Words and ideas are the most powerful thing in the Universe, more powerful than the strongest standing army. As someone's sig here says, "the tyrant fears a laugh more than a bullet."
Actually one way to define NP is that the solutions can be verified in polynomial time; although the complexity class is usually defined in terms of a universal turing machine.
I think you might be confusing NP with NP-hard. An NP-hard problem is at least as hard as NP (in other words, if you can solve NP-hard then you can solve any NP), but having a solution doesn't necessarily mean you can verify in polynomial time.
AFAIK, no general solutions for NP-complete or NP-hard complexity classes have been shown for quantum computers, only a few instances like factoring have been shown to be faster in quantum computers.
When web browsers display HTML differently, no one dies. That's why we can be uncompromising about following standards.
Not having a universal standard may be a good thing for autonomous cars. Car 1 suggests a proposition to the other cars, like "I'm going to speed up". Car 2 had damn well better not assume that what car 1 is saying is true. Car 2 should operate safely whatever car 1 says, and any messages from car 1 should only be used to optimize travel. If car1 says "I'm going to speed up" then slams on the breaks, car2 better be able to handle that.
In fact, cars should be designed assuming that other cars will mess up the standard sometimes.
They don't represent Slashdot. However, Slashdot doesn't represent the US. Governments always reflect the greater wishes of the governed. Anyone who thinks that representatives passing stupid legislation isn't a direct reflection of the nature of the majority is probably a member of that majority.
However, if people insist on calling what the NSA is doing spying, then I will point out that they are also spying on us, and that the penalty for spying on the US is the death penalty.
So fucking stupid. No one would be imprisoned for 10 years for buying a cuban cigar. Get real.
You missed the part of the article where it points out "On October 10, 2006, the United States announced the creation of a task force made up of officials from several U.S. agencies that will pursue more aggressively violators of the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba, with severe penalties."
In May, an Iranian court sentenced him to ten years in prison for 'communicating with a hostile government' and receiving 'illegal earnings.' The so-called 'illegal earnings' were the student loans he received while in Texas."
A lawyer should be allowed to defend any person, against any charge, against any evidence, without any fear of legal repercussion.
I would prefer the more objective approach, "any lawyer who aids in sending out frivolous (read: obviously going to be overturned) patent notices should be disbarred."
I imagine it wouldn't be impossible for something like that to find its way into some legislation.
1) Make those who file for patents pay even if the patent is not approved. 2) Give a portion of the money paid to the first people who find prior art or make a good case for not supporting a patent.
Dovden asked for $10,000. There was probably only a 1 in 1000 chance someone would fight and win. Dovden knew for certain that their patent wasn't innovative; this was no honest misunderstanding. Any damages less than $10000 * 1000 = $10,000,000 makes this a profitable business model.
Any ruling fining Dovden less than $10,000,000 is not enough.
GP stated that the implicand is false due to the fact that the implicant and the implication is true.
I should have said more clearly "the original poster was saying that the assumption is false due to the fact that the conclusion is false and the implication is true." Would be nice to be able to edit posts.
You fail a point of logic that most humans do. I wouldn't normally mention it, except that you brought up "ridiculous non sequitur".
Consider an implication A -> B, such as "if it is Tuesday, then I should buy milk". There are actually 3 propositions present: 1) it is Tuesday, called the implicant 2) I should buy milk, called the implicand 3) if it is Tuesday, then I should buy milk, called the implication
Most humans cannot actually distinguish between the 3. If you find a regular person, they won't realize that "I should buy milk" and "if it is Tuesday, then I should buy milk" are actually 2 separate propositions, as you demonstrated above.
"By that logic, every project, no matter the size and scope, would be fastest to implement by 1 person team."
1) Implicant -- that logic, which is the man hour assumption, that adding more programmers to a late project always makes it more late 2) Implicand -- "every project, no matter the size and scope, would be fastest to implement by 1 person team" 3) Implication -- "By that logic, every project, no matter the size and scope, would be fastest to implement by 1 person team."
GP stated that the implicand is false due to the fact that the implicant and the implication is true. You are conflating the implicand and the implication (something most people do) and assuming that because the implicand is false, the implication must be as well.
I suggest that instead of calling logic "bullshit" and people who make false assumptions for the sake of proof by contradiction "morons", that you instead learn logic and better yourself as a human being.
Assumption: Adding more programmers to a late project always makes it more late. P = Project that is not late with 1 developer Q = P with deadline arbitrarily changed to the past Qprime = Q with another developer added
By the assumption Qprime will be later than Q. Changing a deadline does not change the amount of work to be done, so the time completion of Q is approx the same as P. Therefore GP conclusion that "By that [assumption], every project, no matter the size and scope, would be fastest to implement by 1 person team" is completely correct.
I'm not terribly familiar with this subject, out of curiosity, why kill iTunes? Is there a low return on revenue towards creators on iTunes or something like that?
[T]he system, being rigged to ONLY allow D or R to get in, is the problem.
I can tell you how to fix it, but you won't like it.
