"an official White House statement in response to the article insisted only that the U.S. would withdraw "unless we can re-enter on terms that are more favorable to our country."
What exactly would be more favorable than: "a voluntary non-binding commitment, where you set your own terms that you can then ignore"?
Clearly the problem is the name? If we renamed it the 'Trump Climate Accord' that would solve only real issue the current White House has.
Not that impressive, but you can think of it as a $50 voice-controlled alarm clock/timer/stereo
/always on microphone hooked up to the internet that you have no real control over.
And *that* is why it is an idiotic device. I can't imagine a how anyone thinks 'voice controlled alarm clock' is worth installing a 'microphone connected to amazon' into your room.
It is an imperfect national identifier because not everyone in the nation has one.
All identifiers are imperfect.
. It is an imperfect national identifier because you cannot change it when compromised.
An identifier can't be 'compromised'; it's not really supposed to be a 'secret'. It's flawed to use it as a secret. Its fine as an identifier.
It is an imperfect national identifier because the nation allowed it to be hijacked as a commercial identifier
How does that have any bearing on its suitability to be an identifier?
r. Banks and creditors in general should have to fend for themselves if they want to properly identify a debtor, rather than relying on a number that was issued for a completely different purpose.
Um... what should they use? And even if they came up with something, it would be a matter of hours before a table of new_bank_id to ssn's was created, and a few hours more before it was leaked, making it a moot point.
As such most codecs used online are optimised for human hearing range.
Bat call recorders predominantly use.wav, which does support it. So as long as you can get.wav your set; and you can put wav audio (as an LPCM format) into both AVI and MP4 containers... so I think it should be pretty doable.
And most audio sources only use 48kHz sampling rate (i.e.: up to 24kHz sounds anyway).
Lots of options for ultrasonic recording -- again... the whole bat call niche has you covered (although you don't really need ultrasonic recording, you'll probably just record yourself speaking normally, and then shift it to ultrasonic in software.
and when your pocket suddenly says "Okay, I'm buying 180 episodes of Golden Girls" confirmation, you're going to notice that something fishy is happening.
Maybe. Depends how loud it is, and how loud it is where you are. I've not heard my phone ring in my pocket lots of times. Admittedly the starbucks line probably isn't the best example.
But so what if you hear it...the prank was still successful; even if you whip your phone out to find itunes or google or whatever dutifully syncing your new golden girls episodes... what are you going to do? Your just giving the prankster(s) a live show instead of them having to imagine the look on your face when you get home.
If by exactly you mean it is something completely different.
If someone is exploiting this in my house, then it means they already broke in and have complete physical access to my house,
Like if they embedded the audio in a youtube video that you were watching? That's basically equivalent to already having broken into your house and having run of the place right?
And what if they are exploiting it on the phone in your pocket... you do go out of the house right? Maybe you dont want the guy behind you at starbucks to prank you by getting your phone to set an alarm at 2am, or order you all 180 episodes of the Golden Girls.
screwing around with the Echo and maybe making fradulent Amazon orders or whatever would be the least of my concerns.
Or it could be the means to breaking in. Slip a tiny ultrasonic speaker under a door jam or window sill... and tell it to unlock and open the door, perhaps it even works by holding the speaker against the window glass. Not that your front door lock is a big obstacle to a would-be thief... but do you really want your house to roll out the welcome matt to every jackass with the means to play an aac file within hearing of your home?
You know, the same way there is a law against speeding, and then a myriad of policy that goes into enforcing it. Where I live the law says speeding is exceeding the posted speed limit. In practice, the usual policy is not to stop anyone within 10km/h. And in practice the police only selectively enforce it -- high traffic areas, accident prone areas, some might point cynically at areas where the limit is set to low as 'revenue generating' areas. (I KNOW this is a real issue in some areas, im less convinced it is a significant motivation locally.) Meanwhile, in practice the police are mostly enforcing the cellphone ban, because that is what they have been directed to focus on that. So speed traps are rare right now, but cell phone traps are all over the place. They'll still bust you for speeding if you are obvious / dangerious / etc but that's not what they're looking for.
DACA was kind of the same thing... basically it was policy directing immigration to be lenient in specific cases (like not enofrcing a speedlimit if you are 1km/h over -- even though the law says that is illegal) and directing officers not to bother even looking for those cases, and to focus on something else instead.
THAT is well within the purview of the executive branch of government. Enforcment policy, and enforcement priorities is WELL within the purview of the government.
Did DACA overstep the bounds of policy into creating new law? Maybe. Maybe not. Probably not, given that it has survived plenty of constitutional challenges already... e..g http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/op...
Personally, think DACA should be ended in favor of real legislation that does what DACA does. However that is not what the Trump administration is doing. They're just ending the policy because they want to, not because of any constitutionality. And that's fine, that's the new administrations prerogative; I don't agree with it... but the Trump administration has the same authority to set policy as Obama did.
Is it not possible that any given problem understood to be NP might be wrongly thought to be NP, and so proving a P problem was equivalent to it would only highlight the mistaken initial categorization of the problem as being NP?
The key to answering this is in the definition of NP-complete problems.
The map coloring problem is a nice easy to understand np-complete problem. The problem is to take a map (states in a country, countries in the world, whatever, you get the idea) and a number of colors "n" and say... can I color this map with "n" different colors such that no two adjacent areas are the same color.
