An american christian preacher got the ugandan govt to change laws by preaching? Citation needed.
And even if true, that is a far cry from any group that goes about training in the use of munitions intended for civilian targets.
Why? When was the last time radical christians organized a global attempt to indiscriminately kill people on a massive scale? The Crusades?
There are simply more dangerous things in the world at the moment.
If you can't be troubled to spell check/type accurately, why should I be troubled to care about what you have to say? You clearly don't care about what you had to say enough to even hit a single button... and you expect me to consider the content?
You might call it a defect, I might think of it as evolutionary design.
I call it evolutionary accident through a process of natural selection propagated by random mutations and favorable environmental factors to suppress competing alleles.
When I took AP Calculus in High School, my math teacher had a standing offer to any student with a graphing calculator: you can use any formula on it which you have programmed yourself for both tests and homework. One student took advantage of it. Spent the first few days of every chapter designing the new formulas.
Perhaps they should have spent time suing the government, like they're apt to do on any number of other, controversial issues, instead of "calling" for a ban. They'll sue for the rights of illegal immigrants, who legally don't even have that many rights. Why won't they actually do something about this?
It's important to remember that the $75 fee doesn't just pay for putting out that one fire, and if you charged for the cost of putting out that one fire that wouldn't actually cover your cost either.
You have to pay to have MORE firefighters to cover a larger area, and these fighters have health coverage, and pensions, and sick days, etc. You need more equipment for those firefighters, etc.
The idea that you can correctly assess the cost of "putting out this fire" is ridiculous.
Not to throw gas on a fire, but wouldn't arbitrary and locally-relevant interconnected mathematical descriptions of the Universe be the best evidence to date of purpose to the beginning of the Universe? In other words, wouldn't that suggest that it's much more reasonable to assume that at the very least the initial creation of the Universe was directed by some cognizant force, be it Godly or not, without regard to whether or not such a force persisted after the Universe's creation?
In my mind at least, and I am not of PhD of either Physics or Mathematics, such a system makes me question that idea that the Universe could be self-creating.
What? How can you possibly take a moral stand for Iran on that particular issue? If we're going to call the IDF a "paramilitary terrorist" organization, what does that make Hezbollah?
Israel hasn't had clean hands when it comes to dealing with Muslim nations in the region, but you can't seriously take the position that Iran has the moral authority on the issue, can you?
I'd also be interested in a source on Sharon being convicted of war crimes and saying he wanted to exterminate all Arabs. That was something I didn't know and would like to read up on.
Pardon me, I mean about 20 years ago.:) (I am of course referring to Cornell and Wieman who won the Nobel prize for producing the first ever Bose-Einstein condensate.)
Also of note: this experiment setup was designed over 30 years ago (and tested) by a Professor at the University of Colorado. Yale didn't do anything new here.
"Presumably" is the step where you proof breaks down. If P=NP one would also expect proofs to be easier, for reasons elaborated on in a comment further up the page. But as noted there, we cannot know that we are looking effectively for ways to do that.
This is not a perfect comparison, but consider that before Calculus, or rather the fundamental theorem, integrating was inexact, clunky, and was a very difficult problem that was impossible to give an exact answer to. But with the FTC it became possible to not only integrate quickly, but to do so exactly. And the main leap there was the idea of something acting as if it were both zero and just very, very small (due to the rate at which it approached zero).
When Isaac Newton first proposed his ideas on Calculus, he made a squished looking zero that he claimed acting like a zero at times, and like an arbitrarily small number at others, which infuriated his contemporaries as it worked.
The point is that this completely different way of thinking VASTLY reduced the necessary consideration to produce a valid integration. We do not know that the same is not also true for all NP problems.
You were being funny, but I think it's important to point out: we produce about 14 exajoules of energy for electric power a year. We use about 28 exajoules for transportation.
This study seemed to overlook something rather important.
The fact that a company advertises makes their products less fit for your needs when you independently have determined that you have a need for that product?
Slashdot Mirror
An american christian preacher got the ugandan govt to change laws by preaching? Citation needed. And even if true, that is a far cry from any group that goes about training in the use of munitions intended for civilian targets.
Why? When was the last time radical christians organized a global attempt to indiscriminately kill people on a massive scale? The Crusades? There are simply more dangerous things in the world at the moment.
That would likely be a form of insult in the Muslim/Arab world...
