Let me see if I correctly understand your point. Are you saying:
The best algorithm for a deterministic sequence may be / is NP-hard. Best best algorithm for the stochastic sequence may be different. Therefore, the best algorithm for the stochastic sequence may be easier than NP-hard.
That seems to make sense. Until you realize the deterministic sequence IS one case of the stochastic - where the probabilityof a certain sequence happens to be 1.00. If you had a polynomial algorithm for probability X, you could run it for X=1 to solve the deterministic version. Thus, if the deterministic version is NP-hard, so must be the stochastic version in general.
Of course, one specific, special case probability matrix may be solvable more readily. As someone else pointed out, if you decide that your specific version of Tetris generates square pieces always, the algorithm is trivial. However, if we seek an algorithm for any version of Tetris, any probability of any given piece, that will include probability 1 of a given sequence. Thus, the generalized stochastic includes the deterministic as one case and therefore must be at least as complex as that case.
Administrative seizures of money without an associated criminal case began in earnest in 2012. I don't recall, who was running the administration? Perhaps he had more flexibility after he was re-elected.
In my opinion, healthcare.gov failed so miserably primarily because nobody at HHS was in charge of the project, while several people at HHS felt that they had the authority to mandate adding new features. Apparently nobody was responsible for keeping it on schedule, and therefore saying "no" to various requests, or alternatively telling the president "if we do this, it will take another year to complete".
Nobody at the lead contractor seemed to have that role either. Everybody knew that it had scope-creeped far beyond what could be done in the allotted time (given the chosen organization*) , but nobody was clearly responsible for reducing the scope or extending the schedule.
* It _might_ have been possible to get it done in time with all essential features working had the lead contractor built only a skeleton, a framework, with carefully and fully defined interfaces, then had small teams author each component to the interface.
As I mentioned, the test of fitness is expected value - the average score of 100,000,000,000 games played with that starstrategy, not the result from one specific, randomly chosen game.
In Hold'em folding preflop with pocket aces may turn out for the best occasionally, but it's still a bad policy because it will lose more than it will win. The best strategy is the one that does well long term.
Didn't read the first four words of the summary, eh?
My career has been in internet security. I now work for a government agency where we teach cyber security to other government workers. I can assure you, it won't be done right.
A line can be no more than 256 characters. That doesn't mean that the following is one line:
foreach mammal in pets
print mammal ' "is a mammal"
if (is_cat(mammal) {
print " and also a cat"
} }
Just because all cats are mammals doesn't mean that all mammals are cats. Just because all one-liners are less than 257 characters doesn't mean that all programs less than 257 characters are one-liners.
Others have posted most of what I'd suggest. If you want to consider running heat pipes to the case and have the case act as a giant heat sink, have a look at the 2008-2014 Mac Pro cases, which are solid aluminum. They'd probably be among the best options for a case that is also a heatsink. Finned heatsinks could be added to the outside of the case.
The fact that probability is involved doesn't mean there's not an optimal strategy, of course, where optimal is defined as "highest expected score" (score X probability). So figuring out an optimal strategy is a hard problem - how hard is it?
If the probability of a certain series of shapes coming next were 100%, we'd have an NP-hard problem, agreed? Does another probability make it easier or harder? Harder, if anything. That's provable because the probability version can be solved by solving each of the potential series as if each were known. What's harder than NP-hard? It may well still be NP-hard. It can't be of any more solvable complexity class.
replacing line feeds with terminators is not a 1-l
on
Tetris Is Hard To Test
·
· Score: 4, Informative
In BBC BASIC, a colon is a statement terminator, much like a semicolon in languages with C-style syntax. The linked code is therefore not a one-liner by any meaningful definition of the term. One could replace all of the linefeeds in Linux kernel source with semicolons and other appropriate terminators. That wouldn't make the kernel a one-liner.
Startup costs are certainly significant, though in certain areas over builders (competitors) have been able to install new fiber networks at a cost lower than incumbent is spending tearing out the legacy network and replacing it. Where the incumbent has copper, that gives them little advantage competing for fiber service.
The other side of the problem is that in most areas the local government has given the incumbent a franchise - a legally protected monopoly. It's tough to build a competing network when it's illegal to either attach lines to the existing poles or install new poles in the right of way.
To some extant, this is government outlawing the direct effect of what they outlawed previously. Where competition is legally allowed, like some parts of the Austin area, competition exists and customers get better service then elsewhere.
