No, NP-**hard** problems are by definition no easier than the hardest problems in NP. It's an open question whether P = NP in which case all NP-hard problems that are also in NP (that intersection is known as NP-complete) are in P as well.
And that's just going back to erectus. Everything in Homo is definitely "human" and habilis is at least 2.3 million years ago with no reason to believe it's the earliest. But even that is a bit stingy for my taste. I think it's fair to consider anything in Hominina to be human. How long ago Hominina arose is unclear, but there is some evidence for an age of at least 7 million years and other evidence that it cannot exceed about 5.5 million years.
Chrome already has an embedded password manager. I'm with you that it's nicer to have something external to the browser but that plugs into it. But I prefer an external app/format to the OS as well since it's easier to use the password database on whatever platform I need. All that being said, for most Chrome users Google doesn't have much to do with the OS, and something straightforward to use is a step in the right direction for most people.
I don't know anything about the topic, but I'd guess there are also limits on how quickly you can stretch out the other parts of your body like muscle, tendon, and skin.
Software is copyrighted. Algorithms are patented. I think when people talk about "software" patents they can be assumed to be referring to algorithms patents.
And when you submit your new idea to the standard committee the very first thing they will ask for is demonstration of existing practice. Standards committees do not design new features. They observe existing practices and extensions and adopt them, possibly with some modification. To get something standardized you must first make it, work out the kinks, show why it's helpful, and get people to use it in practice. Only then will a standards committee consider it for the next version.
Moving from one specialized type of programming to a closely related type of specialized programming is pretty straightforward. Apply for such a position and you wont suffer compared with other candidates. Or, if your current employer needs something new done, do that new thing. You're not talking about a major career change here. Programming is programming. Even moving from something like standalone application GUI programming for windows in C# to back-end web service programming in C++ on Unix isn't that big a deal. If you can program, you'll pick up the new tech/language/idioms as needed and notice the striking similarity in the work you actually end up doing.
...Katy Perry, who has one of the most popular Facebook pages but doesn't appear in the Search Plus results because she doesn't have a Google+ account.
What's the compliant? You want the search results to display a link to her Google+ account that doesn't exist? You want her uncrawlable facebook page to come up in the search results? You want people who do have Google+ accounts not to have that page show up in the search results?
Where did GP ever mention ruling? He was discussing a desired mental state for enemies not a desired mental state for citizens (or subjects). Disagree with that suggestion if you like, but don't confuse the two very different things.
I agree with your suggestion 100%. But that's generally not what people mean when they suggest things like 'It’s the policymakers’ responsibility to create a structure that leads to these technologies being put toward fuel economy' which tend to be suggesting outlawing certain mileages or subsidizing automakers with high MPG fleets as a couple examples. Internalizing externalities is at its heart less a regulatory solution and more a market solution with a patch to fix a well-known deficiency.
In that book they drop rocks from the Moon to the Earth.
1. Turn the chemical energy in rocket fuel into kinetic energy using rocket engines. 2. Turn kinetic engine into gravitation potential energy by orbiting. 3. Turn gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy by deorbiting and falling. 4. Turn kinetic energy into heat et. al. by colliding with target.
That's pretty inefficient. It's the equivalent of shooting a bullet by aiming upwards and getting the bullet to fall on your target. You can just skip steps 2 and 3. There is some advantage to be gained if you decrease the delay between deciding to hit something and actually hitting it. But the costs are enormous and that's not at all related to the "strategic advantage" in the cited book.
Think of the websites you've used. How many at some point or another have actually emailed your password to you rather than just let you reset it with an email link? I know I have several dozen accounts and a few do indeed email me my password when I pick one. That means they have it in their data somewhere at least at some point in time.
Entirely true. As I said I take no issue with anyone choosing how to conduct the end of his life. I just don't like the romanticization of the decision to die at the expense of the decision to try to live. Both can be done with dignity. Both are valid choices for a person to make for himself.
You have your preferences. That's fine. I have different ones. It's true, I've not been in severe pain for more than about a day at a time. But I know what I'm afraid of, and it's death. It's not about torture training, or being tough, or not knowing what real pain is. It's about personal choices based on personal valuations, and in my case, it's also about fear.
Slashdot Mirror
No, NP-**hard** problems are by definition no easier than the hardest problems in NP. It's an open question whether P = NP in which case all NP-hard problems that are also in NP (that intersection is known as NP-complete) are in P as well.
You could just pretend it's 128 bit instead. Under normal conditions your eyes can't tell the difference.
Exactly. And even if none of that works out. What the hell? Why not? "Because we can" works for me.