Basically for that problem to get into the class of "NP-complete" in the first place we have to mathematically prove two things:
a) a proposed solution can be verified in polynomial time. In this case that means if I give you a list of all the areas of the map each with one of the n colors assigned to it, how long will it take you to verify that it is a valid solution? In this case, you can simply look at each area on the map, note its color, and then check that none of its neighbors are the same color. That's got a time complexity on the number of areas squared. So that's easy to check in polynomial time.
b) can all other NP-complete problems be reduced to this one. In practice, once you show one can be reduced to this problem, that shows they all are because all the others have been shown to reduce to the one you looked at, and the transformations can be stacked up in polytime to inductively prove the whole class reduces to this problem. (So if it takes o^5 to reduce B to A, and o^3 to reduce C to B then it's not going to be any worse than O^8 to reduce C to A, and that's still polytime. The upshot is that you only need to find one mapping, but even so, this is a LOT more complicated to show, and I won't get into it here. The transformation is simply a 'mechanical' process so once you come up a transformation you can automate it.
Thus the transformation needs to show how you can take a DIFFERENT NP-Complete problem, mechanically transform it to this one, and then use the solution to this one, to identify a solution to the other one.
Now, going back to your question. If a given problem is "understood to be NP complete" - and you find a P solution for it, then
a) Either the accepted proof that it was was NP-complete was wrong. (unlikely but possible); and you move that one problem into P b) Or the solution you found does solve the problem, and then in turn DOES solve the other NP-complete problems, and you have just proven P=NP.
So, yeah, its possible a problem was miscategorized, but its not at all likely because both the solution verification, and the mechanical transformation parts of NP-complete proofs can be mechanically implemented and tested. So while there is a bit of cleverness in coming up with the transformation, if it was flawed, it wouldn't actually *work*. So its unlikely it would go undetected. Plus its even more unlikely because most of the graph problems are easily related to eachother, and most of the SAT problems are like wise easily related to eachother and the proofs are simple enough. Their are multiple proofs relating SAT problems to graph problems, etc... so the odds of an accepted NP-complete proof being wrong is further reduced because there are multiple such proofs relating different problems creating a network or web of proofs.
If he finds a solution in polynomial time of ANY NP-complete problem he proves P=NP.
By the definition of NP-complete:
"A problem p in NP is NP-complete if every other problem in NP can be transformed (or reduced) into p in polynomial time." (This makes sense, because if you can got from A to B in polytime, and A to C in polytime then you can go from A to C in polytime too, trviially by going from A to B and then B to C. (because polytime x polytime = polytime)
A P=NP proof would consist of finding a polynomial solution to *any* NP-complete problem (and therefore ALL NP-complete problems.)
There are a handful of problems in NP that are not known to be in P and not known to be NP-complete; but if P=NP they would also have polynomial time solutions.
NP-hard problems are NOT in NP. (e.g the halting problem) so they aren't at issue.
A P != NP proof is the harder proof since you can't use proof by example -- you have to formally prove that a polynomial solution does not exist for an NP-complete problem. (and therefore does not exist for all of them)
Proving that P!=NP only requires proof of one polynomial problem not being deterministic, it doesn't matter what it is, and it's proven. Proving that P=NP, on the other hand, might be impossible without a new definition of polynomial.
I believe you are mistaken.
Finding one example of P = NP proves the classes are equal, because NP-complete problems can all be transformed to other NP problems in polynomial time.
So if you solve ANY NP-complete problem in polynomial time, you have a solution to ALL of them. If you solve 3-SAT in polynomial time you've solved TSP (travelling salesman) in polynomial time too, because TSP can be "mapped" to 3-SAT in polynomial time.
So basically, if you can prove OR disprove any NP-complete problem can be solved in polynomial time then you prove P=NP or P!=NP.
And this is the result we expect. So proving it would confirm most suspicions, but it should go without saying that searching for flaws in this proof is good mathematics, and exactly what everyone should be doing.
You can get a separate email, phone number, and phone for those things you know.
Your suggestion is to pay twice as much per month, to create exactly one group partition? And my neighbors and extended family would still be on the 'personal' one... thanks. but no thanks.
And no, I can't create separate emails etc for each one unless they explicitly support it. If they tie to the phone number, or android or itunes account etc then I'm pretty much stuck. And creating a new itunes or android/play account for each app is all kinds of headaches of its own. You know what would be better than that: not that.:)
If you like, you can also leave your work phone at work
Ok... so here's what I actually do. I have a VOIP service (in my current case I'm actually using jive service). And that is my work number. I have a physical voip deskphone in my home office tied to that service. I have it set to ring my cell during business hours in addition to the deskphone, and to go to voicemail outside office hours. I could get away with a cheaper voip service, but the jive option has unlimited canada/USA calling, good international rates, conference calling bridges, and some autoattendent and call tree features, and internet fax capabilities that I use. I can also use the voip app on my phone to make outgoing calls from my 'work number' from my cell (sometimes that matters); although i mostly just need to be able to take calls.
This already works better than 2 physical cellphones ever would; and is substantially cheaper. I don't have to 'leave the phone at work' or carry around two phones during the day because the work number automatically cuts over to voicemail.
