You know, I've gone to Best Buy and gotten good help out of the salespeople. It's frightening. I have heart issues, and I don't need a shock like that.
That would require physically going into the building and waiting in line and talking to a real human - sometimes twice, as there are places that have had too many drive-offs and require payment in advance, then if you don't use all the money you need change. For what a gas discount would be on gas, I don't consider it worth it.
There's reasons why I don't often use Paypal to receive money and never leave money in my account. It would probably be easier to use it more and leave some there, just as it would probably be easier to give Paypal my banking information, but I don't trust them.
In what way do the doctors have too much power? They've got more knowledge and expertise than the rest of us, so they typically offer what treatments they think good, and the patient decides how to proceed among available options. You seem to think the options too limited, and seem to blame the doctors for not keeping obsolescent devices around.
In a few of Heinlein's juveniles, people have phones on them at pretty much all times. This wasn't a technical prediction. It was a prediction of what people would want, with an assumption that we'd figure out how to do it.
Any society with Earth-produced nonhuman intelligent, be it biological or silicon, will be an advanced civilization. It's reasonable to think that little things would be around.
There's a movie "Cast a Deadly Spell" with "Phil" Lovecraft as a private eye in a world where magic was developed in WWII and brought back. There's a few subtle scenes of what happens. In one, a man cups his hand around a cigarette and it lights In another, an out-of-focus railway porter walks along in the background with a train of suitcases following the one he's holding. It isn't exactly great cinema, but it got the casual throwaways right.
True, in the future we may not have anything recognizable as a smart phone, or comlink, or whatever. However, we aren't going backwards. Pay phones existed because people could not carry phones or the equivalent with them, and they're inferior to personal portable phones.
I haven't seen much in the way of signs of a "better idiot". What's happening is that life is getting more complicated, largely due to technical and economic issues, and people are less able to cope. It looks to me like the bar is getting raised.
The Serenity has crew that were defeated in a war, and is definitely on the outs with the government (until they find Shepherd Book on board, anyway - too bad they never followed up on that). Maybe the war was over racism.
To be a little more kind to GDW (who produced Traveller), a lot of that was supposed to be computer stations and the like. To be a little less kind, they'd released the game Triplanetary somewhat earlier, which had its warships using guns because beam or energy weapons were basically impossible.
In addition, the camera picks up stuff you don't want other people to see. If I'm on voice, it's harder to tell where I am. It's not possible to get a look at what I'm working on. It's not possible to tell the state of my housekeeping or my clothing.
I don't care about a more expensive and inconvenient thing if I have to do it every three years or so.
The purpose of the external battery is to plug in and continue operation, not to sit there and charge the battery. It's like my charger: if my phone's on it, I can use it. Any interruption of power would require a reboot, which would be annoying.
I'm not paying interest on my loan, so it's in my best financial interests to not pay any of it early. I could have bought this cash. If I lost my job, I'd be in no worse a position than if I'd paid a large down payment. The retirement savings I mentioned are a combination of IRA, Roth 401(k), regular 401(k), and general investments, and I could pull money out of the general investments with no complication.
As for reasons, I've been supplying them: differences in the way Nazi Germany did things compared either to contemporary socialism or the Soviet Union. So far, nobody's disagreed with them. I'm not inclined to rewrite and rewrite them.
The reasons you cite: (1) That meaning of "right wing" is almost completely useless today. It's now used for conservative and corporatist movements, which Fascism definitely is. (2) Fascist movements are nationalistic, mystical as opposed to materialistic, and frequently don't have a coherent philosophy. Socialism is internationalist, materialistic, and has coherent philosophies. In addition, while Mussolini and Hitler both dabbed in socialism, you haven't shown that the movements grew out of that. In Spain, Franco and the Nationalists were not and never were socialist. The same is true of fascist movements in other countries. (3) Traditional economic socialism has tried, and it has failed spectacularly, so what are now Socialists are concerned with the general welfare of the masses, which was not a concern (other than out of necessity) with Fascist governments. The people currently calling themselves Socialists are concerned with providing opportunity to all and social safety nets and the like, and have no quarrel with capitalism per se. They don't in general want to control private industry, but provide general restrictions. Fascists in general don't care about regulating industries, and typically keep big corporations happy.
Are you actually going to tell me that what Hitler said has any relation, other than tactical, to the truth? IIRC, the Strassers led the socialist wing of the National Socialist party. One was expelled from the Party in 1930, and the other killed in the Night of the Long Knives. That was the end of socialism in the National Socialist party. In keeping with his principles on propaganda as expressed in Mein Kampf, Hitler kept up the public pretense that the Nazis were in some way Socialist.
According to the original use, as you say, approximately everyone today is a leftist, including Republicans, the alt-right, and libertarians. The frames of reference changed to keep the distinction useful.
Mussolini was not a socialist. Fascist Italy was definitely capitalist. I interpret his change from Socialist to Fascist as him being an opportunistic revolutionary.
