The previous/. post gave a link to the abstract, which is only three sentences long, here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.034.... The third sentence is "This implies P not equal NP."
I'm sure that the Chinese regulatory agencies are completely trustworthy and unbiased, so we can be sure that there are no hidden motives of the Chinese government here.
Now, lets hear from the liberals telling me I need to pay more taxes for crap like this. After all, I do like to use roads, police, and NSA spying on everything everyone writes ever.
I'm not sure what the word "liberals" is doing here. In general, the liberals have been rather vocal in their dislike and distrust of the NSA, CIA, and other TLAs. The support for these has been mostly been voices on the right saying "we need more tools to keep America secure!"
As for the "more taxes" quip, in general government spending goes up under Republican administrations, and is constant or even down under Democratic administrations. (It was the Bush administration, remember, that coined the phrase "deficits don't matter.")
All we have to do is digitize the bulk emails and texts collected from the NSA's mass surveillance of everybody in 16th century England, and compare them to Shakespere's works! Easy.
Do you have any idea how much land that encompasses.
Well, yes: the calculation pretty clearly shows that this is impractical.
I happen to be the kind of person who likes to do the calculation and then say it's impractical, rather than just shouting out an opinion without numbers.
You could cover the entire planet surface with trees and it still wouldn't be enough. It's time to start using technology to produce billions of machines that actively and permanently remove carbon from the air.
Okay. But until we have such machines, the most readily available carbon-sink, cost-effective and easily deployed with unskilled labour, is the tree.
OK, let's calculate. Here's a source talking about CO2 absorption by trees: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... , and here's a source saying "A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year and can sequester 1 ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old.": https://projects.ncsu.edu/proj...
If we take just that last figure, it's easy: we need to increase the number of trees to 250% of the existing number: plant an additional 150% as many trees as already exist on Earth.
Google tells me that 30% of the Earth's land area is covered by trees ( ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/0... ), so the quick estimate is that we need to plant enough trees to change this to 75%.
I've heard a lot of right-leaning people complain about the New York Times. I haven't, however, seen any evidence that they aren't a good source of information.
Wasn't it the NYT who claimed it was their duty to do anything and everything, even lie, to keep Trump out of office? Yes, yes it was.
I notice the lack of any sort of citation on this purported fact, which is of course fake. Neither the NYT nor anyone associated with the NYT ever claimed any such thing.
Along with Forbes' advice on how to determine what is a credible news source, here's my rule on how to determine a fake news site: never believe purported "facts" stated by anonymous cowards. They lie. Not always, but mostly.
I assume that this comment was intended to be somewhere between irony and trolling, in fact, I think it was probably intended to be simultaneously ironic and trolling.
The actual philosophy of fascism is not well understood in America any more. No, a fascist system would not "shut down" Facebook for creepy behavior: in fascism, corporations are powerful, but they work for the state. In a fascist system, Facebook would be even more powerful, even more creepy, and would work for the state.
Wait, what? Someone (anonymous) with no self-identification whatsoever complains about NYT and you somehow lump that person with millennials and proceeds to bash the entire group.
Yep. Boomers don't whine about getting free content-- they grew up with paying for news subscriptions, and still consider it a win to get it free. And post-Millennials don't post to slashdot-- they're all glued to Facebook and Instagram and Twitter; why would they read a boring text-only site like this?
I've heard a lot of right-leaning people complain about the New York Times. I haven't, however, seen any evidence that they aren't a good source of information.
Have we already forgotten about the embarrassing Jayson Blair incident?
The number one item on my list of what constitutes a credible news source is, do they publish error corrections?
"If a reporter gets facts in a story wrong, will the news outlet investigate a complaint and publish a correction? Does the publication have its own code of ethics? Or does it subscribe to and endorse the Society of Professional Journalist’s code of ethics? And if a reporter or editor seriously violates ethical codes – such as being a blatant or serial plagiarizer, fabulist or exaggerator – will they be fired at a given news outlet? While some may criticize mainstream media outlets for a variety of sins, top outlets such as the Washington Post, the New York Times, NBC News and the New Republic have fired journalists for such ethics violations. That is remarkable in a world where some celebrities, politicians and other realms of media (other than news such as Hollywood films “based on a true story”) can spread falsehood with impunity."
We need more doctor's in this country. Surely we can get some liberal arts majors through a doctor bootcamp, right? Three weeks and you should be ready to perform open heart surgery.