It isn't their fault the loopholes are there (at least I believe it isn't)
Yeah. It *is* their fault. Not so much the regular rich. The "upper middle class", and the "lower upper class" if you will. They just work within the laws that they are given. But the ultra rich... they do help write the law, and have a lot of sway in creating the loopholes, and exert a lot of influence in protecting them.
There is nothing unethical or wrong about playing the games by the rules.
There is nothing illegal about playing games by the rules. There can be plenty wrong and unethical with it.
And government is not a game; people don't get to shake hands and go home win or lose. Citizens are banned from serving in the military. Family members of citizens are barred from visiting because they come from given country. Rascist cops are given presidential pardons while the news is busy with a hurricane disaster. Missile strikes are given less focused attention than the cake at dessert. And while he's clearly enjoying playing president of the hurricane... even that wasn't enough for him to take a break from his campaign trail for 2020... bragging about winning Missouri in 16 mere moments after talking about the Texas situation.
Like, say, a private e-mail account that supports IMAP
Fuck No. Not like that. Please god, no, not like that. I'd rather DIAF. That sounds truly abominable for my average IM use cases.
and can be read by a multitude of generic clients on most devices one can think of - even and especially devices that don't take a SIM card.
Telegram also works on the desktop and laptops (mac, windows, and Linux). Yes it is tied to a phone number, and yes, I agree that is stupid, but it is not limited to working with devices that have a sim card once the account is setup. That was one of the reasons I like it. I don't want to type on my phone, when im sitting in front of a dual screen with a fantastic keyboard; which is why I prefer it to SMS,,, which is stuck on my phone.
It's a simple app... stick your phone on silent, and it pops up to ask you how long. The idea that you usually know how long your want your phone to be silent when you put it on silent, and often forget about afterwards.
It requests permission to "take videos and pictures"
WTF right? Why does it need that permission?
"15.3: Fix for interference with video recording apps. To detect when the camera is in use, camera permission is needed. This is optional in Android 6+, but if you don't give permission, Shush! can't tell that you're using the camera, and may pop up during video recording."
FFS... seriously. And you see this sort of thing all the time. To 'play nice' with the phone and make sure it behaves nicely when you are on the phone, or taking a video, etc... the permission to determine simply whether you are using the camera or phone itself requires you to give the app permission to make calls and take videos. Those basic status APIs should be available without special permission or they should require a separate 'status permission' separate from the ability to make calls or take video.
How are we at version 6 of android, and you still need to give an app permission to take pictures and video just to give it permission to avoid irritating you while you are taking videos with a different app?
. At least on iOS the app cannot access your address book without you giving it explicit permission (apparently also the case on newer version of Android according to the article). Neither can it access anything else
The trouble remains that 'access' and 'upload the entire thing' is the same thing.
I suspect it's an important reason for WhatsApp to become as popular as it did, since you didn't need to ask your friends if they signed up and what their handle was.
Feature or bug? Maybe I don't WANT *everyone* to know I signed up. I signed up for telegram a while back to try it out with my wife. I was pretty appalled when a bunch of people at work started messaging me all over the place on it. We already have plenty of approved channels for them to reach me on; i was deliberately looking for something that I could leave running 24x7 on multiple devices... and not get messages from people at work.
But for this very reason you would expect Apple and Google to come up with a way to match friends on your address list without giving them full access, for example by providing a function that gives you a unique (for your service) user ID for each contact, by hashing a phone nr after salting it with the App ID or some such. That way the app can poll the service to see who signed up without requiring access to the actual address book.
This is a good idea. But even that is more sharing than I might want. They still get to build a social graph on graph on me that's bigger than letting me expose only the social graph I want to expose to them. They still know I am 'connectd' to all those people at work, even though i have no intention of connecting to them on the app, etc.
Games are notably bad for this too. I might wish to play a game and associate and communicate and share only with my wife and kids... but the social shit brings my sister inlaw in, randos at work, the neighbors, vendors and clients, lawyers and accountants, etc... not everyone on my contacts list is my 'friend'; and I don't want to connect to the vast majority of people in my contacts with any given app.
Well for starters Weetabix and Shredded Wheat are in predominantly yellow boxes and have been for as long as I can remember, and they both predate Cheerios as a product by decades.
From the article it looks like General Mills was only trying to trademark it for oat based cereals. So Weetabix and shredded wheat wouldn't have been affected.
From what I can tell they were really only trying to swipe at certain cheerios knock-offs.
Anyone who thinks a company should be allowed to trademark a particular wavelength of light
Why? When you see a green and yellow tractor in a field; you know its john deere. It's now protected so that another vendor can't use the same green and yellow hues on their lawn and farm equipment... because that WOULD confuse consumers; which is precisely the point of trademark law.
This really offends you? Because??
They don't own the colors. They own the use of the colors in conjunction with a very limited purpose. You want to make green and yellow guitar and sell it... go nuts. You want to paint your tractor green and yellow after you buy it... go nuts it's your tractor. You want to go into business and sell lawn mowers painted a very particular shade of green and yellow and sell them... because what? You aren't trying to confuse people into thinking they are john deere? Really?
It's on par with trademarks on genes found nature.