Stalin's "Socialism in one country" was a strategic move. Communism called for the Revolution to spread world-wide, and the Soviets were generally pushing that all along, including when Stalin was running things. It was a matter of putting building up the Soviet Union at a higher priority than spreading the Revolution elsewhere, not giving up on the plans to take over the world. "Socialism in one country" as a replacement for world revolution would have been a major ideology change.
I just checked Wikipedia and it seems you are correct. Do you know if there's a term for NP-hard problems that are not in NP but are (within the usual polynomial complexity) are the same as a problem that is in NP (and hence is NP-complete)?
TSP is defined on an arbitrary graph, and we can fill in connection costs as we please.
TSP is also defined as the lowest-cost way to visit each node once. It may be that A->C->B is less than A->B in the general case, but using that as a replacement means C cannot be used in any other order.
Interesting. However, unlike Go or checkers, chess doesn't scale up per se. There have been chess variants that used bigger boards, but they had new pieces.
Given a rule for scaling up chess, apparently (according to the stack exchange question you cited), it's PSPACE-hard, which isn't quite the same as EXPTIME-hard (I'm not offhand very familiar with the complexity hierarchy above NP, but you should be able to use exponential rather than polynomial space given exponential time.)
In Douglas Adam's "Long Dark Teatime of the Soul", one character had written a decision support system, which would take a decision and support it. Unfortunately, the US Armed Forces made it impossible for him to sell it to the public.
Look, everybody can take their shot at influencing public opinion, or the opinions of government officials. Think tanks do this by coming up with arguments. This is fine. Bribery is when an official gets something he or she values in exchange for influence or doing a particular thing, not when an official gets convinced that something is the right thing to do, or that the official's constituents want it.
On the frightening premise that you may be serious:
Of COURSE they're looking for errors. That's what mathematicians do. If they see a complicated proof, they look for possible errors, because otherwise it's easy to miss them. It has nothing to do with refusing to believe.
If you can dig up a copy of Euclid, look at the very first proof, Proposition 1 of Book 1. If you just look at it, it looks convincing. If you are looking for errors, you are likely to find the error. If you just accept the proof as valid because it looks valid, you're wrong. Look for weak spots. Try counterexamples.
Errors aren't necessarily fatal to the overall idea of a proof. If one derivation or assumption in a proof is invalid, it might well be possible to find an alternative to the erroneous part. This happens, and when the errors have been fixed (if fixable) the proof is valid.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I've gone to Best Buy and gotten good help out of the salespeople. It's frightening. I have heart issues, and I don't need a shock like that.
At the store, if it's in stock I can buy it today. If I ordered it online, it would take a day or two. Sometimes that's significant.
I had credit cards with annual fees once. I called up on some cards, and got the fee removed, and the others I cancelled.
That would require physically going into the building and waiting in line and talking to a real human - sometimes twice, as there are places that have had too many drive-offs and require payment in advance, then if you don't use all the money you need change. For what a gas discount would be on gas, I don't consider it worth it.
The downside is if you don't get your payment to them on time every month. I had a stroke once and missed one.
There's reasons why I don't often use Paypal to receive money and never leave money in my account. It would probably be easier to use it more and leave some there, just as it would probably be easier to give Paypal my banking information, but I don't trust them.
In what way do the doctors have too much power? They've got more knowledge and expertise than the rest of us, so they typically offer what treatments they think good, and the patient decides how to proceed among available options. You seem to think the options too limited, and seem to blame the doctors for not keeping obsolescent devices around.
Last I heard, defibrillators restarted the heart on a new cycle.
In a few of Heinlein's juveniles, people have phones on them at pretty much all times. This wasn't a technical prediction. It was a prediction of what people would want, with an assumption that we'd figure out how to do it.
Any society with Earth-produced nonhuman intelligent, be it biological or silicon, will be an advanced civilization. It's reasonable to think that little things would be around.
There's a movie "Cast a Deadly Spell" with "Phil" Lovecraft as a private eye in a world where magic was developed in WWII and brought back. There's a few subtle scenes of what happens. In one, a man cups his hand around a cigarette and it lights In another, an out-of-focus railway porter walks along in the background with a train of suitcases following the one he's holding. It isn't exactly great cinema, but it got the casual throwaways right.
True, in the future we may not have anything recognizable as a smart phone, or comlink, or whatever. However, we aren't going backwards. Pay phones existed because people could not carry phones or the equivalent with them, and they're inferior to personal portable phones.
I haven't seen much in the way of signs of a "better idiot". What's happening is that life is getting more complicated, largely due to technical and economic issues, and people are less able to cope. It looks to me like the bar is getting raised.
The Serenity has crew that were defeated in a war, and is definitely on the outs with the government (until they find Shepherd Book on board, anyway - too bad they never followed up on that). Maybe the war was over racism.
To be a little more kind to GDW (who produced Traveller), a lot of that was supposed to be computer stations and the like. To be a little less kind, they'd released the game Triplanetary somewhat earlier, which had its warships using guns because beam or energy weapons were basically impossible.
In addition, the camera picks up stuff you don't want other people to see. If I'm on voice, it's harder to tell where I am. It's not possible to get a look at what I'm working on. It's not possible to tell the state of my housekeeping or my clothing.