In fact, probably yes. A MD degree gives you a comprehensive education in all of medicine. If, on the other hand, we had decided to train people in narrow specialities, yes, you probably could train a person to be expert on a single type of surgery in a twelve week bootcamp. It would mean training technicians, not scientists: people who know how to do the physical skills, but not necessarily know the etiology of the disease.
Would be a different approach to medicine.
(you said "three weeks," but the average coding bootcamp is 12 weeks).
Intensive courses sound good, but once the "graduates" get out, they discover that they will be competing with people who have been obsessed with computers since the age of ten; people who would rather code than eat.
Don't link to the NYT fucker. Aside from being a leftist piece of trash,
I've heard a lot of right-leaning people complain about the New York Times. I haven't, however, seen any evidence that they aren't a good source of information.
they limit the number of articles they allow you to see each month.
It's bad enough that millennial assholes think that it's a crime if everything on the internet is not free, free, free. Reporters shouldn't be paid, they should work for the love of it. (and for the "exposure").
But now, when the New York Times actually is giving away their content for free, the millennial assholes are complaining that they are not getting enough content for free.
The parent post was ironic: the headline says "Spying on Intel Partners," but in this case, the word
"Intel" is headline-ese for "Intelligence partners"-- it has nothing to do with Intel, the corporation that makes computer chips.
If you'd read the subject of the comment, that would have been clear.
actually when allegations of harassment come up in a traditional project, that person is either fired or sent for some stupid HR training...
Except, as far as I can tell from the article, there weren't any "allegations of harassment": he didn't harass anybody. He tweeted a link to an article-- this article. He did not harass anybody.
The article isn't even one about "Men's rights advocacy" ("MRA")-- what he tweeted was a link to an article presenting the case that codes of conduct which suppress free speech discriminate against people with Asperger's syndrome, because these people have problems understanding what other people might thing would be offensive (the article was about "neurodiverse" people in general, but primarily focussed on Aspergers (which the article calls "Aspies").)
I somewhat wonder about the level of meta here. A person is accused of violating speech guidelines by tweeting a link to an article about speech guidelines?
Absolutely! Solar cells virtually rain down upon us, we need only collect them each morning and *poof*, electricity!
There are, of course, a large number of solar panel manufacturers in India, and solar has supplied a significant amount of the electrical growth in India. I'm not sure if you're clueless, or just pretending to be clueless.
Imagine having to manufacture them, the odd chemicals, by-products and waste, and the rare earths etc used for interconnects and circuitry to control them. THAT would be a monumental environmental disaster.
There have been a large number of people recently claiming that solar panel manufacture is an environmental nightmare, but as far as I can tell, none of these actually know anything about solar panel manufacture.
A good way to tell who is clueless and who isn't is to see whether they're claiming solar panels use rare earth metals. (They don't.)
Half a bonus point for at least saying that it's the "interconnects and circuitry to control them" that use rare earths. These don't either, but at least you have enough of a clue to know that solar panels don't use rare earths, so you know enough to be flailing around.
How are climate change activists preventing Indians from accessing cheap energy?
They aren't, of course. Cheap energy in rural India is now being addressed by low cost solar arrays, which is something climate change activists like.
This isn't actually a result of climate change activism, but in fact a result of an earlier crisis: the
current generation of low-cost solar panels is a direct result of the Low Cost Solar Array project, originally started in response to the 1970s Energy Crisis (actually an oil crisis).
Why talk about how horrible the end of the century is going to be in Asia climate-wise while we still cannot predict the weather for the weekend?
It turns out to be much easier to predict the average temperature over a large area for a long term than the instantaneous temperature at a single location at a single time.
I can tell you the average height of American males with pretty good confidence (177 cm)-- but I can only guess how tall you are, and with a very high error.
Slashdot Mirror
The previous /. post gave a link to the abstract, which is only three sentences long, here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.034.... The third sentence is "This implies P not equal NP."
"the time has come for Open Markets and (New) America to part ways."
Apart from the spelling error (either America or "the New World")...
"New America" is the name of the think-tank.
~
I'm sure that the Chinese regulatory agencies are completely trustworthy and unbiased, so we can be sure that there are no hidden motives of the Chinese government here.
Remember that you assholes who disparage ACs. You registered users are the morons.
You're adorable!
It's so cute that you think that by being an AC, the companies aren't tracking you.
They know who you are and what sites you surf to. It's only the other people reading posts that you're "anonymous" to.
Sounds like a person who is actually knowledgable about the patent system. Would be nice if we knew something about his opinions, though.
