I have in a few cases wrote small PS programs so my "program generated" figures would look good in a paper. I have not been able to determine I am can duplicate this task in PDF (w/out first creating a PS file). Is it possible?
I frequently install software that requires the latest kernel/libs. Like most people, I really don't care if I'm "on the cutting edge" -- I have real work to get done.
I find OS software bugs to be found and eradicated much quicker than comercial software (in many critical cases anyway).
The weakness of OSS, which is also its strength, is its dynamic nature. You constantly need new library versions or new kernel versions. Only geeks like to keep building new kernels to keep up -- this doesn't fly in the mainstream.
Actually, even if the exponent is large, it gives
us hope. I think you fail to see the difference
between exponential functions and large degree
polynomials. Given many processors, we can break
an O(x^n) into an O(x^k) problem where k n.
Parallel programming doesn't really help at
all for exponential problems.
In a nutshell, using many parallel processors,
we can lesson the degree of O(x^n) algos.
No hope of this for O(2^x) algos.
--wayne
Re:Implications to Cryptography
on
Does P = NP?
·
· Score: 1
Even if the exponent is quite large but fixed, there is always the hope of throwing more
hardware at the problem. If the problem
is in exponontial-time, then all hope is gone.
Re:NP-hard/NP-complete
on
Does P = NP?
·
· Score: 1
The only difference is that an NP-complete
problem is in NP -- NP-hard problems might
not be. If you can solve an NP-hard problem
in P-time that is a good enough proof to show
that P=NP (it's actually a stronger proof).
BTW, this is not boring. This has serious
implications (e.g. in cryptography). I figured
someone at the NSA has already proved either
P NP or P = NP. Probably the only way P=NP
is if the degree of the companion
polynomial time solutions are of high degree.
In early years of AI we thought natural language processing would be solved by now. The problem is that it turns out to be a really really really hard problem that may never be solved in its full general glory. The idea of talking to your computer the same way you talk to your mother and having it understand what your saying is a long long way off.
Does this mean voice recognition is not usefull? -- no. Just don't expect a Star Trek interface to the computer.
I would hate to build anything on top of Gnome. I have used gnome in the past from time to time, but eventually something always happens that places Gnome in some wacked state from whence I can never return. Gnome resembles an M$ product -- sex appeal sans stability.
Have you ever heard of a bank doing business on Sunday? Actually I closed my account because I moved. I still find it comical that a notice that was meant to ease my fears (I don't really have many) about y2k couldn't get the dates right on the notice.
Slashdot Mirror
I have in a few cases wrote small PS programs
so my "program generated" figures would look
good in a paper. I have not been able to determine
I am can duplicate this task in PDF (w/out first
creating a PS file). Is it possible?
I frequently install software that requires
the latest kernel/libs. Like most people, I really
don't care if I'm "on the cutting edge" -- I have
real work to get done.
I find OS software bugs to be found and eradicated
much quicker than comercial software (in many
critical cases anyway).
The weakness of OSS, which is also its strength,
is its dynamic nature. You constantly need new
library versions or new kernel versions. Only geeks
like to keep building new kernels to keep up -- this
doesn't fly in the mainstream.
Must be an older version than the binary
that ships w/ 10.2.
% uname -a
Darwin *.*.*.* 6.1 Darwin Kernel Version 6.1: Fri Sep 6 23:24:34 PDT 2002; root:xnu/xnu-344.2.obj~2/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc
Actually, even if the exponent is large, it gives
us hope. I think you fail to see the difference
between exponential functions and large degree
polynomials. Given many processors, we can break
an O(x^n) into an O(x^k) problem where k n.
Parallel programming doesn't really help at
all for exponential problems.
In a nutshell, using many parallel processors,
we can lesson the degree of O(x^n) algos.
No hope of this for O(2^x) algos.
--wayne
Even if the exponent is quite large but fixed, there is always the hope of throwing more
hardware at the problem. If the problem
is in exponontial-time, then all hope is gone.
The only difference is that an NP-complete
problem is in NP -- NP-hard problems might
not be. If you can solve an NP-hard problem
in P-time that is a good enough proof to show
that P=NP (it's actually a stronger proof).
BTW, this is not boring. This has serious
implications (e.g. in cryptography). I figured
someone at the NSA has already proved either
P NP or P = NP. Probably the only way P=NP
is if the degree of the companion
polynomial time solutions are of high degree.
In early years of AI we thought natural
language processing would be solved by now.
The problem is that it turns out to be a
really really really hard problem that may
never be solved in its full general glory.
The idea of talking to your computer the same
way you talk to your mother and
having it understand what your saying is
a long long way off.
Does this mean voice recognition is not
usefull? -- no. Just don't expect a Star Trek
interface to the computer.
Of course there is always emacs' eliza...
I would hate to build anything on top of Gnome.
I have used gnome in the past from time to
time, but eventually something always happens
that places Gnome in some wacked state from
whence I can never return. Gnome resembles
an M$ product -- sex appeal sans stability.
Nope. Look at a calendar.
Have you ever heard of a bank doing business
on Sunday? Actually I closed my account because
I moved. I still find it comical that a notice
that was meant to ease my fears (I don't really
have many) about y2k couldn't get the dates
right on the notice.
Last year I received a notice from my bank
that said:
"Our goal is to ensure that January 2, 2000
is just another business day for Bank of X."
Anyone see the problem with this statement?
Needless to say, I no longer bank there.
You should be searching for a professor you
want to work with and do research under.
Read up on what profs are doing what in your
field of interest.