That is based upon our current understanding of NP-complete problems we are still operating under the assumption that all NP-complete problems are fundamentally the same where as we may find that a set problem such as the knapsack is not in the same class as the traveling salesman problem.
Think of it this way, to a large extent most computer scientists think that P != NP because a solution hasn't been found yet; however, prior to quick sort, computer scientists thought that O(n^2) was the fastest you could sort because the problem hadn't been understood properly yet.
Actually, a polynomial algorithm for an NP-complete problem will not prove that P=NP for all cases in and of itself - the algorithm might just prove it for that family of problems, or the existence might prove that the problem was not in fact NP complete.
Proving that a known NP complete problem has an algorithm that runs and polynomial time will likely be one of the cornerstones used to create a P = NP proof. Without having an existing algorithm that runs in polynomial time we are stuck with not knowing what route to take to find the proof, if it exists.
So we shouldn't spend time investigating something that may or may not pay off? Seems to me that "time + effort = results" - we will get something out of string theory, its just matter of what. Furthermore, if I recall correctly, we have greatly increased our understanding of higher dimensions due to string theory, so even if the theory itself ends up being another dead-end, we still got something out of it.
So find out who the 2% of the people are that are severely impacting everyone else and either cancel their subscription or degrade their service. The vast majority of people aren't downloading torrents 24/7 but are quite likely to check work email from home or download the occasional torrent or song from iTunes. If you aren't examining the content of the packets then you can't determine if they are legitimate uses or not (ex. WoW patches) and if you are examining the content of the packets then you are invading someones privacy.
I hate to say it - but odds are you aren't getting call backs because you are applying to entry level jobs. Start applying for mid and upper level jobs and odds are you will start getting call backs.
I would say start going back to college - if you are interested in Computer Science find a school that will give credit for life experience (you should be able to get most basic CS courses with a background in.NET/C#) and do what you have to do to finish a Bachelors degree. Or if you are not sure you want to keep doing IT then take some general courses and see if there is another field that you might be interested in.
Failing at anything, even if you don't finish the Bachelors and just take some classes you will get out of the rut of just work, meet some people, learn some things, and maybe even find something else that you would be interested in.
However, the philosophical answer to the question in part depends upon what parts of the brain can be replaced and what parts cannot. There may in fact be a "wall" that cannot be replaced, in terms of the human brain, and if you attempt to replace that "wall" then the individual is lost. So while you maybe be able to twiddle with some parts of the brain (i.e. senses) other parts of the brain might resist the same twiddling.
Yes, but one of the items addressed by Tinker v. Des Moines was if the conduct would create "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech." Or in other words, if the school can enforce something either isn't protected by the First Amendment, or would create a major distraction or disorder in the classroom which likely falls under the same principle of not being allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
Bulling someone online may create a distraction or disorder in the classroom, but that cannot be assumed by default because first you have to prove that the other person would have found the information - just because something is posted on "johndoesucks.com" doesn't mean that John Doe is ever going to visit that site. A better case could be made for infringing on the rights of other if the site contains libel, but you can bully someone just as well with the pure (but sensitive) truth as you can by making things up and the school can't act as a third party to enforce libel issues.
So now you are back to where you started with good intentions, but no real practical way of enforcing such an issue off campus - odds are the safer route for the school would be to just blanket cyberbullying under the misuse of school computers (i.e. accessing, or posting such material on school grounds) and leave it at that.
Depends on how the specification is written - it would make more sense to allow something like mars.com to resolve locally at the planetary level until you add on another qualifier like mars.com.mars or mars.com.earth to indicate which planetary URL you wish to resolve.
If this is more of a mental health issue than that could be the reason for the seeming double standard. While even the most irritated of people would generally simmer down a bit during the 1000 mile drive she managed to maintain focused on the objective. This is either a strong indication of someone that is firmly in the premeditated category (and thus would have been denied bail), or she more or less went off the deep end and still hasn't come back to her senses yet. It may be that she just broke under the pressure.
Disclaimer - I am not a lawyer.
Ok, that's fair in regards to the free users, but what about the paying users? If you were paying $XX a month or a year for a service and one of those services is a being about to use a non-Yahoo ID login, then wouldn't you be a bit annoyed when they change the rules on you?