Now, lets hear from the liberals telling me I need to pay more taxes for crap like this. After all, I do like to use roads, police, and NSA spying on everything everyone writes ever.
I'm not sure what the word "liberals" is doing here. In general, the liberals have been rather vocal in their dislike and distrust of the NSA, CIA, and other TLAs. The support for these has been mostly been voices on the right saying "we need more tools to keep America secure!"
As for the "more taxes" quip, in general government spending goes up under Republican administrations, and is constant or even down under Democratic administrations. (It was the Bush administration, remember, that coined the phrase "deficits don't matter.")
So who was Shakespeare?
Say, we could find that out, couldn't we!
All we have to do is digitize the bulk emails and texts collected from the NSA's mass surveillance of everybody in 16th century England, and compare them to Shakespere's works! Easy.
I'm old enough to remember when they made you pay for this "mouse" thingy that nobody had asked for and nobody wanted.
Do you have any idea how much land that encompasses.
Well, yes: the calculation pretty clearly shows that this is impractical.
I happen to be the kind of person who likes to do the calculation and then say it's impractical, rather than just shouting out an opinion without numbers.
I like numbers.
Time to plant trees. Lots of trees.
You could cover the entire planet surface with trees and it still wouldn't be enough. It's time to start using technology to produce billions of machines that actively and permanently remove carbon from the air.
Okay. But until we have such machines, the most readily available carbon-sink, cost-effective and easily deployed with unskilled labour, is the tree.
OK, let's calculate. Here's a source talking about CO2 absorption by trees: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... , and here's a source saying "A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year and can sequester 1 ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old.": https://projects.ncsu.edu/proj...
This one says that trees absorb 40% of the 28 billion tons of carbon dioxide emitted per year: World's forests absorb almost 40 per cent of man made CO2
If we take just that last figure, it's easy: we need to increase the number of trees to 250% of the existing number: plant an additional 150% as many trees as already exist on Earth.
Google tells me that 30% of the Earth's land area is covered by trees ( ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/0... ), so the quick estimate is that we need to plant enough trees to change this to 75%.
I've heard a lot of right-leaning people complain about the New York Times. I haven't, however, seen any evidence that they aren't a good source of information.
Wasn't it the NYT who claimed it was their duty to do anything and everything, even lie, to keep Trump out of office? Yes, yes it was.
I notice the lack of any sort of citation on this purported fact, which is of course fake. Neither the NYT nor anyone associated with the NYT ever claimed any such thing.
Along with Forbes' advice on how to determine what is a credible news source, here's my rule on how to determine a fake news site: never believe purported "facts" stated by anonymous cowards. They lie. Not always, but mostly.
I assume that this comment was intended to be somewhere between irony and trolling, in fact, I think it was probably intended to be simultaneously ironic and trolling.
The actual philosophy of fascism is not well understood in America any more. No, a fascist system would not "shut down" Facebook for creepy behavior: in fascism, corporations are powerful, but they work for the state. In a fascist system, Facebook would be even more powerful, even more creepy, and would work for the state.
Wait, what? Someone (anonymous) with no self-identification whatsoever complains about NYT and you somehow lump that person with millennials and proceeds to bash the entire group.
Yep. Boomers don't whine about getting free content-- they grew up with paying for news subscriptions, and still consider it a win to get it free. And post-Millennials don't post to slashdot-- they're all glued to Facebook and Instagram and Twitter; why would they read a boring text-only site like this?
So, millennial, QED.
I saw this article go up, but there wasn't a link to the actual article in the summary - so I did a quick search and put in the link as a comment.
Thanks.
I've heard a lot of right-leaning people complain about the New York Times. I haven't, however, seen any evidence that they aren't a good source of information.
Have we already forgotten about the embarrassing Jayson Blair incident?
The number one item on my list of what constitutes a credible news source is, do they publish error corrections?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/11/us/correcting-the-record-times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception.html
Or, to quote the Forbes article on Where You Find Real Facts Rather Than Alternative Facts:
"If a reporter gets facts in a story wrong, will the news outlet investigate a complaint and publish a correction? Does the publication have its own code of ethics? Or does it subscribe to and endorse the Society of Professional Journalist’s code of ethics? And if a reporter or editor seriously violates ethical codes – such as being a blatant or serial plagiarizer, fabulist or exaggerator – will they be fired at a given news outlet? While some may criticize mainstream media outlets for a variety of sins, top outlets such as the Washington Post, the New York Times, NBC News and the New Republic have fired journalists for such ethics violations. That is remarkable in a world where some celebrities, politicians and other realms of media (other than news such as Hollywood films “based on a true story”) can spread falsehood with impunity."