"FTDI drivers may be distributed in any form as long as license information is not modified."
The owner of the device simply plugs it in. Windows then automatically loads the FTDI driver based on the information that _FTDI_ gave them. Microsoft and FTDI decided to load the FTDI driver for that device. So how exactly is the user "using unlicensed software illegally"?
The manufacturer of the comms chip did precisely the same thing FTDI did - manufacture a chip with a compatible USB ID. Exactly which law gives FTDI exclusive use of that number, and makes it illegal to build a compatible device?
> It's not the fault of the driver if... the driver tells the hardware to do a write, and the hardware does
How do you figure that what the driver does isn't the fault of the driver?
The driver gives instructions that tell the hardware to self destruct. The hardware faithfully follows the instructions.
It would be different if the instructions were to do something useful, but the clone instead destroyed itself. There is no innocent purpose for this sequence of instructions.
They explicitly wrote code that intentionally bricks the connected device. It takes advantage of a bug/ implementation detail such that it does NOTHING on a FTDI device. Because it doesn't do anything at all on a genuine FTDI device, there is no innocent reason for FTDI to put it in their driver.
If the code did something useful on an FTDI device but broke counterfeit devices, that could be accidental. That's not the case, though - the code never does anything good, it only breaks things.
Certainly I don't want them to know I have a cell phone, that would be an invasion of my privacy while I wait in line for my NAKED BODY SCAN, right after I hand them my government-issued ID. There are privacy invasions happening there, but they aren't wifi related.
> Your attitude is the root cause of the ever increasing divide between the rich and the rest in the US.
The rich in the rest _IN_THE_US_. That's a hoot. 75% of Americans make over $2,000 / month. That's seventeen times as much as the average person makes. You're fabulously wealthy, yet whining because your two cars are Toyotas and not Ferraris. What a spoiled brat.
> Do you want to be a member of the lower strata of society with no upward mobility and no ability to change your status?
Let's have a look at upward mobility. My dad grew up in a shack with a dirt floor. Five people in one room. Sunday was meat day; they always tried to get a rabbit or something to have be able to have meat once a week. There's no way they could afford meat most days, but they managed to be able to have it once a week. Forty years later, my dad took his kids on the corporate jet. He was a vice president of an oil company, whose job involved working with crown Prince (now king) Abdullah. That's upward mobility. He didn't go from dirt poor to corporate jets by whining about "rich people". He got rich by working his ass off doing what rich people do.
I chose your random location for you, using random.org to generate latitude and longitude. You're going to Savinki, Ukraine, where the average income is $405 / month. You'll get to meet some nice Russians while you're there. Enjoy your trip.
"cable (DOCSYS 3.0), are not enough, The maximum speed a DOCSYS modem can achieve is 171/122 Mbit/s"
Ho-ly crap. This must have been by the most spoiled, self-centered, self-indulging, entitled little spoiled brat in California. You have no idea what life is like for 99.99% of the world, do you? Here's a clue - your housekeeper may well be a "one percenter". The other 99% (aka almost everyone) doesn't have Netflix and they don't have a computer. They have a small plot where they try to grow enough food to eat, and they have a need for shoes - not they want another $250 pair of Nikes, they have no shoes.
If 170 mbps just isn't enough for you and you're crying about it, you're seriously in need of some perspective. Go live like an average human for two weeks. Seriously, you need to go into your dad's reading room, spin the globe, and without looking stop it and put your finger in a random place. Get a big map of that country an toss a dart at the map to hit a random place. Then go there. Not to the nearest big city that you've heard of at a charity ball, but to the exact place where dart hit. Go there and find the closest person working. Do their work with them for two hours, then ask where is the NEAREST place you can rent a room. Not the nicest place, the nearest place. Don't reject the room just because it doesn't have a toilet, you're going to live like the average human for two weeks. When you get back, 170 Mbps will be more than enough. After you live like an average person for two weeks, your life back home will be so.awesome you'll never complainabout anything again.
> How would you convince them to abandon their plan to dive into project management and use an existing solution?
I wouldn't. Pushing for "your" solution rather than the right solution is being a fan, not a professional. I would instead work with them to come up with a list of requirements. Note that that a requirements document is needed in order to do either correctly - to either build or buy, you need to know what features the solution needs to have. Applying a "checkbox" style to the list might be a good idea, to visually emphasize that the right solution is that one that checks off all of these needs.