The trouble with genes in particular; natural or even not, is that they exist to be spread and copied by biological processes, and they further arise from random mutation. "Owning" intellectual property on something that literally exists to be copied and spread and which can also spontaneously spring into existence where it wasn't before should clearly be a setup for all kinds of inevitable ridiculousness.
So I assume they'd have to describe it by the hex code or 3x 8-bit integer RGB code (same thing) so just change 231 to 230 on red for example and tada, now it's not their color. Like it's legally proveably not their color
Just like naming my search engine googIe is allowed, because mine is g-o-o-g-capital "I" - e.
Right? right? It's provably different so it's fine right?
They were idiots for even trying.
Lots of companies have trademarked colors related to their brand or product. Examples were given in TFA: UPS brown, target red, john deer green+yellow; etc.
Except I had the Family plan which offered 10 PC's for $150/yr. While I wasn't using all 10 slots of my Family Plan license, I do have at least 3 PC's backing up to it.
Yeah, that's the real casualty here. And I think this is why they are sunsetting it... it was too good for business users, and it was likely cannibalizing SMB sales.
For me... between the fact that my subscription is good to like August 2018, and then the deal to roll into small business for free and then 75% off for a year... I'm probably going to stick with crashplan for a while.
I like it for the linux support, and I've actually used the recovery features to restore after a big windows server crash, and the restore process wasn't too painful at all; something not true of all services.
You are also not realizing that the client for the SMB service does not seem to support local backups and backups to other offsite PC's like the current client does.
Other PCs no, but local backups to local media, i believe it DOES support. I was just reading about it.
The odds of dropbox going down hard (and permanently losing data as opposed to a brief service outage) is, I think, *much* lower than the odds of a basic home server going down hard. I'd rule the latter as all but inevitable over a 10+ year period.
However, I don't dispute that it could happen.
And that is why I agree 100% with combining a DIY backup with a cloud backup. More is always better with backups.
If I had to pick just one, I'd say the cloud backup service is more reliable. But if can have more than one, (and there's no reason you can't) then it is a good idea. Obviously the DIY solution requires some technical knowledge and time investment -- but even a total newbie should do something like backblaze + dropbox + an external usb drive for critical stuff.
Mind you the "risk" you are talking about was a week or two of in transit data
Agreed. But a LOT of people don't really understand risk. (I'm not implying that includes you).
People far too often equate a low chance with no chance. If there is a 0.1% chance an investment goes to zero and a 99.9% chance of it doubling your money... that's a fantastic investment -- you'd be a fool not to invest in it.
But 1 time in 1000 you will lose EVERYTHING. If millions of people take those odds, thousands of them are going to lose everything.
You'd be a fool not to invest in it, but you be an even bigger fool if you invested everything you had.
It *astonishes* me how many people don't REALLY understand that. In the real world, thousands of people *would* bet it all, some *would* lose it all, and then be adamant it wasn't their fault they were completely ruined because they did their due diligence and the odds were very solidly in their favor. They just refuse to accept that "odds solidly in your favor" does not imply that "you can't lose"
When dealing with large collections and video the last thing that you really want to deal with is the slow backup / restore process to the Cloud when something goes wrong. The Cloud is not really a good option for backups IMO.
When dealing with backups, the last thing you want to deal with is *loss*. For a business, being able to restore mission critical data quickly is critical.
For a home user, their video library... if it takes a week or even 6 to get it all back down, that's fine.
I agree with you that having your data in another home via owncloud etc is a good idea, and recovery can be faster if you can drive to the other house and restore the backup 'locally'. I agree with all your points.
However, I'd still recommend a 3rd party cloud backup on top of that strategy. Owncloud provides syncing not backups. For a lot of purposes that is the same thing, but sometimes it is really NOT. If nothing else one of the best pieces of advice for backups is to have more than one. What if your home computer dies, and then while you are copying the terabytes from the owncloud to your new PC... it dies too?
What if the owncloud server dies, and your busy/on vacation/ etc and it goes a few weeks before you can get over to your friends to rebuild it and fix it etc... now your operating with just the copy on your local pc. And are vulnerable to theft, fire, hardware failure... etc.
Maybe that's a risk your willing to take with your piratebay collection of movies and dvd rips since that is replaceable; you can even exclude that from the cloudsync so you don't have to pay for storage if that's an issue for it. But your tax documents and photos of your children? Why take that risk?
They only mean what they are commonly understood to mean
Yes, there may be some ambiguity, but that's why we can use dictionaries and such stuff to make sure everyone means the same.
A dictionary tries to describe that, it doesn't define it.
Which by definition means "to use Google"
Unless it doesn't. A reality already documented here. Indeed this dictionary ranks the proper noun as the most common, followed by the generic usage of the verb, with the google specific usage of the verb BELOW the generic usage of the verb.
Again dictionaries just describe usage. So this dictionary is no more the authority than the other one, but it does back up my claim that clearly my usage is well recognized given that it is already appearing in some dictionaries. Its a recent evolution, so it would be surprising to see all dictionaries updated to agree.
Slashdot Mirror
"an official White House statement in response to the article insisted only that the U.S. would withdraw "unless we can re-enter on terms that are more favorable to our country."
What exactly would be more favorable than: "a voluntary non-binding commitment, where you set your own terms that you can then ignore"?
