?
Not without serious advances in other areas of longevity research. Pregnancy in forty-five-year-old women is a dangerous proposition.
I'm sorry, I'm just not feeling this. You're too intelligent, and not desperate enough. Can you just start over?
You should get a refund. Whatever amount you paid to learn how to troll, it was too much.
s/IBM/Oracle/g;
(Was that a bad troll, comparison, or brain failure?)
Wait, that was a real show?
Oh... oh no...
The party: you are late to it. I hope you brought your non-perishable food bank donation.
Came here to say more or less the same thing. It must be a Mac-only feature?
Have had a few of those comments. Still not single. Still not straight. Thanks anyway!
Congratulations, you are the seventh person to issue that correction. As (currently) the latest person to catch on and complain, might I ask you: do you think there will be an eighth? How about a ninth?
For what it's worth I personally actually have taken an introductory course in finite automata of both the deterministic and nondeterministic varieties; I just had professors who weren't very committed to precision when it came to explaining the nature of complexity classes, because they (quite rightfully) put absolutely no stock in my classmates. I think after reading all of the explanations presented and with the rest of my background knowledge I can actually take fault with yours: saying "are all the NP problems also P" is bad semantics because P is a subset of NP; the TSP is actually NP-hard, not NP-complete, unless you rephrase it as a question with a boolean answer (e.g. "Is there a circuit shorter than length x?"); and it is widely believed that we will never find a proof that P = NP, and if we do it will probably be so wildly complex and unwieldy that there will be no point, or alternatively even if we don't the whole matter will be rendered unnecessary by quantum computing.
Thanks, but it was a legitimate gaffe. My professors never spent enough time on the theory behind complexity classes, so I actually had less of an idea of what I was talking about than I thought; now I understand why there are complexity classes beyond NP-hard. And besides, who are we to deny others the satisfaction of making a sound correction? :) Live by the red ink, die by the red ink, as they say.
Congratulations, you're the first respondent to not correct "non-polynomial" as "non-deterministic polynomial." (Personally I blame lazy professors.)
There are lots of problems solvable by a deterministic Turing machine in polynomial time (I.e. problems known for certain to be in P) that still need unique solutions for each possibility, though. Think about searching a list: you have to go through every item until you find the right one; there's no way to do it that's easier. The point about the traveling salesman problem and other classic NP-hard (and their best friends, NP-complete) challenges is that you are working with finding combinations of items, and you must check all possible combinations; there is no easier way. We haven't proven that there's no easier way (and not due to lack of trying, mind you), but there aren't a lot of people who seriously believe we'll find one.
In case this actually slips anyone up: NP-hard means that, given a large number of options, and an answer that is a certain combination or ordering of those items, every possible combination or ordering must be evaluated to figure out the correct answer. "NP" stands for "non-polynomial," e.g. an exponential or factorial function of the number of items used.
The Soup Nazi joke was good, and clear! But I wasn't replying to the Soup Nazi joke. :)
I'm sorry, I (BitDefender) can't (BitDefender) hear you over the sound of how (BitDefender) awesome BitDefender is. (BitDefender)
Feel free to debate the facts. If you can figure out how to slap 13 mm thick lead shielding onto an aerial drone small enough to manoeuvre in a tight hallway and get a wireless transmitter powerful enough to work under up to 700 mSv, I'm sure you'll be rewarded for your efforts lavishly in both government and private-sector contracts.
I did spend last summer like that. Happily, I am now back to being a penniless student, and I can write in any language I want.
As it so happens, the radiation was ridiculously problematic for electronics. The insertion of the first robots into the facility was delayed by months because they required special shielding. It was so bad that cables had to be used for communication, not the robots' native wireless transceivers. A flying drone would be totally useless, especially in the tight corridors of the plant and because it'd be too heavy to fly with the shielding. Sorry.
Let's keep going with it. InfoWorld from May 1981 says the same thing. Computerworld pushes the date back to March, and uses the term as though it were common (and not in all-caps.) That's as early as I can dig in publications.
It's a testable hypothesis! Remember, any news is good news in grant applications.
Ha, no. For that we must resort to pointed sticks, like with all blatantly illegitimate vested interests and their detritus.
Fair point; that was lifted from the Multics article I linked. Here's the oldest trademark I could find for 'email' (that wasn't French for 'enamel'), which I'm afraid I'm not experienced enough in the area to interpret. Interestingly, there's one from 1982 that claims 'No claim is made to the exclusive right to use the word "Email", apart from the mark as shown.' That might be just about enamel, but it could also suggest that 'e-mail' was already widely used. I'm sure if we really wanted we could look it up in old archives of Usenet postings and RFCs.