All news is biased. If you find one that seems unbiased, it means you've found one whose bias agrees with yours, and you're in danger of being in a cognitive cluster and not learning things. Once you understand the bias, you can get value out of any good news source.
Now I just listen to audiobooks. Costs about the same per month.
I've borrowed them from the library. That's even cheaper. Of course, they don't have as good a selection as with dead-tree books, but there's lots worth listening to.
NP isn't non-polynomial. It's nondeterministic polynomial. That means that, if we could essentially duplicate the computer at every decision point, we could find the solution in polynomial time. It's more intuitive to say that an NP-complete problem is one where we can verify a proposed solution in polynomial time.
"all the time in the Universe" isn't infinite (well, "all the time in the Universe until it reaches the Big Crunch/Big Rip/heat death/proton decay" is finite), and "u can divide it infinitely" is false, according to quantum mechanics. Every computation needs a certain minimum amount of energy, and the amount of extractible energy in the Universe is finite.
Personally, I take "can't be brute-forced with an ideal quantum computer by a Kardashev Type II civilization" as adequate security for ciphers, which means I consider AES-256 impossible to brute-force. (Kardashev types: I - uses energy equivalent to all the solar radiation that hits the planet; II- uses energy equivalent to the output of its star; III - uses total energy of a galaxy.)
Correction: it may not be a practical result. If P=NP, it's possible that NP problems become tractable. I don't know what the solution would be if it existed, but since it's evaded us all this time it will be unexpected.
then it is likely that method only works on that particular type of NP problems and not all of them.
Nope. All NP-complete problems are equivalent, in the sense that a solution to one of them in polynomial time leads to solutions for all of them in polynomial time. An NP-complete problem is a problem in NP that, if solved in polynomial time, means that P=NP.
There is no law of cause and effect. On the quantum level, things just happen. All we can do is predict probabilities. If a photon is polarized up-down, the chance that the photon, on being polarized left-right, will be left is 50%, and we know that there are no features of the photon that make it go left.
Moreover, barring an infinite regress, and assuming causality holds, there has to be a first cause, and we establish nothing by giving it a special name. If I ask "How did the Universe come to be?" and you reply "God did it.", I can ask "How did God come to be?" and we're at the same exact logical place. If you have independent reasons to believe in God, then saying "God created the Universe." is reasonable, but if not you're just playing with words.
Einstein did make contributions to quantum mechanics (after his work on Brownian motion and the photoelectric effect). He thought it wrong, and came up with very good reasons to justify what he was saying. (He was an Einstein, after all.) In doing so, he forced physicists to come up with solid reasons why Einstein was wrong.
Humans (or, more generally "people", by which I mean creatures capable of the open-ended creation of knowledge through abstract reasoning and the conjecture and criticism of explanations) are the most significant objects in the universe, and I say that from a rational and literal perspective, not a parochial anthropocentric one.
You wouldn't think that if you were a rock or a kangaroo. Reasonably intelligent animals consider their species to be the most significant thing in the world (they look longer at pictures of members of their species) and most of them aren't capable of that creation of knowledge.
Religions are, through natural selection, optimized to create belief. They are excellent at embedding themselves in people's minds. That doesn't mean they're helpful or good for anything. A virus might be excellent at embedding itself in my body, but that doesn't mean it's good for me.
What's the difference between someone trying to convert me to a religion and someone trying to sell me something? Both are acting on what they perceive as their best interest, and both can be trying to help me.
Euclid's Elements is not generally used nowadays. It's hard to read and not really rigorous. (Book 1, Proposition 1 cannot be proven from the definitions, axioms, and postulates.) Much of what Euclid worked on is still valid.
Mathematics is different than science because things can be mathematically proven in a way that scientific things can't be. It's an exercise, not a faith. The main difference between mathematics and religion is that things can be proven in mathematics, but have to be taken on faith in religion. If I prove a result in mathematics, it's proven and accepted. If I disagree with a religion, there's no reliable way to convince anyone else.
The practice of science contains a few basic principles. Learn things. Build theories. Try to falsify theories by all sorts of means. It's like constructing something and having everyone else try to break it. If it's still there, you can reasonably assume it's mostly valid/unbreakable.
There's a difference between faith in a system you're supposed to accept on faith, and faith in a system you can verify and/or affect.
A social system can be debated and changed. There are things society accepts that society didn't when I was young. Religion changes more slowly, if at all.
Both Nazi Germany and militarist Japan outpaced China and the Soviet Union in murders. The difference in totals is because we stopped Japan and Germany. Any shortage of megamurders by Japan and Germany wasn't for lack of trying.
Amazon advertised the glasses as good, and sent bad glasses. That's a false claim. Amazon doesn't have to verify everything, but they have to make sure that what they ship is what they claimed to ship, and instead of genuine APO glasses they sent counterfeits. Had they sent the APO glasses they were supposed to, the liability would be with APO.
