I would like evidence for the claim that you can check the fit of two pieces in constant time. This would seem to be the primary difficulty involved in the contest, if it were straightforwardly clear that you could do it in constant time I think the contest would be over.
Looking for similarities around the edges breaks down when most of the edges look very similar (each edge might be a good match for hundreds of other pieces). Asking for human confirmation on tens of thousands of samples requires a lot of patience, and with such small pieces, it may even be difficult for a human to judge.
The last puzzle looks really challenging. It's clear that there are bits missing (even sub-bits of pieces), and some curled or torn edges on some of the shreds.
(I ask, because the contest requires 4 progressively harder documents be solved, with a declaration attached that says this is explicitly to filter out any methods that won't scale).
Sure, but it'd be a shame if your legs got broken, and you didn't have their worker protections. A real shame. You should think about how nice it is not to have your legs broken. Maybe you don't want to quite the AFL-CIO?
I don't recall Christ advocating allowing someone to rape your family. And I'm fairly sure that most Christian scholars would agree that Christ would support intervention that reduced violence.
I think the use of a ? pretty clearly moves it from mere interjection to inquiry / expression of confusion. If he had titled his post Huh. instead of Huh? I'd agree with you.
My snarky, accusatory tone was deliberately intended to draw attention to the ridiculousness of the contrary claims 'insanely obvious' etc of the post I was responding too.
Who said nobody needed multicore processors? That seems like a pretty unlikely claim, particularly from intel who were very much into selling multi-cpu systems to the high-end long before multicore became the norm. I had a dual-socket pentium II consumer grade system ages ago. That we were headed to multicore was obvious even then.
I think the real evidence for my claim is that this just wasn't the obvious solution to the problem. This was the solution people had to work to come up with when they decided that the obvious solution they were all using wasn't fast enough.
But if there are, this is a perfectly legit case for them. It should have been invented about 5-7 years earlier than it was if it was obvious, because people definitely had need of it that far back.
Sure, if you want to throw out patents entirely, that's fine with me. If you believe they should exist, only then do I argue that this is a perfectly legitimate use of them.
Someone else pointed out the presentation at a conference for me. So I'll just respond to the other portion.
I don't believe there should be patents on anything at all. If we are going to have them at all, this seems like a perfectly valid one. It obviously wasn't 'obvious' or someone should have come up with the optimization years earlier.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/organizedcrime/italian_mafia
http://americanmafia.com/Crime_And_Labor.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States
No, I'm fairly sure you'd also have to get it inducted into the contest somehow.
I would like evidence for the claim that you can check the fit of two pieces in constant time. This would seem to be the primary difficulty involved in the contest, if it were straightforwardly clear that you could do it in constant time I think the contest would be over.
I think you'd have gotten more funny mods without the explanation.
Not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting organized crime is not heavily involved in the AFL-CIO?
Looking for similarities around the edges breaks down when most of the edges look very similar (each edge might be a good match for hundreds of other pieces). Asking for human confirmation on tens of thousands of samples requires a lot of patience, and with such small pieces, it may even be difficult for a human to judge.
The last puzzle looks really challenging. It's clear that there are bits missing (even sub-bits of pieces), and some curled or torn edges on some of the shreds.
Why 10 and not 4?
(I ask, because the contest requires 4 progressively harder documents be solved, with a declaration attached that says this is explicitly to filter out any methods that won't scale).
Yes, not defending yourself is clearly Christian. Failing to defend someone ELSE is not.
Sure, but it'd be a shame if your legs got broken, and you didn't have their worker protections. A real shame. You should think about how nice it is not to have your legs broken. Maybe you don't want to quite the AFL-CIO?
Then evolution occurs.
If but one in a billion planets has life, there is a LOT of life out there.
Mod parent +5, depressing.
How often do the Raiders win and lose on a sunday evening?
I don't recall Christ advocating allowing someone to rape your family. And I'm fairly sure that most Christian scholars would agree that Christ would support intervention that reduced violence.
http://www.google.com/search?q=define+huh%3F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
I think the use of a ? pretty clearly moves it from mere interjection to inquiry / expression of confusion. If he had titled his post Huh. instead of Huh? I'd agree with you.
My snarky, accusatory tone was deliberately intended to draw attention to the ridiculousness of the contrary claims 'insanely obvious' etc of the post I was responding too.
Huh?
A question asked directly does, though.
Who said nobody needed multicore processors? That seems like a pretty unlikely claim, particularly from intel who were very much into selling multi-cpu systems to the high-end long before multicore became the norm. I had a dual-socket pentium II consumer grade system ages ago. That we were headed to multicore was obvious even then.
If you could make your question clearer, you'll probably get a more effective answer.
I think the real evidence for my claim is that this just wasn't the obvious solution to the problem. This was the solution people had to work to come up with when they decided that the obvious solution they were all using wasn't fast enough.
I agree: there should be no patents at all.
But if there are, this is a perfectly legit case for them. It should have been invented about 5-7 years earlier than it was if it was obvious, because people definitely had need of it that far back.
This should have been implemented about 5-7 years earlier if obvious.
Because the businesses who fund the courts wanted it that way.
Sure, if you want to throw out patents entirely, that's fine with me. If you believe they should exist, only then do I argue that this is a perfectly legitimate use of them.
Someone else pointed out the presentation at a conference for me. So I'll just respond to the other portion.
I don't believe there should be patents on anything at all. If we are going to have them at all, this seems like a perfectly valid one. It obviously wasn't 'obvious' or someone should have come up with the optimization years earlier.