Clearly the problem is the name? If we renamed it the 'Trump Climate Accord' that would solve only real issue the current White House has.
Not that impressive, but you can think of it as a $50 voice-controlled alarm clock/timer/stereo
/always on microphone hooked up to the internet that you have no real control over.
And *that* is why it is an idiotic device. I can't imagine a how anyone thinks 'voice controlled alarm clock' is worth installing a 'microphone connected to amazon' into your room.
It is an imperfect national identifier because not everyone in the nation has one.
All identifiers are imperfect.
. It is an imperfect national identifier because you cannot change it when compromised.
An identifier can't be 'compromised'; it's not really supposed to be a 'secret'. It's flawed to use it as a secret. Its fine as an identifier.
It is an imperfect national identifier because the nation allowed it to be hijacked as a commercial identifier
How does that have any bearing on its suitability to be an identifier?
r. Banks and creditors in general should have to fend for themselves if they want to properly identify a debtor, rather than relying on a number that was issued for a completely different purpose.
Um... what should they use? And even if they came up with something, it would be a matter of hours before a table of new_bank_id to ssn's was created, and a few hours more before it was leaked, making it a moot point.
As such most codecs used online are optimised for human hearing range.
Bat call recorders predominantly use .wav, which does support it. So as long as you can get .wav your set; and you can put wav audio (as an LPCM format) into both AVI and MP4 containers... so I think it should be pretty doable.
And most audio sources only use 48kHz sampling rate (i.e.: up to 24kHz sounds anyway).
Lots of options for ultrasonic recording -- again... the whole bat call niche has you covered (although you don't really need ultrasonic recording, you'll probably just record yourself speaking normally, and then shift it to ultrasonic in software.
and when your pocket suddenly says "Okay, I'm buying 180 episodes of Golden Girls" confirmation, you're going to notice that something fishy is happening.
Maybe. Depends how loud it is, and how loud it is where you are. I've not heard my phone ring in my pocket lots of times. Admittedly the starbucks line probably isn't the best example.
But so what if you hear it...the prank was still successful; even if you whip your phone out to find itunes or google or whatever dutifully syncing your new golden girls episodes... what are you going to do? Your just giving the prankster(s) a live show instead of them having to imagine the look on your face when you get home.
Exactly.
If by exactly you mean it is something completely different.
If someone is exploiting this in my house, then it means they already broke in and have complete physical access to my house,
Like if they embedded the audio in a youtube video that you were watching? That's basically equivalent to already having broken into your house and having run of the place right?
And what if they are exploiting it on the phone in your pocket... you do go out of the house right? Maybe you dont want the guy behind you at starbucks to prank you by getting your phone to set an alarm at 2am, or order you all 180 episodes of the Golden Girls.
screwing around with the Echo and maybe making fradulent Amazon orders or whatever would be the least of my concerns.
Or it could be the means to breaking in. Slip a tiny ultrasonic speaker under a door jam or window sill... and tell it to unlock and open the door, perhaps it even works by holding the speaker against the window glass. Not that your front door lock is a big obstacle to a would-be thief... but do you really want your house to roll out the welcome matt to every jackass with the means to play an aac file within hearing of your home?
DACA wasn't law. It was "policy".
You know, the same way there is a law against speeding, and then a myriad of policy that goes into enforcing it. Where I live the law says speeding is exceeding the posted speed limit. In practice, the usual policy is not to stop anyone within 10km/h. And in practice the police only selectively enforce it -- high traffic areas, accident prone areas, some might point cynically at areas where the limit is set to low as 'revenue generating' areas. (I KNOW this is a real issue in some areas, im less convinced it is a significant motivation locally.) Meanwhile, in practice the police are mostly enforcing the cellphone ban, because that is what they have been directed to focus on that. So speed traps are rare right now, but cell phone traps are all over the place. They'll still bust you for speeding if you are obvious / dangerious / etc but that's not what they're looking for.
DACA was kind of the same thing... basically it was policy directing immigration to be lenient in specific cases (like not enofrcing a speedlimit if you are 1km/h over -- even though the law says that is illegal) and directing officers not to bother even looking for those cases, and to focus on something else instead.
THAT is well within the purview of the executive branch of government. Enforcment policy, and enforcement priorities is WELL within the purview of the government.
Did DACA overstep the bounds of policy into creating new law? Maybe. Maybe not. Probably not, given that it has survived plenty of constitutional challenges already... e..g http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/op...
Personally, think DACA should be ended in favor of real legislation that does what DACA does. However that is not what the Trump administration is doing. They're just ending the policy because they want to, not because of any constitutionality. And that's fine, that's the new administrations prerogative; I don't agree with it... but the Trump administration has the same authority to set policy as Obama did.
Is it not possible that any given problem understood to be NP might be wrongly thought to be NP, and so proving a P problem was equivalent to it would only highlight the mistaken initial categorization of the problem as being NP?
The key to answering this is in the definition of NP-complete problems.
The map coloring problem is a nice easy to understand np-complete problem. The problem is to take a map (states in a country, countries in the world, whatever, you get the idea) and a number of colors "n" and say... can I color this map with "n" different colors such that no two adjacent areas are the same color.