Destroy the television network. Completely. Leave behind only internet based video. If televisions can't make spectacles out of candidates, then all the "my guy vs your guy" people would become too bored to be involved in elections. Why do you think everyone only knows about 2 candidates? It's because that is what they saw on television.
Certain people in our country (and sometimes not even citizens) have been privileged with having exclusion access to a media that is streamed straight into people's houses. There is no equality. *You* can't just start using public television infrastructure to send propaganda to the entire country, but a few people actually are allowed.
On the internet, the viewer searches for the video. Who the hell would watch CBS or Fox news if it was only available as a choice among anyone who was interested in broadcasting? No one. If we ended the television networks, then the illusion of a "fight between 2 parties" would be nearly impossible to keep up. Then candidates, instead of pandering to every idiot with a TV in their bedroom, would have to actually appeal to people who are interested in civil matters.
The SCOTUS can shoot down a law before it becomes a law. They never have. They choose not to. But nothing is stopping them from declaring "if X becomes a law then our courts will not enforce it".
My opinion isn't the official legal reasoning, but...
I consider the fifth amendment a protection for honest people. Today that may be considered a ridiculous concept, but there are people in the world who will, on principle, be offended to be asked to lie even if it is about a crime. Consider the following situation:
Some guy abuses your daughter. You find him and kill him.
Now that is perfectly illegal. What if a police officer is allowed to leverage "tell me if you killed the bastard or you are going to jail" against you? If you are honest then you will be silent and face jail time and a still trial; however, a liar can oblige and face no more serious consequences than a trial. Allowing police to force a person to answer questions against their own crime accomplishes nothing except for punishing a refusal to lie. The situation simply is not the same for a witness with no legal liability.
To think that or our cause or our performance Did need an oath, when every drop of blood That every Roman bears—and nobly bears— Is guilty of a several bastardy If he do break the smallest particle Of any promise that hath passed from him. --Marcus Brutus
I would recommend using a keyboard (physical or touchscreen). Anyone who is too medically handicap to use one can get assistance. Anyone who is religiously opposed can do something like "fill in the bubble of the letter of the person's name". Anyone else can stay home.
Slashdot Mirror
Words and ideas are the most powerful thing in the Universe, more powerful than the strongest standing army. As someone's sig here says, "the tyrant fears a laugh more than a bullet."
Actually one way to define NP is that the solutions can be verified in polynomial time; although the complexity class is usually defined in terms of a universal turing machine.
I think you might be confusing NP with NP-hard. An NP-hard problem is at least as hard as NP (in other words, if you can solve NP-hard then you can solve any NP), but having a solution doesn't necessarily mean you can verify in polynomial time.
AFAIK, no general solutions for NP-complete or NP-hard complexity classes have been shown for quantum computers, only a few instances like factoring have been shown to be faster in quantum computers.
How is not liking gay people a disagreement?
When web browsers display HTML differently, no one dies. That's why we can be uncompromising about following standards.
Not having a universal standard may be a good thing for autonomous cars. Car 1 suggests a proposition to the other cars, like "I'm going to speed up". Car 2 had damn well better not assume that what car 1 is saying is true. Car 2 should operate safely whatever car 1 says, and any messages from car 1 should only be used to optimize travel. If car1 says "I'm going to speed up" then slams on the breaks, car2 better be able to handle that.
In fact, cars should be designed assuming that other cars will mess up the standard sometimes.
Yeah, I plan to make my kids listen to gcc syntax error messages.
They don't represent Slashdot. However, Slashdot doesn't represent the US. Governments always reflect the greater wishes of the governed. Anyone who thinks that representatives passing stupid legislation isn't a direct reflection of the nature of the majority is probably a member of that majority.
I agree with your sentiment.
However, if people insist on calling what the NSA is doing spying, then I will point out that they are also spying on us, and that the penalty for spying on the US is the death penalty.
No one should be expected to follow laws that have no basis in reason.
Those who do are not being responsible, they are being selfish.
Btw, Georgia is also one of the 4 states with explicit rights for jury nullification.
So fucking stupid. No one would be imprisoned for 10 years for buying a cuban cigar. Get real.
You missed the part of the article where it points out "On October 10, 2006, the United States announced the creation of a task force made up of officials from several U.S. agencies that will pursue more aggressively violators of the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba, with severe penalties."
In May, an Iranian court sentenced him to ten years in prison for 'communicating with a hostile government' and receiving 'illegal earnings.' The so-called 'illegal earnings' were the student loans he received while in Texas."
Let's change that up a bit.
In May, an American court sentenced you to ten years in prison, $1 million in corporate fines, and $250,000 in individual fines; civil penalties up to $55,000 per violation for 'violating trade embargo'. The so-called 'violation of trade embargo' was you visiting your family in cuba and buying a cigar while you were there.
Sorry Iran, US laws are more ridiculous and our penalties are greater.
The only link that matters still works.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
Too bad they can't reference this one more.
A lawyer should be allowed to defend any person, against any charge, against any evidence, without any fear of legal repercussion.
I would prefer the more objective approach, "any lawyer who aids in sending out frivolous (read: obviously going to be overturned) patent notices should be disbarred."
I imagine it wouldn't be impossible for something like that to find its way into some legislation.