Then with the requirements list in hand, you look at each option - the existing one, off-the-shelf solutions, and a schedule / quote to build a a custom solution. If an off-the-shelf solution meets al of the requirements, you show them that - here's the list of 20 things we figured out you need, and this solution checks off all 20 boxes. If no off-the-shelf solution can check off all of the boxes, you ask if any of them can be customized to check off all of the boxes. If not, you must either build custom or revise your requirements.
This process will find the right solution, rather than convincing them to do it your way, against their better judgement. Remember, there's at least 50/50 chance that you're wrong. The other people are just as likely to be right as you are. Listing the requirements as a checklist will answer the question, in a clear, convincing way.
I once asked a couple of friends who'd heard me argue a proposal whether they thought I had done a good job arguing my view. They surprised me when they answered by shrugging and saying "well, you were right. I don't think you did a god or bad job of convincing us, it just became clear that your view is correct." When you present a clear set of facts showing which way is right, you don't need to "convince" anyone to do it "your way", you've simply demonstrated which way is in fact the right way to go.
Indeed it has improved considerably. The basic security model went from "don't show other people's files unless you click the C: drive" to actually denying access to other people's files. Currently it has what has traditionally been considered a decent model, discretionary access control very similar to the classic Unix model.
On the other hand, Unix used that model in the 1970s. Linux moved to a more secure mandatory access control model ten years ago, around the same time that Windows was finally getting DAC. The weaker model is also the simpler and more convenient model, so this doesn't necessarily make Linux BETTER, it's more secure, but less simple and convenient. Choose your own priorities.
I've got to disagree with that one, unless you refer to Microsoft Windows then sure I agree with that:)
I did say Windows IS, not Windows ARE.:) Lexan windows are pretty tough, and the front door windows of some cars are tough, with the ability to bend a bit rather than break. On YouTube there is a funny video of a reporter trying to break a car window with a hammer.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me see if I correctly understand your point. Are you saying:
The best algorithm for a deterministic sequence may be / is NP-hard.
Best best algorithm for the stochastic sequence may be different.
Therefore, the best algorithm for the stochastic sequence may be easier than NP-hard.
That seems to make sense. Until you realize the deterministic sequence IS one case of the stochastic - where the probabilityof a certain sequence happens to be 1.00. If you had a polynomial algorithm for probability X, you could run it for X=1 to solve the deterministic version. Thus, if the deterministic version is NP-hard, so must be the stochastic version in general.
Of course, one specific, special case probability matrix may be solvable more readily. As someone else pointed out, if you decide that your specific version of Tetris generates square pieces always, the algorithm is trivial. However, if we seek an algorithm for any version of Tetris, any probability of any given piece, that will include probability 1 of a given sequence. Thus, the generalized stochastic includes the deterministic as one case and therefore must be at least as complex as that case.
Administrative seizures of money without an associated criminal case began in earnest in 2012. I don't recall, who was running the administration? Perhaps he had more flexibility after he was re-elected.
In my opinion, healthcare.gov failed so miserably primarily because nobody at HHS was in charge of the project, while several people at HHS felt that they had the authority to mandate adding new features. Apparently nobody was responsible for keeping it on schedule, and therefore saying "no" to various requests, or alternatively telling the president "if we do this, it will take another year to complete".
Nobody at the lead contractor seemed to have that role either. Everybody knew that it had scope-creeped far beyond what could be done in the allotted time (given the chosen organization*) , but nobody was clearly responsible for reducing the scope or extending the schedule.
* It _might_ have been possible to get it done in time with all essential features working had the lead contractor built only a skeleton, a framework, with carefully and fully defined interfaces, then had small teams author each component to the interface.
> Yes, because line breaks in BASIC are significant. That means, of course, that they actually *do* something;
Specifically, they *do* approximately the same thing as colons, they are generally synonymous with colons, of which this program has plenty.
As I mentioned, the test of fitness is expected value - the average score of 100,000,000,000 games played with that starstrategy, not the result from one specific, randomly chosen game.
In Hold'em folding preflop with pocket aces may turn out for the best occasionally, but it's still a bad policy because it will lose more than it will win. The best strategy is the one that does well long term.
Done right,
Didn't read the first four words of the summary, eh?
My career has been in internet security. I now work for a government agency where we teach cyber security to other government workers. I can assure you, it won't be done right.