And that's just going back to erectus. Everything in Homo is definitely "human" and habilis is at least 2.3 million years ago with no reason to believe it's the earliest. But even that is a bit stingy for my taste. I think it's fair to consider anything in Hominina to be human. How long ago Hominina arose is unclear, but there is some evidence for an age of at least 7 million years and other evidence that it cannot exceed about 5.5 million years.
Chrome already has an embedded password manager. I'm with you that it's nicer to have something external to the browser but that plugs into it. But I prefer an external app/format to the OS as well since it's easier to use the password database on whatever platform I need. All that being said, for most Chrome users Google doesn't have much to do with the OS, and something straightforward to use is a step in the right direction for most people.
KeyPass 2 plugs into Chrome quite nicely. There's also an android version, which is nice for when I'm not at a computer I control.
I'm guessing the iPad 3 looks kind of like a rectangle with rounded corners and a screen on one face?
I don't know anything about the topic, but I'd guess there are also limits on how quickly you can stretch out the other parts of your body like muscle, tendon, and skin.
Good God, y'all.
That Lafayette certainly had a long military career!
If Clark and Kubrick were still alive they'd sue both Apple and Samsung since both are clearly knockoffs of their original featureless black obelisk.
Software is copyrighted. Algorithms are patented. I think when people talk about "software" patents they can be assumed to be referring to algorithms patents.
And when you submit your new idea to the standard committee the very first thing they will ask for is demonstration of existing practice. Standards committees do not design new features. They observe existing practices and extensions and adopt them, possibly with some modification. To get something standardized you must first make it, work out the kinks, show why it's helpful, and get people to use it in practice. Only then will a standards committee consider it for the next version.
Go.
For it.
Moving from one specialized type of programming to a closely related type of specialized programming is pretty straightforward. Apply for such a position and you wont suffer compared with other candidates. Or, if your current employer needs something new done, do that new thing. You're not talking about a major career change here. Programming is programming. Even moving from something like standalone application GUI programming for windows in C# to back-end web service programming in C++ on Unix isn't that big a deal. If you can program, you'll pick up the new tech/language/idioms as needed and notice the striking similarity in the work you actually end up doing.
I stand corrected. A poster noted that Katy Perry's facebook page is indexable. I confirmed this by searching for it on Google, which found it.
...Katy Perry, who has one of the most popular Facebook pages but doesn't appear in the Search Plus results because she doesn't have a Google+ account.
What's the compliant? You want the search results to display a link to her Google+ account that doesn't exist? You want her uncrawlable facebook page to come up in the search results? You want people who do have Google+ accounts not to have that page show up in the search results?
Where did GP ever mention ruling? He was discussing a desired mental state for enemies not a desired mental state for citizens (or subjects). Disagree with that suggestion if you like, but don't confuse the two very different things.
I agree with your suggestion 100%. But that's generally not what people mean when they suggest things like 'It’s the policymakers’ responsibility to create a structure that leads to these technologies being put toward fuel economy' which tend to be suggesting outlawing certain mileages or subsidizing automakers with high MPG fleets as a couple examples. Internalizing externalities is at its heart less a regulatory solution and more a market solution with a patch to fix a well-known deficiency.
In that book they drop rocks from the Moon to the Earth.
1. Turn the chemical energy in rocket fuel into kinetic energy using rocket engines.
2. Turn kinetic engine into gravitation potential energy by orbiting.
3. Turn gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy by deorbiting and falling.
4. Turn kinetic energy into heat et. al. by colliding with target.
That's pretty inefficient. It's the equivalent of shooting a bullet by aiming upwards and getting the bullet to fall on your target. You can just skip steps 2 and 3. There is some advantage to be gained if you decrease the delay between deciding to hit something and actually hitting it. But the costs are enormous and that's not at all related to the "strategic advantage" in the cited book.
Because being entertained makes people happy and being happy is better than not being happy.
Think of the websites you've used. How many at some point or another have actually emailed your password to you rather than just let you reset it with an email link? I know I have several dozen accounts and a few do indeed email me my password when I pick one. That means they have it in their data somewhere at least at some point in time.
I wonder if he knows he's actually running the country.
Entirely true. As I said I take no issue with anyone choosing how to conduct the end of his life. I just don't like the romanticization of the decision to die at the expense of the decision to try to live. Both can be done with dignity. Both are valid choices for a person to make for himself.
You have your preferences. That's fine. I have different ones. It's true, I've not been in severe pain for more than about a day at a time. But I know what I'm afraid of, and it's death. It's not about torture training, or being tough, or not knowing what real pain is. It's about personal choices based on personal valuations, and in my case, it's also about fear.