We need more doctor's in this country. Surely we can get some liberal arts majors through a doctor bootcamp, right? Three weeks and you should be ready to perform open heart surgery.
In fact, probably yes. A MD degree gives you a comprehensive education in all of medicine. If, on the other hand, we had decided to train people in narrow specialities, yes, you probably could train a person to be expert on a single type of surgery in a twelve week bootcamp. It would mean training technicians, not scientists: people who know how to do the physical skills, but not necessarily know the etiology of the disease.
Would be a different approach to medicine.
(you said "three weeks," but the average coding bootcamp is 12 weeks).
Intensive courses sound good, but once the "graduates" get out, they discover that they will be competing with people who have been obsessed with computers since the age of ten; people who would rather code than eat.
Don't link to the NYT fucker. Aside from being a leftist piece of trash,
I've heard a lot of right-leaning people complain about the New York Times. I haven't, however, seen any evidence that they aren't a good source of information.
they limit the number of articles they allow you to see each month.
It's bad enough that millennial assholes think that it's a crime if everything on the internet is not free, free, free. Reporters shouldn't be paid, they should work for the love of it. (and for the "exposure").
But now, when the New York Times actually is giving away their content for free, the millennial assholes are complaining that they are not getting enough content for free.
The parent post was ironic: the headline says "Spying on Intel Partners," but in this case, the word "Intel" is headline-ese for "Intelligence partners"-- it has nothing to do with Intel, the corporation that makes computer chips.
If you'd read the subject of the comment, that would have been clear.
Whoosh!
actually when allegations of harassment come up in a traditional project, that person is either fired or sent for some stupid HR training...
Except, as far as I can tell from the article, there weren't any "allegations of harassment": he didn't harass anybody. He tweeted a link to an article-- this article. He did not harass anybody.
The article isn't even one about "Men's rights advocacy" ("MRA")-- what he tweeted was a link to an article presenting the case that codes of conduct which suppress free speech discriminate against people with Asperger's syndrome, because these people have problems understanding what other people might thing would be offensive (the article was about "neurodiverse" people in general, but primarily focussed on Aspergers (which the article calls "Aspies").)
I somewhat wonder about the level of meta here. A person is accused of violating speech guidelines by tweeting a link to an article about speech guidelines?
Absolutely! Solar cells virtually rain down upon us, we need only collect them each morning and *poof*, electricity!
There are, of course, a large number of solar panel manufacturers in India, and solar has supplied a significant amount of the electrical growth in India. I'm not sure if you're clueless, or just pretending to be clueless.
You might start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
and then try http://www.greenworldinvestor.... http://www.wlivenews.com/top-1... https://www.bijlibachao.com/so...
Imagine having to manufacture them, the odd chemicals, by-products and waste, and the rare earths etc used for interconnects and circuitry to control them. THAT would be a monumental environmental disaster.
There have been a large number of people recently claiming that solar panel manufacture is an environmental nightmare, but as far as I can tell, none of these actually know anything about solar panel manufacture.
A good way to tell who is clueless and who isn't is to see whether they're claiming solar panels use rare earth metals. (They don't.)
Half a bonus point for at least saying that it's the "interconnects and circuitry to control them" that use rare earths. These don't either, but at least you have enough of a clue to know that solar panels don't use rare earths, so you know enough to be flailing around.
How are climate change activists preventing Indians from accessing cheap energy?
They aren't, of course. Cheap energy in rural India is now being addressed by low cost solar arrays, which is something climate change activists like.
This isn't actually a result of climate change activism, but in fact a result of an earlier crisis: the current generation of low-cost solar panels is a direct result of the Low Cost Solar Array project, originally started in response to the 1970s Energy Crisis (actually an oil crisis).
If you fix the issue of 25% of Indians not have electricity, you've just increased global warming a few more degrees by making them contributors.
Unless you fix it with renewables, in which case they will contribute less because right now they're burning anything they can lay hands on.
Absolutely.
The pollution levels in central India are absolutely appalling, and they are appalling precisely because the people are so poor
Why talk about how horrible the end of the century is going to be in Asia climate-wise while we still cannot predict the weather for the weekend?
It turns out to be much easier to predict the average temperature over a large area for a long term than the instantaneous temperature at a single location at a single time.
I can tell you the average height of American males with pretty good confidence (177 cm)-- but I can only guess how tall you are, and with a very high error.