So are you saying your wife's income was doubly taxed? Yes, that seems unjust, and I think we should seek to address that. I don't think more than one state should be entitled to taxing any given dollar you earn. However, I don't think your problem had anything to do with telecommuting (unless I missed something in your description). BTW, did you consider filing seperately? I bet that could have allowed your wife to pay CT taxes only/instead, if that better suited your desires. (And if you considered that, and chose not to file that way, then you hardly have a gripe.)
I'm not advocating double-taxation, which I agree would be unfair.
What I'm saying is that the very fact that your employer can employ you at all has at least something to do with taxes at its location. Businesses don't choose NYC for its cleanliness or safety. They choose NYC because it is a great place to do business. That's because of the infrastructure that taxation of wages at least partially provides. So your taxes are bolstering the infrastructure that makes your job possible. (Not that I feel in any way that taxes person A pays should exist soley to make person A's life better, but since you seem to, I'm putting this in your terms.)
Just so you know, if you telecommute to an employer in NYC: if you're sacked, its NY unemployment benefits that you draw. If your actions result in criminal negligence, you'll be tried in NY. Your employer is paying payroll tax in NY. Your rights as a worker are those of a New Yorker, and are enforced in and by the New York legal system. I fail to see how you "fail utterly to see" how a telecommuter doesn't consume (expensive) resources in the state in which he or she is actually employed.
Well the parent is TOTAL flame bait, but it does also need to be answered. So here's my non-flame reply.
Businesses choose NYC for lots of reasons, some of which are: 1) Lots of other businesses are there. That makes doing business more efficient, since most of it is done face to face. 2) NYSE, and other cornerstones of the financial world are located in NYC 3) Vast numbers of people to employ 4) Several world-class Universities are located in NYC or its environs, so there is no shortage of brain-power
All of these things in one way or another rely on taxes, be it for transportation or other infrastructure.
And btw, if you are employed by a company in NYC, you are taking advantage of NYC, even if you never go there. The fact is without NYC, that particular job wouldn't exist.
First, they're talking about State taxes, not city taxes.
Second, it doesn't follow that just because you're working outside of the state that you aren't making use of the state's resources. Ever wonder why so many businesses are located in Manhatten? Its not because of the low-low prices of real-estate.
I remember from undergraduate cs classes that algorithms like those for elevators are actually balancing 2 different variables: average wait-time and fairness (which essentially can be thought of as variance of wait-time). It seems this algorithm optimizes for average time, possibly at the expense of fairness. In a conventional elevator, I can easily make a fairly accurate guess about how long it will take the elevator to take me from where I am to where I want to go... and if I'm wrong, it means EVERYONE is slowed down. Its fair. The suggested system doesn't seem to make anything close to this strong a guarantee. "Average" wait-time is of course fairly uninteresting when actual wait-times can vary widely. If I need to get upstairs for some extremely important and time-sensitive reason (be it annual review or potty break) I don't want to wait an average of 30 seconds if waiting 10 minutes is a possibility. I'll take the predictable 45 second wait, thank you.
While not currently specifically cited as such, the administration could use the (newly extended) Patriot Act to support the executive order. They can always mention this (and other acts of congress) to show that Congress has made it clear that the executive branch is supposed to be spying on bad guys.
Not that this argument holds any kind of water in my view.
Java, like many other languages was a response to problems in the days of its design. Lots of languages have come and gone that tried to address certain problems (and in some cases did so), but had little room for flexibility when the solutions to the original problems made new ones.
I think C has had tremendous resilience not because of inherent benefits (any claim that C is faster than Java is like saying boats are faster than cars) but because of its ability to roll with the times. Of course, at one time it was used for everything and anything, but now its found its place (e.g. in device programming) and the C community doesn't typically try to push it to solve problems for which its not well suited.
Java has indeed become hemmed in by its inability to adapt; but perhaps it is also too broad. Sometimes I think that the standard JDK just has too much junk in it. Maybe this junk keeps it from being agile enough to adjust to hip new needs of today's software developers.
If I recall my college level economics, cost to supply is not necessarily a trait of a supplier of a good, but of the entire market. That is, iTunes might have an essentially unlimited supply of a given song, but the market does NOT. Hear me out... sure, we can all make essentially costless digital copies of files. But if I want to do this, I have to obtain a source for the copy. I have to get my friend with the cd to lend it to me, or go on bittorrent, or whatever. In this sense, my friend, or bittorrent is the supplier of the good.