Basically for that problem to get into the class of "NP-complete" in the first place we have to mathematically prove two things:
a) a proposed solution can be verified in polynomial time. In this case that means if I give you a list of all the areas of the map each with one of the n colors assigned to it, how long will it take you to verify that it is a valid solution? In this case, you can simply look at each area on the map, note its color, and then check that none of its neighbors are the same color. That's got a time complexity on the number of areas squared. So that's easy to check in polynomial time.
b) can all other NP-complete problems be reduced to this one. In practice, once you show one can be reduced to this problem, that shows they all are because all the others have been shown to reduce to the one you looked at, and the transformations can be stacked up in polytime to inductively prove the whole class reduces to this problem. (So if it takes o^5 to reduce B to A, and o^3 to reduce C to B then it's not going to be any worse than O^8 to reduce C to A, and that's still polytime. The upshot is that you only need to find one mapping, but even so, this is a LOT more complicated to show, and I won't get into it here. The transformation is simply a 'mechanical' process so once you come up a transformation you can automate it.
Thus the transformation needs to show how you can take a DIFFERENT NP-Complete problem, mechanically transform it to this one, and then use the solution to this one, to identify a solution to the other one.
Now, going back to your question. If a given problem is "understood to be NP complete" - and you find a P solution for it, then
a) Either the accepted proof that it was was NP-complete was wrong. (unlikely but possible); and you move that one problem into P
b) Or the solution you found does solve the problem, and then in turn DOES solve the other NP-complete problems, and you have just proven P=NP.
So, yeah, its possible a problem was miscategorized, but its not at all likely because both the solution verification, and the mechanical transformation parts of NP-complete proofs can be mechanically implemented and tested. So while there is a bit of cleverness in coming up with the transformation, if it was flawed, it wouldn't actually *work*. So its unlikely it would go undetected. Plus its even more unlikely because most of the graph problems are easily related to eachother, and most of the SAT problems are like wise easily related to eachother and the proofs are simple enough. Their are multiple proofs relating SAT problems to graph problems, etc... so the odds of an accepted NP-complete proof being wrong is further reduced because there are multiple such proofs relating different problems creating a network or web of proofs.
see my response. I actually pointed at the same diagram; and address your argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If he finds a solution in polynomial time of ANY NP-complete problem he proves P=NP.
By the definition of NP-complete:
"A problem p in NP is NP-complete if every other problem in NP can be transformed (or reduced) into p in polynomial time." (This makes sense, because if you can got from A to B in polytime, and A to C in polytime then you can go from A to C in polytime too, trviially by going from A to B and then B to C. (because polytime x polytime = polytime)
A P=NP proof would consist of finding a polynomial solution to *any* NP-complete problem (and therefore ALL NP-complete problems.)
There are a handful of problems in NP that are not known to be in P and not known to be NP-complete; but if P=NP they would also have polynomial time solutions.
NP-hard problems are NOT in NP. (e.g the halting problem) so they aren't at issue.
A P != NP proof is the harder proof since you can't use proof by example -- you have to formally prove that a polynomial solution does not exist for an NP-complete problem. (and therefore does not exist for all of them)
Proving that P!=NP only requires proof of one polynomial problem not being deterministic, it doesn't matter what it is, and it's proven.
Proving that P=NP, on the other hand, might be impossible without a new definition of polynomial.
I believe you are mistaken.
Finding one example of P = NP proves the classes are equal, because NP-complete problems can all be transformed to other NP problems in polynomial time.
So if you solve ANY NP-complete problem in polynomial time, you have a solution to ALL of them. If you solve 3-SAT in polynomial time you've solved TSP (travelling salesman) in polynomial time too, because TSP can be "mapped" to 3-SAT in polynomial time.
So basically, if you can prove OR disprove any NP-complete problem can be solved in polynomial time then you prove P=NP or P!=NP.
He might have proved that P != NP.
And this is the result we expect. So proving it would confirm most suspicions, but it should go without saying that searching for flaws in this proof is good mathematics, and exactly what everyone should be doing.
rule 34. they will.
You can get a separate email, phone number, and phone for those things you know.
Your suggestion is to pay twice as much per month, to create exactly one group partition? And my neighbors and extended family would still be on the 'personal' one... thanks. but no thanks.
And no, I can't create separate emails etc for each one unless they explicitly support it. If they tie to the phone number, or android or itunes account etc then I'm pretty much stuck. And creating a new itunes or android/play account for each app is all kinds of headaches of its own. You know what would be better than that: not that. :)
If you like, you can also leave your work phone at work
Ok... so here's what I actually do. I have a VOIP service (in my current case I'm actually using jive service). And that is my work number. I have a physical voip deskphone in my home office tied to that service. I have it set to ring my cell during business hours in addition to the deskphone, and to go to voicemail outside office hours. I could get away with a cheaper voip service, but the jive option has unlimited canada/USA calling, good international rates, conference calling bridges, and some autoattendent and call tree features, and internet fax capabilities that I use. I can also use the voip app on my phone to make outgoing calls from my 'work number' from my cell (sometimes that matters); although i mostly just need to be able to take calls.
This already works better than 2 physical cellphones ever would; and is substantially cheaper. I don't have to 'leave the phone at work' or carry around two phones during the day because the work number automatically cuts over to voicemail.
