And don't forget that if we prove that we're living on a computer simulation, that would make gremlins, leprechauns and fairies much more likely, at least for me... Actually, I have had an experience in my life which I haven't found any rational explanation for, no matter how hard I tried. Maybe some day we'll find out...
Cops are a subset of people. Since the set of people could contain both bad people and good people, a cop could be a good person and a bad person.
Elephants are a subset of animals. Since the set of animals could contain both animals with hundreds of eyes and necrophag animals, an elephant could be an animal with hundreds of eyes and a scavenging animal.
Of course the performance will be better with a dual-core, but that doesn't mean that vista is slow on a single-core processor. Specifically, I don't notice any performance loss when upgrading from XP. Tell me something actually convincing, not a lateral irrelevant argument please!
Then again it's the moral thing to do, I don't see why people would get so upset over it.
Well, for example, I would certainly get upset if I didn't take advantage of the bug on purpose, and later went on vacation, got back home and realised my card had been charged again since the return period was over.
Since I'm not very familiar with the things you mentioned there, I'll ask: how better would the analog QC solutions be, compared to the current approximation algorithms for NP-complete problems? References/links welcome:)
I said quadratic speedup, not quadratic running time. In other words, running time O(sqrt(2^n)) instead of O(2^n). As you probably have learned, sqrt(2^n) is sqrt(2^(n/2)).
To save some work to people replying to misconceptions, here's a list of the common misconceptions about quantum computing that I've seen lately:
Quantum computers can solve NP-complete problems quickly (in polynomial time) -> not true, the speedup given by Grover's algorithm is quadratic, not exponential. This means that an NP-complete problem which would take O(2^n) in a classical computer would take O(2^(n/2)) in a quantum computer, which is clearly not polynomial time in n
Quantum computers with N qubits are as efficient as 2^N classical computers -> not true, not all algorithms can get an exponential speedup with quantum computing
Quantum computers will render cryptography useless -> not true, breaking asymmetric ciphers with QCs are subject to the quadratic speedup I explained above which means it will be enough to double the size of the key in order to account for QCs. Some symmetric ciphers (i.e. public key systems) are broken by quantum computing (for example RSA and discrete logarithm), but it is thought that there are some symmetric ciphers which are not vulnerable to attacks by QCs (excluding by the grover search algorithm, which as I explained above is not very hard to account for). Quite ironically, I remember reading that the same attack which renders discrete logarithm public key cryptography useless also allows for the existence of a public key encryption which requires fast calculation of discrete logarithms.
What about the people who didn't notice the error? Remember - not everyone necessarily bought just 2 dvd box sets, they might have bought some more different articles together with the dvds.
The question then is - where do you draw the line between the customers who were surely trying to screw amazon and the ones who didn't know it? And why should customers be subject to that line being drawn by amazon's criteria?
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming they are more intelligent, how can you be so cocky as to make assumptions about their reasons?
And don't forget that if we prove that we're living on a computer simulation, that would make gremlins, leprechauns and fairies much more likely, at least for me... Actually, I have had an experience in my life which I haven't found any rational explanation for, no matter how hard I tried. Maybe some day we'll find out...
Elephants are a subset of animals.
Since the set of animals could contain both animals with hundreds of eyes and necrophag animals, an elephant could be an animal with hundreds of eyes and a scavenging animal.
I read that there was some guy who actually wanted to inject himself with HIV to prove it didn't cause AIDS. Ah, here it is.
Or maybe it was just an excuse...
If Google had bought first /.ers would all be "omg Microsoft = shameless copying, Google = innovation".
Of course the performance will be better with a dual-core, but that doesn't mean that vista is slow on a single-core processor. Specifically, I don't notice any performance loss when upgrading from XP. Tell me something actually convincing, not a lateral irrelevant argument please!
Hey, sony marketing droids, wasn't that flog enough?
It just proves that women were intelligently designed. Errr, wait a minute...
I'm happily running Vista on a single core cpu right now, without any performance problems... Care to give any sources on that claim?
I don't know, am I? Probably not.
Well, for example, I would certainly get upset if I didn't take advantage of the bug on purpose, and later went on vacation, got back home and realised my card had been charged again since the return period was over.
What "Computer error"? It was Amazon's error...
Can you please calm down a bit and realise that even if the article is wrong, this is still potentially valuable if the scientists believe it?
Where I say "asymmetric" I meant "symmetric" and vice versa, apologies.
Oops, not only you're correct but I also made the converse mistake above that one :S
Further investigation later revealed that the substance she had been using was in fact sulfuric acid...
Since I'm not very familiar with the things you mentioned there, I'll ask: how better would the analog QC solutions be, compared to the current approximation algorithms for NP-complete problems? References/links welcome :)
So is the travelling salesman problem, if you want to define it that way.
Yes, you are mistaken.
Obviously that second sqrt() shouldn't be there, apologies (my original post is correct).
I said quadratic speedup, not quadratic running time. In other words, running time O(sqrt(2^n)) instead of O(2^n). As you probably have learned, sqrt(2^n) is sqrt(2^(n/2)).
+ other articles you might have bought.
What about the people who didn't notice the error? Remember - not everyone necessarily bought just 2 dvd box sets, they might have bought some more different articles together with the dvds.
The question then is - where do you draw the line between the customers who were surely trying to screw amazon and the ones who didn't know it? And why should customers be subject to that line being drawn by amazon's criteria?