What's interesting and different about this market is that the cost to supply is inversely proportional to the number of units that have been disseminated... its very hard for me to find a copyable source of some random indie band that just printed their first disc, but its VERY easy for me to find a source for the latest billboard topping pop tune.
To be honest, I'm confused as to how such a supply/demand graph would look... but intuitively its actually starting to make sense to me to have price fall as demand increases.
Another way of looking at it would be that when a song hits a certain level of popularity, it becomes so easy to get a copy that I'd never consider actually paying. When its hard for me to get a free copy, its worth paying.
And of course, everyone notices when the IT department drops the ball and everything blows up. I guess the thing to look for in someone who might manage your security is for people to say about them that nothing ever happened on their watch.
While I was interviewing for my present job, I asked my interviewers why I should choose to work at their company. Someone was raving about the IT manager, and told me "we've never had a problem while this guy has been here." It actually did influence my decision to accept the job.
Free Speech, much like a capitalist economy, works best if there is true competition... certainly I've never heard of an enlightening debate when only one side has been doing all the talking. A monopolistic free-speaker (i.e. one that has the ability to essentially spam everyone with its ideas) stifles the competition. Chances are, as a slashdotter you're against monopolistic control of the software (and other) industry by micro$oft-like organizations. So why shouldn't you be against monopolistic control of speech by super-rich and super-loud organizations?
By the way, if you haven't noticed, the world is rather different from how it was 200 years ago. Exactly what makes you think that what worked then would work now?
By the way, I do agree with you about one thing: voters need to demonstrate their disgust with politics as usual by voting for non-mainstream candidates. I vote for third party candidates as much as I can.
Actually, strictly speaking, both the travelling salesman problem and finding an efficient Gollumb ruler with n marks are not NP-complete. To be NP-complete, a problem must require a yes/no solution.
For instance "Is this particular Gollumb ruler optimal among all Gollumb rulers with n marks" asks a yes/no question, and could therefore be NP-complete. Also, the problem "Does there exist a way to visit the following cities without travelling more than n miles" is a decision problem. Note that we can usually phrase non-decision problems as decision problems, but going in the other direction can be trickier... you may in fact have to use the yes/no algorithm an exponentially growing number of times to solve the original problem!
It is true that NP-complete problems "map" to each other. In fact, this is part of their definition: an NP-complete problem is an NP problem that can map to any other NP problem. Essentially, NP-complete problems are the "hardest" problems of the NP problems. (And quickly, a problem is NP if given a solution and a "proof" to the problem, the "proof" can be verified in polynomial time. This loosely implies that if you can try all perspective solutions simultaneously, you can solve the problem in polynomial time, but if you have to try all possible solutions consecutively, it could take a while.)
The article does mention that this problem is "like" NP-complete problems, but does not suggest any reason for this except for the presumed requirement of exponential time (which by the way is not necessarily a requirement for NP-completeness... this is in fact one of the outstanding questions in computer science).
To get back to your original question (does an approximation algorithm for this approximate other NP-complete problems)... let's assume that the decision version of this problem is NP-complete. Then an approximation is more of a guess (with one-sided error) about the answer to the yes/no version. In this case, you have an approximator (with one-sided error) for all NP-complete problems. But this might not really provide an efficient or even correct solution for any corresponding non-decision problem.
Finally, approximators for the travelling salesman problem do already exist. Not surprisingly, the more reliable and accurate the approximation algorithm, the more time it requires.
Why would they get repealed? Liquor stores would rather be open less, not more. Think about it... the same amount of alcohol gets sold no matter what, and when NO liquor store can be open at a certain time, NO liquor store loses business by not being open then. If it became legal to sell liquor on Sunday in a given "blue law" state, all liquor stores would want to be open (so as not to lose business to competitors), and therefore pay wages to workers, but there would be no extra money coming into the store (since people would buy the same amount of alcohol overall).
The only people who want these laws passed are poor scrubs like you and me, but not liquor stores who lose money, and not politicians, who lose face.
Slashdot Mirror
Just need some Diet Coke and Mentos.
Smallville abortion clinic? Did this person get knocked up by Clark Kent?
Breaking news: Barry Bonds allegedly spent time in a centerfuge sometime between 1997 and 1998.