A line can be no more than 256 characters. That doesn't mean that the following is one line:
foreach mammal in pets
print mammal ' "is a mammal"
if (is_cat(mammal) {
print " and also a cat"
}
}
Just because all cats are mammals doesn't mean that all mammals are cats.
Just because all one-liners are less than 257 characters doesn't mean that all programs less than 257 characters are one-liners.
What's harder than NP-hard?
Intractable.
True. Smiling Bob is also harder.
Others have posted most of what I'd suggest. If you want to consider running heat pipes to the case and have the case act as a giant heat sink, have a look at the 2008-2014 Mac Pro cases, which are solid aluminum. They'd probably be among the best options for a case that is also a heatsink. Finned heatsinks could be added to the outside of the case.
The fact that probability is involved doesn't mean there's not an optimal strategy, of course, where optimal is defined as "highest expected score" (score X probability). So figuring out an optimal strategy is a hard problem - how hard is it?
If the probability of a certain series of shapes coming next were 100%, we'd have an NP-hard problem, agreed? Does another probability make it easier or harder? Harder, if anything. That's provable because the probability version can be solved by solving each of the potential series as if each were known. What's harder than NP-hard? It may well still be NP-hard. It can't be of any more solvable complexity class.
In BBC BASIC, a colon is a statement terminator, much like a semicolon in languages with C-style syntax. The linked code is therefore not a one-liner by any meaningful definition of the term. One could replace all of the linefeeds in Linux kernel source with semicolons and other appropriate terminators. That wouldn't make the kernel a one-liner.
Startup costs are certainly significant, though in certain areas over builders (competitors) have been able to install new fiber networks at a cost lower than incumbent is spending tearing out the legacy network and replacing it. Where the incumbent has copper, that gives them little advantage competing for fiber service.
The other side of the problem is that in most areas the local government has given the incumbent a franchise - a legally protected monopoly. It's tough to build a competing network when it's illegal to either attach lines to the existing poles or install new poles in the right of way.
To some extant, this is government outlawing the direct effect of what they outlawed previously. Where competition is legally allowed, like some parts of the Austin area, competition exists and customers get better service then elsewhere.
FTDI's download page says:
"FTDI drivers may be distributed in any form as long as license information is not modified."
The owner of the device simply plugs it in. Windows then automatically loads the FTDI driver based on the information that _FTDI_ gave them. Microsoft and FTDI decided to load the FTDI driver for that device. So how exactly is the user "using unlicensed software illegally"?
The manufacturer of the comms chip did precisely the same thing FTDI did - manufacture a chip with a compatible USB ID. Exactly which law gives FTDI exclusive use of that number, and makes it illegal to build a compatible device?
> It's not the fault of the driver if ... the driver tells the hardware to do a write, and the hardware does
How do you figure that what the driver does isn't the fault of the driver?
The driver gives instructions that tell the hardware to self destruct. The hardware faithfully follows the instructions.
It would be different if the instructions were to do something useful, but the clone instead destroyed itself. There is no innocent purpose for this sequence of instructions.
They explicitly wrote code that intentionally bricks the connected device. It takes advantage of a bug/ implementation detail such that it does NOTHING on a FTDI device. Because it doesn't do anything at all on a genuine FTDI device, there is no innocent reason for FTDI to put it in their driver.
If the code did something useful on an FTDI device but broke counterfeit devices, that could be accidental. That's not the case, though - the code never does anything good, it only breaks things.
Certainly I don't want them to know I have a cell phone, that would be an invasion of my privacy while I wait in line for my NAKED BODY SCAN, right after I hand them my government-issued ID. There are privacy invasions happening there, but they aren't wifi related.
> Your attitude is the root cause of the ever increasing divide between the rich and the rest in the US.
The rich in the rest _IN_THE_US_. That's a hoot. 75% of Americans make over $2,000 / month. That's seventeen times as much as the average person makes. You're fabulously wealthy, yet whining because your two cars are Toyotas and not Ferraris. What a spoiled brat.
> Do you want to be a member of the lower strata of society with no upward mobility and no ability to change your status?
Let's have a look at upward mobility. My dad grew up in a shack with a dirt floor. Five people in one room. Sunday was meat day; they always tried to get a rabbit or something to have be able to have meat once a week. There's no way they could afford meat most days, but they managed to be able to have it once a week. Forty years later, my dad took his kids on the corporate jet. He was a vice president of an oil company, whose job involved working with crown Prince (now king) Abdullah. That's upward mobility. He didn't go from dirt poor to corporate jets by whining about "rich people". He got rich by working his ass off doing what rich people do.