If you can't be troubled to spell check/type accurately, why should I be troubled to care about what you have to say? You clearly don't care about what you had to say enough to even hit a single button... and you expect me to consider the content?
I call it evolutionary accident through a process of natural selection propagated by random mutations and favorable environmental factors to suppress competing alleles.
When I took AP Calculus in High School, my math teacher had a standing offer to any student with a graphing calculator: you can use any formula on it which you have programmed yourself for both tests and homework. One student took advantage of it. Spent the first few days of every chapter designing the new formulas.
Microbrewery, as in, produced in small batches. I don't give a flying fuck about the size of the company, but how about the size of the process.
Which is a microbrewery. ;)
Uhg. Havent even looked at it in almost 9 months. Been working referral mostly.
REAL American beer is done in microbrews.... like here in Portland, Oregon.
Perhaps they should have spent time suing the government, like they're apt to do on any number of other, controversial issues, instead of "calling" for a ban. They'll sue for the rights of illegal immigrants, who legally don't even have that many rights. Why won't they actually do something about this?
It's important to remember that the $75 fee doesn't just pay for putting out that one fire, and if you charged for the cost of putting out that one fire that wouldn't actually cover your cost either.
You have to pay to have MORE firefighters to cover a larger area, and these fighters have health coverage, and pensions, and sick days, etc. You need more equipment for those firefighters, etc.
The idea that you can correctly assess the cost of "putting out this fire" is ridiculous.
That would have little to do with the point I brought up...
Not to throw gas on a fire, but wouldn't arbitrary and locally-relevant interconnected mathematical descriptions of the Universe be the best evidence to date of purpose to the beginning of the Universe? In other words, wouldn't that suggest that it's much more reasonable to assume that at the very least the initial creation of the Universe was directed by some cognizant force, be it Godly or not, without regard to whether or not such a force persisted after the Universe's creation?
In my mind at least, and I am not of PhD of either Physics or Mathematics, such a system makes me question that idea that the Universe could be self-creating.
What? How can you possibly take a moral stand for Iran on that particular issue? If we're going to call the IDF a "paramilitary terrorist" organization, what does that make Hezbollah?
Israel hasn't had clean hands when it comes to dealing with Muslim nations in the region, but you can't seriously take the position that Iran has the moral authority on the issue, can you?
I'd also be interested in a source on Sharon being convicted of war crimes and saying he wanted to exterminate all Arabs. That was something I didn't know and would like to read up on.
With corporations as large as Sony, it's almost surely #2 and/or #3.
Yes, but how do they fucking work?
Pardon me, I mean about 20 years ago. :) (I am of course referring to Cornell and Wieman who won the Nobel prize for producing the first ever Bose-Einstein condensate.)
Also of note: this experiment setup was designed over 30 years ago (and tested) by a Professor at the University of Colorado. Yale didn't do anything new here.
"Presumably" is the step where you proof breaks down. If P=NP one would also expect proofs to be easier, for reasons elaborated on in a comment further up the page. But as noted there, we cannot know that we are looking effectively for ways to do that.
This is not a perfect comparison, but consider that before Calculus, or rather the fundamental theorem, integrating was inexact, clunky, and was a very difficult problem that was impossible to give an exact answer to. But with the FTC it became possible to not only integrate quickly, but to do so exactly. And the main leap there was the idea of something acting as if it were both zero and just very, very small (due to the rate at which it approached zero).
When Isaac Newton first proposed his ideas on Calculus, he made a squished looking zero that he claimed acting like a zero at times, and like an arbitrarily small number at others, which infuriated his contemporaries as it worked.
The point is that this completely different way of thinking VASTLY reduced the necessary consideration to produce a valid integration. We do not know that the same is not also true for all NP problems.
Yeah, that's a meme isn't it? All authority figures are fascist thugs (particularly the ones that are actually everyday people)?
Or is that meme over on slashdot?
We use much more than 7 exajoules for actual transportation. The stats I'm using are provided by the DoE and DoT.
And you're also wrong about planes. Using the DoT's own stats, normal road vehicles account for over 80% of transportation energy.
You were being funny, but I think it's important to point out: we produce about 14 exajoules of energy for electric power a year. We use about 28 exajoules for transportation.
This study seemed to overlook something rather important.
The fact that a company advertises makes their products less fit for your needs when you independently have determined that you have a need for that product?
That's pretty irrational.
Making a separate window for each of my tools and toolbars is not "unintuitive", it is quite simply poor design.