There's no reason to think APO made or sold defective glasses. The claim is that Amazon sent defective glasses without proper notification.
For filing, the plaintiffs don't need to establish anything. Obviously, they'll have to back up their claims at some point, or the case will be thrown out.
When I deal with Amazon over the net, I use a web browser and get immediate feedback. An email isn't comparable. If this is Amazon's fault, Amazon bears the legal burden of notification, and the courts may find that email isn't enough. There's no guarantee an email will get through. If you need to inform someone legally, send certified mail with a return receipt through the Post Office. (I've found that that's often the best thing to start with, since some companies ignore regular mail, since they can complain in court that they didn't get it.
So, you knew full well that the left-right wing distinction we are making now is completely different from the one that is "centuries old", but you misrepresented it as being "that kind of centuries-old distinction" anyway.
It has evolved. The right wing, in those days, was for conservativism, which included monarchy for the most part, since that was part of the established order. Currently, there are relatively few monarchs, and most of them have little actual power. Currently, the right wing favors democracy along with suppressing votes of "those people".
Right-wing people don't in general want small government. They want government to be less intrusive in the economy and more intrusive on individual choices. They want to spend more money on the military and the criminal justice system. Many of them want the government to enforce what their particular religion wants.
It's ironic that you would accuse the left of massive deficit spending, when at least since 1980 the right wing has been the party of deficits. Clinton very nearly balanced the budget (using smoke and mirrors, of course, but Republicans run up horrifying deficits even with that). Obama brought the deficit down by a trillion dollars. It's asinine that you would accuse the left of favoring military build-ups. It's stupid to take Mussolini at his word.
Again, you're mixing meanings of Socialism. The original economic model was worker ownership, direct or indirect, of the means of production. We all know how that turned out, including Leftists, and we don't want it happening again. The modern meaning of Socialism is that the government takes care of the citizen. It's commonly used to describe some Western European countries. The old meaning is of historical interest only. I don't know of any significant country that's old-fashioned Socialist any more: most ex-Communist countries have renounced communism, although China still keeps the name around for whatever reason.
What modern Socialists or US Leftists (Sanders is roughly Centrist by European standards) want is more like equal opportunity for all, including strong laws protecting workers, universal health care not to be denied on the basis of personal wealth, high-quality education available to all, and provisions for the unemployed. We want government control of infrastructure, which is already common. Notice that this promotes free enterprise in some ways: it's possible for someone to leave employment without losing health care, and it's possible for someone to live on some form of welfare while writing or designing something. J.K. Rowling got the time to write the Harry Potter novels by going on the dole. Many leftists want restrictions on hate speech, but I (and many others) consider that to be going too far. You will also notice that this is not telling businesses what they have to do, but rather, putting restrictions on how they can do it. This is not a restriction on free enterprise, but rather another cost of doing business (to be at least partly compensated for by removing the need for businesses to provide health insurance to their employees, and by providing a healthier and better-educated workforce).
If you want to criticize us on the above, feel free.
The different treatment by race you complain of is a reaction to racial and sexual inequalities that already exist. To a Nazi, the Aryan "race" would be superior always, and a black person barely human if that. To a leftist, separate treatment is necessary because there already is separate treatment in practice. Black Lives Matter exists because of cases where police officers murdered blacks and weren't punished by the court system. Take that away, and BLM fades, it's job done. (I can't guarantee that the movement wouldn't be taken over for something else if the original protesters decided they'd won and went home, of course.) As far as native people go, have you looked into what goes on on reservations? There's a long way to go to bring reservation life up to current standards.
In some respects, left-wing attitudes are closer to libertarian. We'd like to avoid laws complicating who can use what rest room, and just let trans people be. We like that same-sex couples can marry. To the extent that this has religious meaning, it's because marriage is deeply embedded both into religion and law, and in general we'd like to separate that out. (Fascism, BTW, normally aligns itself with the dominant religion. National Socialism was the exception here, since the fascist movements in Italy, Spain, and France were tied to Catholicism.) The problems here come when people avoid the "treat them like people" principle and insist on their own prejudices being codified. We generally dislike laws about drugs or forbidding medical procedures. Fascists, in general, want all of this regulated.
Could the defendant have continued the case? I'm not that familiar with the mechanics of US civil lawsuits. The biggest threat Kaspersky seemed to have was to force discovery, getting information that the troll didn't want getting out.
You're complaining about the current practice of software patents. That could be fixed. GGP was calling software patents immoral and said they should not exist in any form.
Most people get fiber because they want something, like movies or web surfing or something like that. The physical infrastructure is just something they pay for to get the good stuff.