Personally, I can see where a lot of the paying users are coming from - if you are paying for a service and they change the rules on you they should either give you a chance to get your money back or find a way to provide a compromise for the paying members.
A military ID isn't always accepted by the store - case and point, when I was living in San Antonio (major military city) I tried to show my military ID when I wrote a check and the declined it because it was "not an official ID issued by the government".
However, if those pages are not being indexed then theoretically it should be harder for "minors", which the COPA is intended to protect, to accidentally come across pornography. That's not to say that this is really the situation (it's not that hard to find it if you are looking for it), but it does indicate that a child who is not looking for it is more unlikely to find it.
So pretty much they just went and outlawed the internet, because, depending upon how you define it, the internet is nothing more than one large peer to peer network.
So who wants to make bets on how long it will take for this law to get repelled?
The suit, which claims Google acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public, requests monetary damages to be determined at trial.
However, there is no mention of who would be getting the money. So this makes me more inclined to think that it is not "for the children" but rather "for the money".
Concur, and further more there is a shortage of honor guard members available to do funeral details as well. Case and point - when Air Force veterans (anyone that has received an honorable discharge from the military is a veteran of their service) are buried at Ft. Sam Houston National Cemetery the military honors are provided by a team from either Lackland AFB, Randolph AFB, or Brooks City-Base. Even with the military population in San Antonio available there is a shortage of personnel that are willing (and able) to serve on the base honor guards. Furthermore, of those that are on the base honor guards only a small percentage can play the bugle (less than 1% for the region IIRC).
While an actual live bugler is consider optimal for the funeral details (and madetory for active duty funerals), the digital version is most commonly used due more to logistical reasons that laziness.
Slashdot Mirror
That is based upon our current understanding of NP-complete problems we are still operating under the assumption that all NP-complete problems are fundamentally the same where as we may find that a set problem such as the knapsack is not in the same class as the traveling salesman problem.
Think of it this way, to a large extent most computer scientists think that P != NP because a solution hasn't been found yet; however, prior to quick sort, computer scientists thought that O(n^2) was the fastest you could sort because the problem hadn't been understood properly yet.
Actually, a polynomial algorithm for an NP-complete problem will not prove that P=NP for all cases in and of itself - the algorithm might just prove it for that family of problems, or the existence might prove that the problem was not in fact NP complete.
Proving that a known NP complete problem has an algorithm that runs and polynomial time will likely be one of the cornerstones used to create a P = NP proof. Without having an existing algorithm that runs in polynomial time we are stuck with not knowing what route to take to find the proof, if it exists.
Not trying to troll here, but how is that determination made exactly?
Who says that entropy and chaos theory even have to apply when you are a the same level as strings in string theory?
So we shouldn't spend time investigating something that may or may not pay off? Seems to me that "time + effort = results" - we will get something out of string theory, its just matter of what. Furthermore, if I recall correctly, we have greatly increased our understanding of higher dimensions due to string theory, so even if the theory itself ends up being another dead-end, we still got something out of it.
So find out who the 2% of the people are that are severely impacting everyone else and either cancel their subscription or degrade their service. The vast majority of people aren't downloading torrents 24/7 but are quite likely to check work email from home or download the occasional torrent or song from iTunes. If you aren't examining the content of the packets then you can't determine if they are legitimate uses or not (ex. WoW patches) and if you are examining the content of the packets then you are invading someones privacy.
I hate to say it - but odds are you aren't getting call backs because you are applying to entry level jobs. Start applying for mid and upper level jobs and odds are you will start getting call backs.
I would say start going back to college - if you are interested in Computer Science find a school that will give credit for life experience (you should be able to get most basic CS courses with a background in .NET/C#) and do what you have to do to finish a Bachelors degree. Or if you are not sure you want to keep doing IT then take some general courses and see if there is another field that you might be interested in.
Failing at anything, even if you don't finish the Bachelors and just take some classes you will get out of the rut of just work, meet some people, learn some things, and maybe even find something else that you would be interested in.