It isn't their fault the loopholes are there (at least I believe it isn't)
Yeah. It *is* their fault. Not so much the regular rich. The "upper middle class", and the "lower upper class" if you will. They just work within the laws that they are given. But the ultra rich ... they do help write the law, and have a lot of sway in creating the loopholes, and exert a lot of influence in protecting them.
There is nothing unethical or wrong about playing the games by the rules.
There is nothing illegal about playing games by the rules. There can be plenty wrong and unethical with it.
And government is not a game; people don't get to shake hands and go home win or lose. Citizens are banned from serving in the military. Family members of citizens are barred from visiting because they come from given country. Rascist cops are given presidential pardons while the news is busy with a hurricane disaster. Missile strikes are given less focused attention than the cake at dessert. And while he's clearly enjoying playing president of the hurricane... even that wasn't enough for him to take a break from his campaign trail for 2020... bragging about winning Missouri in 16 mere moments after talking about the Texas situation.
Like, say, a private e-mail account that supports IMAP
Fuck No. Not like that. Please god, no, not like that. I'd rather DIAF. That sounds truly abominable for my average IM use cases.
and can be read by a multitude of generic clients on most devices one can think of - even and especially devices that don't take a SIM card.
Telegram also works on the desktop and laptops (mac, windows, and Linux). Yes it is tied to a phone number, and yes, I agree that is stupid, but it is not limited to working with devices that have a sim card once the account is setup. That was one of the reasons I like it. I don't want to type on my phone, when im sitting in front of a dual screen with a fantastic keyboard; which is why I prefer it to SMS,,, which is stuck on my phone.
So I just ran into this sort of issue with an app... its a simple app.
https://play.google.com/store/...
It's a simple app... stick your phone on silent, and it pops up to ask you how long. The idea that you usually know how long your want your phone to be silent when you put it on silent, and often forget about afterwards.
It requests permission to "take videos and pictures"
WTF right? Why does it need that permission?
"15.3: Fix for interference with video recording apps. To detect when the camera is in use, camera permission is needed. This is optional in Android 6+, but if you don't give permission, Shush! can't tell that you're using the camera, and may pop up during video recording."
FFS ... seriously. And you see this sort of thing all the time. To 'play nice' with the phone and make sure it behaves nicely when you are on the phone, or taking a video, etc... the permission to determine simply whether you are using the camera or phone itself requires you to give the app permission to make calls and take videos. Those basic status APIs should be available without special permission or they should require a separate 'status permission' separate from the ability to make calls or take video.
How are we at version 6 of android, and you still need to give an app permission to take pictures and video just to give it permission to avoid irritating you while you are taking videos with a different app?
. At least on iOS the app cannot access your address book without you giving it explicit permission (apparently also the case on newer version of Android according to the article). Neither can it access anything else
The trouble remains that 'access' and 'upload the entire thing' is the same thing.
I suspect it's an important reason for WhatsApp to become as popular as it did, since you didn't need to ask your friends if they signed up and what their handle was.
Feature or bug? Maybe I don't WANT *everyone* to know I signed up. I signed up for telegram a while back to try it out with my wife. I was pretty appalled when a bunch of people at work started messaging me all over the place on it. We already have plenty of approved channels for them to reach me on; i was deliberately looking for something that I could leave running 24x7 on multiple devices... and not get messages from people at work.
But for this very reason you would expect Apple and Google to come up with a way to match friends on your address list without giving them full access, for example by providing a function that gives you a unique (for your service) user ID for each contact, by hashing a phone nr after salting it with the App ID or some such. That way the app can poll the service to see who signed up without requiring access to the actual address book.
This is a good idea. But even that is more sharing than I might want. They still get to build a social graph on graph on me that's bigger than letting me expose only the social graph I want to expose to them. They still know I am 'connectd' to all those people at work, even though i have no intention of connecting to them on the app, etc.
Games are notably bad for this too. I might wish to play a game and associate and communicate and share only with my wife and kids... but the social shit brings my sister inlaw in, randos at work, the neighbors, vendors and clients, lawyers and accountants, etc... not everyone on my contacts list is my 'friend'; and I don't want to connect to the vast majority of people in my contacts with any given app.
They were made BY Valve. So no they aren't on GoG or anywhere else. They do go on sale all the time though; and are very reasonable.
Well for starters Weetabix and Shredded Wheat are in predominantly yellow boxes and have been for as long as I can remember, and they both predate Cheerios as a product by decades.
From the article it looks like General Mills was only trying to trademark it for oat based cereals. So Weetabix and shredded wheat wouldn't have been affected.
From what I can tell they were really only trying to swipe at certain cheerios knock-offs.
Anyone who thinks a company should be allowed to trademark a particular wavelength of light
Why? When you see a green and yellow tractor in a field; you know its john deere. It's now protected so that another vendor can't use the same green and yellow hues on their lawn and farm equipment ... because that WOULD confuse consumers; which is precisely the point of trademark law.
This really offends you? Because??
They don't own the colors. They own the use of the colors in conjunction with a very limited purpose. You want to make green and yellow guitar and sell it... go nuts. You want to paint your tractor green and yellow after you buy it... go nuts it's your tractor. You want to go into business and sell lawn mowers painted a very particular shade of green and yellow and sell them... because what? You aren't trying to confuse people into thinking they are john deere? Really?