Somebody on/. once said that they don't trust their cashiers to be honest and ring everything up properly, and that's why they want to inspect your personal property as you leave the store.
Slashdot Mirror
All news is biased. If you find one that seems unbiased, it means you've found one whose bias agrees with yours, and you're in danger of being in a cognitive cluster and not learning things. Once you understand the bias, you can get value out of any good news source.
I've borrowed them from the library. That's even cheaper. Of course, they don't have as good a selection as with dead-tree books, but there's lots worth listening to.
NP isn't non-polynomial. It's nondeterministic polynomial. That means that, if we could essentially duplicate the computer at every decision point, we could find the solution in polynomial time. It's more intuitive to say that an NP-complete problem is one where we can verify a proposed solution in polynomial time.
"all the time in the Universe" isn't infinite (well, "all the time in the Universe until it reaches the Big Crunch/Big Rip/heat death/proton decay" is finite), and "u can divide it infinitely" is false, according to quantum mechanics. Every computation needs a certain minimum amount of energy, and the amount of extractible energy in the Universe is finite.
Personally, I take "can't be brute-forced with an ideal quantum computer by a Kardashev Type II civilization" as adequate security for ciphers, which means I consider AES-256 impossible to brute-force. (Kardashev types: I - uses energy equivalent to all the solar radiation that hits the planet; II- uses energy equivalent to the output of its star; III - uses total energy of a galaxy.)
Correction: it may not be a practical result. If P=NP, it's possible that NP problems become tractable. I don't know what the solution would be if it existed, but since it's evaded us all this time it will be unexpected.
Nope. All NP-complete problems are equivalent, in the sense that a solution to one of them in polynomial time leads to solutions for all of them in polynomial time. An NP-complete problem is a problem in NP that, if solved in polynomial time, means that P=NP.
There is no law of cause and effect. On the quantum level, things just happen. All we can do is predict probabilities. If a photon is polarized up-down, the chance that the photon, on being polarized left-right, will be left is 50%, and we know that there are no features of the photon that make it go left.
Moreover, barring an infinite regress, and assuming causality holds, there has to be a first cause, and we establish nothing by giving it a special name. If I ask "How did the Universe come to be?" and you reply "God did it.", I can ask "How did God come to be?" and we're at the same exact logical place. If you have independent reasons to believe in God, then saying "God created the Universe." is reasonable, but if not you're just playing with words.
Einstein did make contributions to quantum mechanics (after his work on Brownian motion and the photoelectric effect). He thought it wrong, and came up with very good reasons to justify what he was saying. (He was an Einstein, after all.) In doing so, he forced physicists to come up with solid reasons why Einstein was wrong.
You wouldn't think that if you were a rock or a kangaroo. Reasonably intelligent animals consider their species to be the most significant thing in the world (they look longer at pictures of members of their species) and most of them aren't capable of that creation of knowledge.
Does this really happen? There are people who are interested in science and treat it as a kind of religion, but actual scientists?
Religions are, through natural selection, optimized to create belief. They are excellent at embedding themselves in people's minds. That doesn't mean they're helpful or good for anything. A virus might be excellent at embedding itself in my body, but that doesn't mean it's good for me.
What's the difference between someone trying to convert me to a religion and someone trying to sell me something? Both are acting on what they perceive as their best interest, and both can be trying to help me.
Euclid's Elements is not generally used nowadays. It's hard to read and not really rigorous. (Book 1, Proposition 1 cannot be proven from the definitions, axioms, and postulates.) Much of what Euclid worked on is still valid.
Mathematics is different than science because things can be mathematically proven in a way that scientific things can't be. It's an exercise, not a faith. The main difference between mathematics and religion is that things can be proven in mathematics, but have to be taken on faith in religion. If I prove a result in mathematics, it's proven and accepted. If I disagree with a religion, there's no reliable way to convince anyone else.
The practice of science contains a few basic principles. Learn things. Build theories. Try to falsify theories by all sorts of means. It's like constructing something and having everyone else try to break it. If it's still there, you can reasonably assume it's mostly valid/unbreakable.
There's a difference between faith in a system you're supposed to accept on faith, and faith in a system you can verify and/or affect.
A social system can be debated and changed. There are things society accepts that society didn't when I was young. Religion changes more slowly, if at all.
Look, read Leviticus. It's full of moral strictures that have no relation to reality.
Both Nazi Germany and militarist Japan outpaced China and the Soviet Union in murders. The difference in totals is because we stopped Japan and Germany. Any shortage of megamurders by Japan and Germany wasn't for lack of trying.
Militarist Japan was also religious.
Amazon advertised the glasses as good, and sent bad glasses. That's a false claim. Amazon doesn't have to verify everything, but they have to make sure that what they ship is what they claimed to ship, and instead of genuine APO glasses they sent counterfeits. Had they sent the APO glasses they were supposed to, the liability would be with APO.