However, the philosophical answer to the question in part depends upon what parts of the brain can be replaced and what parts cannot. There may in fact be a "wall" that cannot be replaced, in terms of the human brain, and if you attempt to replace that "wall" then the individual is lost. So while you maybe be able to twiddle with some parts of the brain (i.e. senses) other parts of the brain might resist the same twiddling.
Yes, but one of the items addressed by Tinker v. Des Moines was if the conduct would create "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech." Or in other words, if the school can enforce something either isn't protected by the First Amendment, or would create a major distraction or disorder in the classroom which likely falls under the same principle of not being allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
Bulling someone online may create a distraction or disorder in the classroom, but that cannot be assumed by default because first you have to prove that the other person would have found the information - just because something is posted on "johndoesucks.com" doesn't mean that John Doe is ever going to visit that site. A better case could be made for infringing on the rights of other if the site contains libel, but you can bully someone just as well with the pure (but sensitive) truth as you can by making things up and the school can't act as a third party to enforce libel issues.
So now you are back to where you started with good intentions, but no real practical way of enforcing such an issue off campus - odds are the safer route for the school would be to just blanket cyberbullying under the misuse of school computers (i.e. accessing, or posting such material on school grounds) and leave it at that.
Depends on how the specification is written - it would make more sense to allow something like mars.com to resolve locally at the planetary level until you add on another qualifier like mars.com.mars or mars.com.earth to indicate which planetary URL you wish to resolve.
If this is more of a mental health issue than that could be the reason for the seeming double standard. While even the most irritated of people would generally simmer down a bit during the 1000 mile drive she managed to maintain focused on the objective. This is either a strong indication of someone that is firmly in the premeditated category (and thus would have been denied bail), or she more or less went off the deep end and still hasn't come back to her senses yet. It may be that she just broke under the pressure. Disclaimer - I am not a lawyer.
Ok, that's fair in regards to the free users, but what about the paying users? If you were paying $XX a month or a year for a service and one of those services is a being about to use a non-Yahoo ID login, then wouldn't you be a bit annoyed when they change the rules on you? Personally, I can see where a lot of the paying users are coming from - if you are paying for a service and they change the rules on you they should either give you a chance to get your money back or find a way to provide a compromise for the paying members.
To be fair, you can make orange juice with an M-1 Abrahams, although the technique is a bit of overkill.
Or, they will come up behind you, ride your bumper and flash their high beams at you.
A military ID isn't always accepted by the store - case and point, when I was living in San Antonio (major military city) I tried to show my military ID when I wrote a check and the declined it because it was "not an official ID issued by the government".
Only $500 million? I thought souls were going for more than that nowadays.
However, if those pages are not being indexed then theoretically it should be harder for "minors", which the COPA is intended to protect, to accidentally come across pornography. That's not to say that this is really the situation (it's not that hard to find it if you are looking for it), but it does indicate that a child who is not looking for it is more unlikely to find it.
Logic like that doesn't apply when it comes to "saving the children"
So pretty much they just went and outlawed the internet, because, depending upon how you define it, the internet is nothing more than one large peer to peer network.
So who wants to make bets on how long it will take for this law to get repelled?
Seems to me that this means that search engines are not permited to link to the website. Guess they don't want anyone to know about them.
Most politicians don't pay attention in science class.
Unsurprisingly this line appears in the article:
The suit, which claims Google acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public, requests monetary damages to be determined at trial.
However, there is no mention of who would be getting the money. So this makes me more inclined to think that it is not "for the children" but rather "for the money".
Concur, and further more there is a shortage of honor guard members available to do funeral details as well. Case and point - when Air Force veterans (anyone that has received an honorable discharge from the military is a veteran of their service) are buried at Ft. Sam Houston National Cemetery the military honors are provided by a team from either Lackland AFB, Randolph AFB, or Brooks City-Base. Even with the military population in San Antonio available there is a shortage of personnel that are willing (and able) to serve on the base honor guards. Furthermore, of those that are on the base honor guards only a small percentage can play the bugle (less than 1% for the region IIRC).
While an actual live bugler is consider optimal for the funeral details (and madetory for active duty funerals), the digital version is most commonly used due more to logistical reasons that laziness.