So are you saying your wife's income was doubly taxed? Yes, that seems unjust, and I think we should seek to address that. I don't think more than one state should be entitled to taxing any given dollar you earn. However, I don't think your problem had anything to do with telecommuting (unless I missed something in your description). BTW, did you consider filing seperately? I bet that could have allowed your wife to pay CT taxes only/instead, if that better suited your desires. (And if you considered that, and chose not to file that way, then you hardly have a gripe.)
I'm not advocating double-taxation, which I agree would be unfair.
What I'm saying is that the very fact that your employer can employ you at all has at least something to do with taxes at its location. Businesses don't choose NYC for its cleanliness or safety. They choose NYC because it is a great place to do business. That's because of the infrastructure that taxation of wages at least partially provides. So your taxes are bolstering the infrastructure that makes your job possible. (Not that I feel in any way that taxes person A pays should exist soley to make person A's life better, but since you seem to, I'm putting this in your terms.)
Just so you know, if you telecommute to an employer in NYC: if you're sacked, its NY unemployment benefits that you draw. If your actions result in criminal negligence, you'll be tried in NY. Your employer is paying payroll tax in NY. Your rights as a worker are those of a New Yorker, and are enforced in and by the New York legal system. I fail to see how you "fail utterly to see" how a telecommuter doesn't consume (expensive) resources in the state in which he or she is actually employed.
Well the parent is TOTAL flame bait, but it does also need to be answered. So here's my non-flame reply.
Businesses choose NYC for lots of reasons, some of which are:
1) Lots of other businesses are there. That makes doing business more efficient, since most of it is done face to face.
2) NYSE, and other cornerstones of the financial world are located in NYC
3) Vast numbers of people to employ
4) Several world-class Universities are located in NYC or its environs, so there is no shortage of brain-power
All of these things in one way or another rely on taxes, be it for transportation or other infrastructure.
And btw, if you are employed by a company in NYC, you are taking advantage of NYC, even if you never go there. The fact is without NYC, that particular job wouldn't exist.
No, I'm not a New Yorker. I live in Boston.
First, they're talking about State taxes, not city taxes.
Second, it doesn't follow that just because you're working outside of the state that you aren't making use of the state's resources. Ever wonder why so many businesses are located in Manhatten? Its not because of the low-low prices of real-estate.
I remember from undergraduate cs classes that algorithms like those for elevators are actually balancing 2 different variables: average wait-time and fairness (which essentially can be thought of as variance of wait-time). It seems this algorithm optimizes for average time, possibly at the expense of fairness. In a conventional elevator, I can easily make a fairly accurate guess about how long it will take the elevator to take me from where I am to where I want to go... and if I'm wrong, it means EVERYONE is slowed down. Its fair. The suggested system doesn't seem to make anything close to this strong a guarantee. "Average" wait-time is of course fairly uninteresting when actual wait-times can vary widely. If I need to get upstairs for some extremely important and time-sensitive reason (be it annual review or potty break) I don't want to wait an average of 30 seconds if waiting 10 minutes is a possibility. I'll take the predictable 45 second wait, thank you.
Totally. Also, I don't know why W.'s presidential term should expire.
Please.
While not currently specifically cited as such, the administration could use the (newly extended) Patriot Act to support the executive order. They can always mention this (and other acts of congress) to show that Congress has made it clear that the executive branch is supposed to be spying on bad guys.
Not that this argument holds any kind of water in my view.
Java, like many other languages was a response to problems in the days of its design. Lots of languages have come and gone that tried to address certain problems (and in some cases did so), but had little room for flexibility when the solutions to the original problems made new ones.
I think C has had tremendous resilience not because of inherent benefits (any claim that C is faster than Java is like saying boats are faster than cars) but because of its ability to roll with the times. Of course, at one time it was used for everything and anything, but now its found its place (e.g. in device programming) and the C community doesn't typically try to push it to solve problems for which its not well suited.
Java has indeed become hemmed in by its inability to adapt; but perhaps it is also too broad. Sometimes I think that the standard JDK just has too much junk in it. Maybe this junk keeps it from being agile enough to adjust to hip new needs of today's software developers.
I'm trying to get crap out of my ass, not into it!