There's no reason to think APO made or sold defective glasses. The claim is that Amazon sent defective glasses without proper notification.
For filing, the plaintiffs don't need to establish anything. Obviously, they'll have to back up their claims at some point, or the case will be thrown out.
When I deal with Amazon over the net, I use a web browser and get immediate feedback. An email isn't comparable. If this is Amazon's fault, Amazon bears the legal burden of notification, and the courts may find that email isn't enough. There's no guarantee an email will get through. If you need to inform someone legally, send certified mail with a return receipt through the Post Office. (I've found that that's often the best thing to start with, since some companies ignore regular mail, since they can complain in court that they didn't get it.
By that time, it may be too late.
It has evolved. The right wing, in those days, was for conservativism, which included monarchy for the most part, since that was part of the established order. Currently, there are relatively few monarchs, and most of them have little actual power. Currently, the right wing favors democracy along with suppressing votes of "those people".
Right-wing people don't in general want small government. They want government to be less intrusive in the economy and more intrusive on individual choices. They want to spend more money on the military and the criminal justice system. Many of them want the government to enforce what their particular religion wants.
It's ironic that you would accuse the left of massive deficit spending, when at least since 1980 the right wing has been the party of deficits. Clinton very nearly balanced the budget (using smoke and mirrors, of course, but Republicans run up horrifying deficits even with that). Obama brought the deficit down by a trillion dollars. It's asinine that you would accuse the left of favoring military build-ups. It's stupid to take Mussolini at his word.
Again, you're mixing meanings of Socialism. The original economic model was worker ownership, direct or indirect, of the means of production. We all know how that turned out, including Leftists, and we don't want it happening again. The modern meaning of Socialism is that the government takes care of the citizen. It's commonly used to describe some Western European countries. The old meaning is of historical interest only. I don't know of any significant country that's old-fashioned Socialist any more: most ex-Communist countries have renounced communism, although China still keeps the name around for whatever reason.
What modern Socialists or US Leftists (Sanders is roughly Centrist by European standards) want is more like equal opportunity for all, including strong laws protecting workers, universal health care not to be denied on the basis of personal wealth, high-quality education available to all, and provisions for the unemployed. We want government control of infrastructure, which is already common. Notice that this promotes free enterprise in some ways: it's possible for someone to leave employment without losing health care, and it's possible for someone to live on some form of welfare while writing or designing something. J.K. Rowling got the time to write the Harry Potter novels by going on the dole. Many leftists want restrictions on hate speech, but I (and many others) consider that to be going too far. You will also notice that this is not telling businesses what they have to do, but rather, putting restrictions on how they can do it. This is not a restriction on free enterprise, but rather another cost of doing business (to be at least partly compensated for by removing the need for businesses to provide health insurance to their employees, and by providing a healthier and better-educated workforce).
If you want to criticize us on the above, feel free.
The different treatment by race you complain of is a reaction to racial and sexual inequalities that already exist. To a Nazi, the Aryan "race" would be superior always, and a black person barely human if that. To a leftist, separate treatment is necessary because there already is separate treatment in practice. Black Lives Matter exists because of cases where police officers murdered blacks and weren't punished by the court system. Take that away, and BLM fades, it's job done. (I can't guarantee that the movement wouldn't be taken over for something else if the original protesters decided they'd won and went home, of course.) As far as native people go, have you looked into what goes on on reservations? There's a long way to go to bring reservation life up to current standards.
In some respects, left-wing attitudes are closer to libertarian. We'd like to avoid laws complicating who can use what rest room, and just let trans people be. We like that same-sex couples can marry. To the extent that this has religious meaning, it's because marriage is deeply embedded both into religion and law, and in general we'd like to separate that out. (Fascism, BTW, normally aligns itself with the dominant religion. National Socialism was the exception here, since the fascist movements in Italy, Spain, and France were tied to Catholicism.) The problems here come when people avoid the "treat them like people" principle and insist on their own prejudices being codified. We generally dislike laws about drugs or forbidding medical procedures. Fascists, in general, want all of this regulated.
Could the defendant have continued the case? I'm not that familiar with the mechanics of US civil lawsuits. The biggest threat Kaspersky seemed to have was to force discovery, getting information that the troll didn't want getting out.
You're complaining about the current practice of software patents. That could be fixed. GGP was calling software patents immoral and said they should not exist in any form.
Strict sex roles aren't going to help anything, as opposed to just picking the best human for each job. Discipline can get things done.
Most people get fiber because they want something, like movies or web surfing or something like that. The physical infrastructure is just something they pay for to get the good stuff.
Somebody on /. once said that they don't trust their cashiers to be honest and ring everything up properly, and that's why they want to inspect your personal property as you leave the store.