1) Make those who file for patents pay even if the patent is not approved.
2) Give a portion of the money paid to the first people who find prior art or make a good case for not supporting a patent.
And I'm going to reply to myself. And every lawyer involved in sending these notices should lose their license.
Dovden asked for $10,000. There was probably only a 1 in 1000 chance someone would fight and win. Dovden knew for certain that their patent wasn't innovative; this was no honest misunderstanding. Any damages less than $10000 * 1000 = $10,000,000 makes this a profitable business model.
Any ruling fining Dovden less than $10,000,000 is not enough.
GP stated that the implicand is false due to the fact that the implicant and the implication is true.
I should have said more clearly "the original poster was saying that the assumption is false due to the fact that the conclusion is false and the implication is true." Would be nice to be able to edit posts.
You fail a point of logic that most humans do. I wouldn't normally mention it, except that you brought up "ridiculous non sequitur".
Consider an implication A -> B, such as "if it is Tuesday, then I should buy milk". There are actually 3 propositions present:
1) it is Tuesday, called the implicant
2) I should buy milk, called the implicand
3) if it is Tuesday, then I should buy milk, called the implication
Most humans cannot actually distinguish between the 3. If you find a regular person, they won't realize that "I should buy milk" and "if it is Tuesday, then I should buy milk" are actually 2 separate propositions, as you demonstrated above.
"By that logic, every project, no matter the size and scope, would be fastest to implement by 1 person team."
1) Implicant -- that logic, which is the man hour assumption, that adding more programmers to a late project always makes it more late
2) Implicand -- "every project, no matter the size and scope, would be fastest to implement by 1 person team"
3) Implication -- "By that logic, every project, no matter the size and scope, would be fastest to implement by 1 person team."
GP stated that the implicand is false due to the fact that the implicant and the implication is true. You are conflating the implicand and the implication (something most people do) and assuming that because the implicand is false, the implication must be as well.
I suggest that instead of calling logic "bullshit" and people who make false assumptions for the sake of proof by contradiction "morons", that you instead learn logic and better yourself as a human being.
No actually GPs conclusion is perfectly logical.
Assumption: Adding more programmers to a late project always makes it more late.
P = Project that is not late with 1 developer
Q = P with deadline arbitrarily changed to the past
Qprime = Q with another developer added
By the assumption Qprime will be later than Q. Changing a deadline does not change the amount of work to be done, so the time completion of Q is approx the same as P. Therefore GP conclusion that "By that [assumption], every project, no matter the size and scope, would be fastest to implement by 1 person team" is completely correct.
Have you actually used that piece of crap?
Ok now you are making me feel bad. I have never actually installed or used iTunes (honestly).
I'm not terribly familiar with this subject, out of curiosity, why kill iTunes? Is there a low return on revenue towards creators on iTunes or something like that?
[T]he system, being rigged to ONLY allow D or R to get in, is the problem.
I can tell you how to fix it, but you won't like it.
Destroy the television network. Completely. Leave behind only internet based video. If televisions can't make spectacles out of candidates, then all the "my guy vs your guy" people would become too bored to be involved in elections. Why do you think everyone only knows about 2 candidates? It's because that is what they saw on television.
Certain people in our country (and sometimes not even citizens) have been privileged with having exclusion access to a media that is streamed straight into people's houses. There is no equality. *You* can't just start using public television infrastructure to send propaganda to the entire country, but a few people actually are allowed.
On the internet, the viewer searches for the video. Who the hell would watch CBS or Fox news if it was only available as a choice among anyone who was interested in broadcasting? No one. If we ended the television networks, then the illusion of a "fight between 2 parties" would be nearly impossible to keep up. Then candidates, instead of pandering to every idiot with a TV in their bedroom, would have to actually appeal to people who are interested in civil matters.
The SCOTUS can shoot down a law before it becomes a law. They never have. They choose not to. But nothing is stopping them from declaring "if X becomes a law then our courts will not enforce it".
If you don't understand the assumptions that a theorem is based on, then it's not mathematics.
My opinion isn't the official legal reasoning, but...
I consider the fifth amendment a protection for honest people. Today that may be considered a ridiculous concept, but there are people in the world who will, on principle, be offended to be asked to lie even if it is about a crime. Consider the following situation:
Some guy abuses your daughter. You find him and kill him.
Now that is perfectly illegal. What if a police officer is allowed to leverage "tell me if you killed the bastard or you are going to jail" against you? If you are honest then you will be silent and face jail time and a still trial; however, a liar can oblige and face no more serious consequences than a trial. Allowing police to force a person to answer questions against their own crime accomplishes nothing except for punishing a refusal to lie. The situation simply is not the same for a witness with no legal liability.
To think that or our cause or our performance
Did need an oath, when every drop of blood
That every Roman bears—and nobly bears—
Is guilty of a several bastardy
If he do break the smallest particle
Of any promise that hath passed from him.
--Marcus Brutus
I would recommend using a keyboard (physical or touchscreen). Anyone who is too medically handicap to use one can get assistance. Anyone who is religiously opposed can do something like "fill in the bubble of the letter of the person's name". Anyone else can stay home.