The average person makes $115 per month. You ARE the 1%. Realizing that, you can quit complaining, asshole.
I chose your random location for you, using random.org to generate latitude and longitude. You're going to Savinki, Ukraine, where the average income is $405 / month. You'll get to meet some nice Russians while you're there. Enjoy your trip.
"cable (DOCSYS 3.0), are not enough, The maximum speed a DOCSYS modem can achieve is 171/122 Mbit/s"
Ho-ly crap. This must have been by the most spoiled, self-centered, self-indulging, entitled little spoiled brat in California. You have no idea what life is like for 99.99% of the world, do you? Here's a clue - your housekeeper may well be a "one percenter". The other 99% (aka almost everyone) doesn't have Netflix and they don't have a computer. They have a small plot where they try to grow enough food to eat, and they have a need for shoes - not they want another $250 pair of Nikes, they have no shoes.
If 170 mbps just isn't enough for you and you're crying about it, you're seriously in need of some perspective. Go live like an average human for two weeks. Seriously, you need to go into your dad's reading room, spin the globe, and without looking stop it and put your finger in a random place. Get a big map of that country an toss a dart at the map to hit a random place. Then go there. Not to the nearest big city that you've heard of at a charity ball, but to the exact place where dart hit. Go there and find the closest person working. Do their work with them for two hours, then ask where is the NEAREST place you can rent a room. Not the nicest place, the nearest place. Don't reject the room just because it doesn't have a toilet, you're going to live like the average human for two weeks. When you get back, 170 Mbps will be more than enough. After you live like an average person for two weeks, your life back home will be so.awesome you'll never complainabout anything again.
> How would you convince them to abandon their plan to dive into project management and use an existing solution?
I wouldn't. Pushing for "your" solution rather than the right solution is being a fan, not a professional.
I would instead work with them to come up with a list of requirements. Note that that a requirements document is needed in order to do either correctly - to either build or buy, you need to know what features the solution needs to have. Applying a "checkbox" style to the list might be a good idea, to visually emphasize that the right solution is that one that checks off all of these needs.
Then with the requirements list in hand, you look at each option - the existing one, off-the-shelf solutions, and a schedule / quote to build a a custom solution.
If an off-the-shelf solution meets al of the requirements, you show them that - here's the list of 20 things we figured out you need, and this solution checks off all 20 boxes. If no off-the-shelf solution can check off all of the boxes, you ask if any of them can be customized to check off all of the boxes. If not, you must either build custom or revise your requirements.
This process will find the right solution, rather than convincing them to do it your way, against their better judgement. Remember, there's at least 50/50 chance that you're wrong. The other people are just as likely to be right as you are. Listing the requirements as a checklist will answer the question, in a clear, convincing way.
I once asked a couple of friends who'd heard me argue a proposal whether they thought I had done a good job arguing my view. They surprised me when they answered by shrugging and saying "well, you were right. I don't think you did a god or bad job of convincing us, it just became clear that your view is correct." When you present a clear set of facts showing which way is right, you don't need to "convince" anyone to do it "your way", you've simply demonstrated which way is in fact the right way to go.
That subject line should say DAC, not FAX.
If bad guys wanted to work hard they'd just get a job.
I like the way you put that. I'm going to steal that phrasing.
Indeed it has improved considerably. The basic security model went from "don't show other people's files unless you click the C: drive" to actually denying access to other people's files. Currently it has what has traditionally been considered a decent model, discretionary access control very similar to the classic Unix model.
On the other hand, Unix used that model in the 1970s. Linux moved to a more secure mandatory access control model ten years ago, around the same time that Windows was finally getting DAC. The weaker model is also the simpler and more convenient model, so this doesn't necessarily make Linux BETTER, it's more secure, but less simple and convenient. Choose your own priorities.
* Redundant. Windows is always easily breakable.
I've got to disagree with that one, unless you refer to Microsoft Windows then sure I agree with that :)
I did say Windows IS, not Windows ARE. :) Lexan windows are pretty tough, and the front door windows of some cars are tough, with the ability to bend a bit rather than break. On YouTube there is a funny video of a reporter trying to break a car window with a hammer.