Compositenesss is in NP (verify it easily by getting two factors and multiplying them together) so primality would then be in coNP. However, primality has also been shows to be in NP. If a language is NP-complete then its complement is coNP-complete. Since primality is in both NP and coNP, if it were NP-complete then that would imply that NP = coNP, which we don't believe is the case.
I'm not going to sign it. Just because everyone on/. seems to be so much against software patants doesn't mean I should sign it. Whenever some silly patents comes out that doesn't fall under the domain of software/. posts it as a humor story and everyone posts comments saying, "I gotta get me one of these mechanic masturbators!" and nobody objects to it. But in reality, it's just the same situation of some company/guy gaining ownership of something we've all thought of, but never designed or patented. Those types of patents might be wrong, but the reason we don't usually object to most patents is because they make sense and are necessary. Just as some software patents might be necessary. It's true that many are probably not legitimate, but some program can be truly innovative and patenatble.
Just because we believe in free software and because we would like to see companies put less restrictions on their software does not mean that we should complete take away people's right to their intellectual property when they really deserve it. What we should really be doing is asking the EU to be more rational than the US in granting software patents. Either way, we haven't gotten this far by whining. The strongest way of protesting is by showing that our way works better. So why don't we just keep on doing that?
What I'm wondering is what effect this standard would have on LaTex, which is already an open document standard that also uses markup tags. Assuming that the XML standard is designed well, people could compose all of their documents in a text editor and we would no longer need other formats.
The idea sounds neat, though, because word processors would become like web browsers that all try to render the same code into the same format. It could even become a standard web publishing format and that creating a word document would be the same as making a web page. This could eventually replace html. It's about time for that anyway.
I also agree. I love linux because I have so many options for my desktop. For linux to succeed on the desktop it might have to come up with a "standard" desktop that is easy for novices to use, while other users still have the option to use whatever they want. One of the things I love about gnome is that they are focusing first on backend libraries to allow any program to use certain features rather than integrating them into their own apps. To this day there is still no gnome-wm that is distributed with gnome, though i can still use any wm i want with it. They could have put gnome-pilot directly into evolution, but instead made an entire library so any gnome application can use it as an interface to PalmPilots. So what I believe is that at each level of the interface you must have an open and well-designed backend before moving up. On the lowest level linux has the kernel and gnu tools, all of which are fully customizable. Then you have the X libraries which are still under heavy development and are improving all the time. Only then do you get to the wm which I think should only hand basic window management, yet still be fully customizable. Above that you can then install the gnome or kde libraries for advanced functionality and with those you get the full interface. This structure allows for the most flexibility and power once it is fully developed and I think that it is this that will create the best interface.
Here at Columbia there is a course exactly like that where they study operating systems and all the programming projects involve modifying a linux kernel. The book even discusses linux as one of its case studies. The book is: Operating System Concepts, 5th edition, Abraham Silberschatz and Peter Baer Galvin, Addison Wesley,Reading, MA, 1998. You can check out the course website at http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~w4118/. Just so you know I haven't taken the course yet. I'm taking it next semester, but I knew about it through friends and the professor. I hope this is useful.
I happen to know a few people who worked on the robot at the robotics institute and i know that most of the computers there have been dual-booting redhat for many years now. I'm not an expert, but i think they had a 4.1 installation running. I'm not sure when that was since i only started with 5.0, but maybe someone else knows.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't confuse fork() with clone(). I don't think he plans to clone(). At least I hope not. That's just disgusting.
dammit. i modded his interview down but i guess the rest of you idiots actually found it inciteful
Compositenesss is in NP (verify it easily by getting two factors and multiplying them together) so primality would then be in coNP. However, primality has also been shows to be in NP. If a language is NP-complete then its complement is coNP-complete. Since primality is in both NP and coNP, if it were NP-complete then that would imply that NP = coNP, which we don't believe is the case.
this is only relatively speaking. basically, anything under 25 crashes a day can be considered stable for a beta version of windows.
I'm not going to sign it. Just because everyone on /. seems to be so much against software patants doesn't mean I should sign it. Whenever some silly patents comes out that doesn't fall under the domain of software /. posts it as a humor story and everyone posts comments saying, "I gotta get me one of these mechanic masturbators!" and nobody objects to it. But in reality, it's just the same situation of some company/guy gaining ownership of something we've all thought of, but never designed or patented. Those types of patents might be wrong, but the reason we don't usually object to most patents is because they make sense and are necessary. Just as some software patents might be necessary. It's true that many are probably not legitimate, but some program can be truly innovative and patenatble.
Just because we believe in free software and because we would like to see companies put less restrictions on their software does not mean that we should complete take away people's right to their intellectual property when they really deserve it. What we should really be doing is asking the EU to be more rational than the US in granting software patents. Either way, we haven't gotten this far by whining. The strongest way of protesting is by showing that our way works better. So why don't we just keep on doing that?
wow. i'm really drunk. i better get to bed.
What I'm wondering is what effect this standard would have on LaTex, which is already an open document standard that also uses markup tags. Assuming that the XML standard is designed well, people could compose all of their documents in a text editor and we would no longer need other formats.
The idea sounds neat, though, because word processors would become like web browsers that all try to render the same code into the same format. It could even become a standard web publishing format and that creating a word document would be the same as making a web page. This could eventually replace html. It's about time for that anyway.
I also agree. I love linux because I have so many options for my desktop. For linux to succeed on the desktop it might have to come up with a "standard" desktop that is easy for novices to use, while other users still have the option to use whatever they want. One of the things I love about gnome is that they are focusing first on backend libraries to allow any program to use certain features rather than integrating them into their own apps. To this day there is still no gnome-wm that is distributed with gnome, though i can still use any wm i want with it. They could have put gnome-pilot directly into evolution, but instead made an entire library so any gnome application can use it as an interface to PalmPilots. So what I believe is that at each level of the interface you must have an open and well-designed backend before moving up. On the lowest level linux has the kernel and gnu tools, all of which are fully customizable. Then you have the X libraries which are still under heavy development and are improving all the time. Only then do you get to the wm which I think should only hand basic window management, yet still be fully customizable. Above that you can then install the gnome or kde libraries for advanced functionality and with those you get the full interface. This structure allows for the most flexibility and power once it is fully developed and I think that it is this that will create the best interface.
Here at Columbia there is a course exactly like that where they study operating systems and all the programming projects involve modifying a linux kernel. The book even discusses linux as one of its case studies. The book is:
Operating System Concepts, 5th edition, Abraham Silberschatz and Peter Baer Galvin, Addison Wesley,Reading, MA, 1998.
You can check out the course website at http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~w4118/. Just so you know I haven't taken the course yet. I'm taking it next semester, but I knew about it through friends and the professor. I hope this is useful.
if you're wondering it's starting now at 12:45
I happen to know a few people who worked on the robot at the robotics institute and i know that most of the computers there have been dual-booting redhat for many years now. I'm not an expert, but i think they had a 4.1 installation running. I'm not sure when that was since i only started with 5.0, but maybe someone else knows.