If I recall my college level economics, cost to supply is not necessarily a trait of a supplier of a good, but of the entire market. That is, iTunes might have an essentially unlimited supply of a given song, but the market does NOT. Hear me out... sure, we can all make essentially costless digital copies of files. But if I want to do this, I have to obtain a source for the copy. I have to get my friend with the cd to lend it to me, or go on bittorrent, or whatever. In this sense, my friend, or bittorrent is the supplier of the good.
What's interesting and different about this market is that the cost to supply is inversely proportional to the number of units that have been disseminated... its very hard for me to find a copyable source of some random indie band that just printed their first disc, but its VERY easy for me to find a source for the latest billboard topping pop tune.
To be honest, I'm confused as to how such a supply/demand graph would look... but intuitively its actually starting to make sense to me to have price fall as demand increases.
Another way of looking at it would be that when a song hits a certain level of popularity, it becomes so easy to get a copy that I'd never consider actually paying. When its hard for me to get a free copy, its worth paying.
And of course, everyone notices when the IT department drops the ball and everything blows up. I guess the thing to look for in someone who might manage your security is for people to say about them that nothing ever happened on their watch.
While I was interviewing for my present job, I asked my interviewers why I should choose to work at their company. Someone was raving about the IT manager, and told me "we've never had a problem while this guy has been here." It actually did influence my decision to accept the job.
Free Speech, much like a capitalist economy, works best if there is true competition... certainly I've never heard of an enlightening debate when only one side has been doing all the talking. A monopolistic free-speaker (i.e. one that has the ability to essentially spam everyone with its ideas) stifles the competition. Chances are, as a slashdotter you're against monopolistic control of the software (and other) industry by micro$oft-like organizations. So why shouldn't you be against monopolistic control of speech by super-rich and super-loud organizations?
By the way, if you haven't noticed, the world is rather different from how it was 200 years ago. Exactly what makes you think that what worked then would work now?
By the way, I do agree with you about one thing: voters need to demonstrate their disgust with politics as usual by voting for non-mainstream candidates. I vote for third party candidates as much as I can.
Actually, strictly speaking, both the travelling salesman problem and finding an efficient Gollumb ruler with n marks are not NP-complete. To be NP-complete, a problem must require a yes/no solution.
For instance "Is this particular Gollumb ruler optimal among all Gollumb rulers with n marks" asks a yes/no question, and could therefore be NP-complete. Also, the problem "Does there exist a way to visit the following cities without travelling more than n miles" is a decision problem. Note that we can usually phrase non-decision problems as decision problems, but going in the other direction can be trickier... you may in fact have to use the yes/no algorithm an exponentially growing number of times to solve the original problem!
It is true that NP-complete problems "map" to each other. In fact, this is part of their definition: an NP-complete problem is an NP problem that can map to any other NP problem. Essentially, NP-complete problems are the "hardest" problems of the NP problems. (And quickly, a problem is NP if given a solution and a "proof" to the problem, the "proof" can be verified in polynomial time. This loosely implies that if you can try all perspective solutions simultaneously, you can solve the problem in polynomial time, but if you have to try all possible solutions consecutively, it could take a while.)
The article does mention that this problem is "like" NP-complete problems, but does not suggest any reason for this except for the presumed requirement of exponential time (which by the way is not necessarily a requirement for NP-completeness... this is in fact one of the outstanding questions in computer science).
To get back to your original question (does an approximation algorithm for this approximate other NP-complete problems)... let's assume that the decision version of this problem is NP-complete. Then an approximation is more of a guess (with one-sided error) about the answer to the yes/no version. In this case, you have an approximator (with one-sided error) for all NP-complete problems. But this might not really provide an efficient or even correct solution for any corresponding non-decision problem.
Finally, approximators for the travelling salesman problem do already exist. Not surprisingly, the more reliable and accurate the approximation algorithm, the more time it requires.
I hope this clarifies things...
Why would they get repealed? Liquor stores would rather be open less, not more. Think about it... the same amount of alcohol gets sold no matter what, and when NO liquor store can be open at a certain time, NO liquor store loses business by not being open then. If it became legal to sell liquor on Sunday in a given "blue law" state, all liquor stores would want to be open (so as not to lose business to competitors), and therefore pay wages to workers, but there would be no extra money coming into the store (since people would buy the same amount of alcohol overall). The only people who want these laws passed are poor scrubs like you and me, but not liquor stores who lose money, and not politicians, who lose face.