It's on par with trademarks on genes found nature.
The trouble with genes in particular; natural or even not, is that they exist to be spread and copied by biological processes, and they further arise from random mutation. "Owning" intellectual property on something that literally exists to be copied and spread and which can also spontaneously spring into existence where it wasn't before should clearly be a setup for all kinds of inevitable ridiculousness.
So I assume they'd have to describe it by the hex code or 3x 8-bit integer RGB code (same thing) so just change 231 to 230 on red for example and tada, now it's not their color. Like it's legally proveably not their color
Just like naming my search engine googIe is allowed, because mine is g-o-o-g-capital "I" - e.
Right? right? It's provably different so it's fine right?
They were idiots for even trying.
Lots of companies have trademarked colors related to their brand or product. Examples were given in TFA: UPS brown, target red, john deer green+yellow; etc.
Who's the idiot here?
Except I had the Family plan which offered 10 PC's for $150/yr. While I wasn't using all 10 slots of my Family Plan license, I do have at least 3 PC's backing up to it.
Yeah, that's the real casualty here. And I think this is why they are sunsetting it... it was too good for business users, and it was likely cannibalizing SMB sales.
For me... between the fact that my subscription is good to like August 2018, and then the deal to roll into small business for free and then 75% off for a year... I'm probably going to stick with crashplan for a while.
I like it for the linux support, and I've actually used the recovery features to restore after a big windows server crash, and the restore process wasn't too painful at all; something not true of all services.
You are also not realizing that the client for the SMB service does not seem to support local backups and backups to other offsite PC's like the current client does.
Other PCs no, but local backups to local media, i believe it DOES support. I was just reading about it.
What if dropbox goes down?
The odds of dropbox going down hard (and permanently losing data as opposed to a brief service outage) is, I think, *much* lower than the odds of a basic home server going down hard. I'd rule the latter as all but inevitable over a 10+ year period.
However, I don't dispute that it could happen.
And that is why I agree 100% with combining a DIY backup with a cloud backup. More is always better with backups.
If I had to pick just one, I'd say the cloud backup service is more reliable. But if can have more than one, (and there's no reason you can't) then it is a good idea. Obviously the DIY solution requires some technical knowledge and time investment -- but even a total newbie should do something like backblaze + dropbox + an external usb drive for critical stuff.
Mind you the "risk" you are talking about was a week or two of in transit data
Agreed. But a LOT of people don't really understand risk. (I'm not implying that includes you).
People far too often equate a low chance with no chance. If there is a 0.1% chance an investment goes to zero and a 99.9% chance of it doubling your money... that's a fantastic investment -- you'd be a fool not to invest in it.
But 1 time in 1000 you will lose EVERYTHING. If millions of people take those odds, thousands of them are going to lose everything.
You'd be a fool not to invest in it, but you be an even bigger fool if you invested everything you had.
It *astonishes* me how many people don't REALLY understand that. In the real world, thousands of people *would* bet it all, some *would* lose it all, and then be adamant it wasn't their fault they were completely ruined because they did their due diligence and the odds were very solidly in their favor. They just refuse to accept that "odds solidly in your favor" does not imply that "you can't lose"
When dealing with large collections and video the last thing that you really want to deal with is the slow backup / restore process to the Cloud when something goes wrong. The Cloud is not really a good option for backups IMO.
When dealing with backups, the last thing you want to deal with is *loss*. For a business, being able to restore mission critical data quickly is critical.
For a home user, their video library ... if it takes a week or even 6 to get it all back down, that's fine.
I agree with you that having your data in another home via owncloud etc is a good idea, and recovery can be faster if you can drive to the other house and restore the backup 'locally'. I agree with all your points.
However, I'd still recommend a 3rd party cloud backup on top of that strategy. Owncloud provides syncing not backups. For a lot of purposes that is the same thing, but sometimes it is really NOT. If nothing else one of the best pieces of advice for backups is to have more than one. What if your home computer dies, and then while you are copying the terabytes from the owncloud to your new PC... it dies too?
What if the owncloud server dies, and your busy/on vacation/ etc and it goes a few weeks before you can get over to your friends to rebuild it and fix it etc... now your operating with just the copy on your local pc. And are vulnerable to theft, fire, hardware failure... etc.
Maybe that's a risk your willing to take with your piratebay collection of movies and dvd rips since that is replaceable; you can even exclude that from the cloudsync so you don't have to pay for storage if that's an issue for it. But your tax documents and photos of your children? Why take that risk?
you know, words have meanings.
They only mean what they are commonly understood to mean
Yes, there may be some ambiguity, but that's why we can use dictionaries and such stuff to make sure everyone means the same.
A dictionary tries to describe that, it doesn't define it.
Which by definition means "to use Google"
Unless it doesn't. A reality already documented here. Indeed this dictionary ranks the proper noun as the most common, followed by the generic usage of the verb, with the google specific usage of the verb BELOW the generic usage of the verb.
http://www.dictionary.com/brow...
Again dictionaries just describe usage. So this dictionary is no more the authority than the other one, but it does back up my claim that clearly my usage is well recognized given that it is already appearing in some dictionaries. Its a recent evolution, so it would be surprising to see all dictionaries updated to agree.