That's more of a management book. If you want to get better at coding practices, you want a different library entirely. Try reading something like code complete or refactoring to patterns.
I'm not a google employee, but I'd be curious to know what made you think I was. Or did you just hope to discount my post for long enough for most of the interest to wain, apple shill?
Cloud capabilities = connecting to any one of hundreds of servers redundantly deployed across the internet, and moving your storage from the local device to the network so that it's available from every device.
Re:What does the hell does NP Hard mean?
on
Pac-Man Is NP-Hard
·
· Score: 1
So, most computer scientists assume P != NP. But there's no proof (yet).
NP-hard is a class of problems, the solution of which is guaranteed not more efficient than NP. That is, there is a demonstrated way to convert an NP-complete problem (let's call that problem NPC) to the hard problem (NPH), and the conversion can be done in polynomial time.
How does that work? Well, if you were able to solve the NPH problem more efficiently (in polynomial time or better), you'd first use the conversion (costing you only polynomial time, as required above), then use your efficient NPH solver (again, polynomial time), and the combined solution would be polynomial time (The additive time of two polynomial algorithms is also polynomial). If you had any such NPH solution, it would be a satisfactory proof that P = NP. If you assume that P != NP (as most of us do...), then this means that NPH, like NPC and NP are, in fact, 'harder' than problems that are merely polynomial in difficulty.
So understanding all that, NPH is a class of problems. It includes all NPC problems as a subset, plus some problems that are even harder.
I think the internet has proven sufficiently slow that it is now officially time to go ahead and get on top of optimization. It's premature by about negative one decade at this point.
They don't have plenty of land. Unlike the US, they have basically all usable land in use. People will cross boundaries in both directions because they are panicked, and just running from the trouble.
Nuclear exchange is more likely in this scenario because of the territorial violations.
It would happen because both of those countries are packed much more densely with people than is the US, and they both have large numbers (many millions) living in coastal areas that will be under water. When they have to move or drown, they have nowhere to go but into their neighbors. Try to imagine how the US might respond if the rate of mexican illegal immigrants went from a half million per year to a half million per day.
And it would be worse than restructuring global energy infrastructure because a nuclear exchange between china and india will send worldwide food production into the toilet (among other reasons it will suck).
That misses the point. What happens in the US will be largely irrelevant when india and china go nuclear because millions of people are trying to cross the borders.
They may have thrived during those times. The concern now is that there are too many people living along the coasts to be accommodated inland. When those people are displaced, there seems to be no choice but to have a major die back event. This was not true in the Medieval Warming Period. Nor, as far as I've heard, did the warming period then last long enough to cause the sea level rise that is expected now.
This is definitely atypical. I worked for an office that occasionally used blueprint production. I assure you they didn't throw money away. There would usually be one large run (say 100 pages). Then batches of individual pages with corrections. Then a final run with some number of copies for archive, customer. No business (in any field with competition) lasts long if they are throwing away money.
Locks, and security in general, are intended to raise the cost of unauthorized access beyond the utility of that access. Success by that measure is effective security.
The real idiots are the ones who blindly modded your post "+1, Agree". We are a nation of laws, not "let's play fair". If a contract is in violation of some existing anti-trust law, kill it. Otherwise, its just the whims of your government deciding how to control you. You think you're cute, but you really have no clue.
Your post seems to be missing the whole point of the thread. The thread is about whether or not there should be more or less laws, not the enforcement of what's there already.
Slashdot Mirror
That's more of a management book. If you want to get better at coding practices, you want a different library entirely. Try reading something like code complete or refactoring to patterns.
I'm not a google employee, but I'd be curious to know what made you think I was. Or did you just hope to discount my post for long enough for most of the interest to wain, apple shill?
No, it's not in good condition, did I mention fragile?
I bought an ipad2. It is a deplorable device. Really terrible. Horrible UI/UX. Excessively fragile. The apps are pathetic. A total disappointment.
Cloud capabilities = connecting to any one of hundreds of servers redundantly deployed across the internet, and moving your storage from the local device to the network so that it's available from every device.
So, most computer scientists assume P != NP. But there's no proof (yet).
NP-hard is a class of problems, the solution of which is guaranteed not more efficient than NP. That is, there is a demonstrated way to convert an NP-complete problem (let's call that problem NPC) to the hard problem (NPH), and the conversion can be done in polynomial time.
How does that work? Well, if you were able to solve the NPH problem more efficiently (in polynomial time or better), you'd first use the conversion (costing you only polynomial time, as required above), then use your efficient NPH solver (again, polynomial time), and the combined solution would be polynomial time (The additive time of two polynomial algorithms is also polynomial). If you had any such NPH solution, it would be a satisfactory proof that P = NP. If you assume that P != NP (as most of us do ...), then this means that NPH, like NPC and NP are, in fact, 'harder' than problems that are merely polynomial in difficulty.
So understanding all that, NPH is a class of problems. It includes all NPC problems as a subset, plus some problems that are even harder.
How can this be true?
I think the internet has proven sufficiently slow that it is now officially time to go ahead and get on top of optimization. It's premature by about negative one decade at this point.
Yes. Or, it should. Because your browser definitely doesn't have to wait on those. Mine doesn't.
"I better check my web servers."
They don't have plenty of land. Unlike the US, they have basically all usable land in use. People will cross boundaries in both directions because they are panicked, and just running from the trouble.
Nuclear exchange is more likely in this scenario because of the territorial violations.
It would happen because both of those countries are packed much more densely with people than is the US, and they both have large numbers (many millions) living in coastal areas that will be under water. When they have to move or drown, they have nowhere to go but into their neighbors. Try to imagine how the US might respond if the rate of mexican illegal immigrants went from a half million per year to a half million per day.
And it would be worse than restructuring global energy infrastructure because a nuclear exchange between china and india will send worldwide food production into the toilet (among other reasons it will suck).
That misses the point. What happens in the US will be largely irrelevant when india and china go nuclear because millions of people are trying to cross the borders.
They may have thrived during those times. The concern now is that there are too many people living along the coasts to be accommodated inland. When those people are displaced, there seems to be no choice but to have a major die back event. This was not true in the Medieval Warming Period. Nor, as far as I've heard, did the warming period then last long enough to cause the sea level rise that is expected now.
That's pretty much the opposite of irony.
This is definitely atypical. I worked for an office that occasionally used blueprint production. I assure you they didn't throw money away. There would usually be one large run (say 100 pages). Then batches of individual pages with corrections. Then a final run with some number of copies for archive, customer. No business (in any field with competition) lasts long if they are throwing away money.
The bubble pops when the occupy party drags the democrats far enough to the left to allow bankruptcy to discharge student loans.
If you're doing college on a budget, you don't buy the books. You crib off someone else, use the one in the library, etc.
I think you spotted what's wrong with openId with item #2, at least as far as big corporations like mozilla are concerned.
Locks, and security in general, are intended to raise the cost of unauthorized access beyond the utility of that access. Success by that measure is effective security.
No, a 130 year history is not enough, but it is also not the only evidence of a problem.
The real idiots are the ones who blindly modded your post "+1, Agree". We are a nation of laws, not "let's play fair". If a contract is in violation of some existing anti-trust law, kill it. Otherwise, its just the whims of your government deciding how to control you. You think you're cute, but you really have no clue.
Your post seems to be missing the whole point of the thread. The thread is about whether or not there should be more or less laws, not the enforcement of what's there already.
But those are the giants who compete for the top talent. The market itself has a genuine dichotomy.
Monopoly restraint laws.
I asked for more but didn't get it. Had this agreement not existed, presumably they might have offered more, and/or agreed to my request.