I don't care about a more expensive and inconvenient thing if I have to do it every three years or so.
The purpose of the external battery is to plug in and continue operation, not to sit there and charge the battery. It's like my charger: if my phone's on it, I can use it. Any interruption of power would require a reboot, which would be annoying.
I'm not paying interest on my loan, so it's in my best financial interests to not pay any of it early. I could have bought this cash. If I lost my job, I'd be in no worse a position than if I'd paid a large down payment. The retirement savings I mentioned are a combination of IRA, Roth 401(k), regular 401(k), and general investments, and I could pull money out of the general investments with no complication.
As for reasons, I've been supplying them: differences in the way Nazi Germany did things compared either to contemporary socialism or the Soviet Union. So far, nobody's disagreed with them. I'm not inclined to rewrite and rewrite them.
The reasons you cite: (1) That meaning of "right wing" is almost completely useless today. It's now used for conservative and corporatist movements, which Fascism definitely is. (2) Fascist movements are nationalistic, mystical as opposed to materialistic, and frequently don't have a coherent philosophy. Socialism is internationalist, materialistic, and has coherent philosophies. In addition, while Mussolini and Hitler both dabbed in socialism, you haven't shown that the movements grew out of that. In Spain, Franco and the Nationalists were not and never were socialist. The same is true of fascist movements in other countries. (3) Traditional economic socialism has tried, and it has failed spectacularly, so what are now Socialists are concerned with the general welfare of the masses, which was not a concern (other than out of necessity) with Fascist governments. The people currently calling themselves Socialists are concerned with providing opportunity to all and social safety nets and the like, and have no quarrel with capitalism per se. They don't in general want to control private industry, but provide general restrictions. Fascists in general don't care about regulating industries, and typically keep big corporations happy.
Are you actually going to tell me that what Hitler said has any relation, other than tactical, to the truth? IIRC, the Strassers led the socialist wing of the National Socialist party. One was expelled from the Party in 1930, and the other killed in the Night of the Long Knives. That was the end of socialism in the National Socialist party. In keeping with his principles on propaganda as expressed in Mein Kampf, Hitler kept up the public pretense that the Nazis were in some way Socialist.
According to the original use, as you say, approximately everyone today is a leftist, including Republicans, the alt-right, and libertarians. The frames of reference changed to keep the distinction useful.
Mussolini was not a socialist. Fascist Italy was definitely capitalist. I interpret his change from Socialist to Fascist as him being an opportunistic revolutionary.
Stalin's "Socialism in one country" was a strategic move. Communism called for the Revolution to spread world-wide, and the Soviets were generally pushing that all along, including when Stalin was running things. It was a matter of putting building up the Soviet Union at a higher priority than spreading the Revolution elsewhere, not giving up on the plans to take over the world. "Socialism in one country" as a replacement for world revolution would have been a major ideology change.
I just checked Wikipedia and it seems you are correct. Do you know if there's a term for NP-hard problems that are not in NP but are (within the usual polynomial complexity) are the same as a problem that is in NP (and hence is NP-complete)?
TSP is defined on an arbitrary graph, and we can fill in connection costs as we please.
TSP is also defined as the lowest-cost way to visit each node once. It may be that A->C->B is less than A->B in the general case, but using that as a replacement means C cannot be used in any other order.
Interesting. However, unlike Go or checkers, chess doesn't scale up per se. There have been chess variants that used bigger boards, but they had new pieces.
Given a rule for scaling up chess, apparently (according to the stack exchange question you cited), it's PSPACE-hard, which isn't quite the same as EXPTIME-hard (I'm not offhand very familiar with the complexity hierarchy above NP, but you should be able to use exponential rather than polynomial space given exponential time.)
In Douglas Adam's "Long Dark Teatime of the Soul", one character had written a decision support system, which would take a decision and support it. Unfortunately, the US Armed Forces made it impossible for him to sell it to the public.
You know, that's very valuable information. Now I know which one to expect to be Google-influenced.
Look, everybody can take their shot at influencing public opinion, or the opinions of government officials. Think tanks do this by coming up with arguments. This is fine. Bribery is when an official gets something he or she values in exchange for influence or doing a particular thing, not when an official gets convinced that something is the right thing to do, or that the official's constituents want it.
On the frightening premise that you may be serious:
Of COURSE they're looking for errors. That's what mathematicians do. If they see a complicated proof, they look for possible errors, because otherwise it's easy to miss them. It has nothing to do with refusing to believe.
If you can dig up a copy of Euclid, look at the very first proof, Proposition 1 of Book 1. If you just look at it, it looks convincing. If you are looking for errors, you are likely to find the error. If you just accept the proof as valid because it looks valid, you're wrong. Look for weak spots. Try counterexamples.
Errors aren't necessarily fatal to the overall idea of a proof. If one derivation or assumption in a proof is invalid, it might well be possible to find an alternative to the erroneous part. This happens, and when the errors have been fixed (if fixable) the proof is valid.