The proof tried to show that 3-SAT is not solvable in polynomial time. But the same techniques (if valid) would have also proven that 2-SAT (a simpler version of 3-SAT) is not solvable in polynomial time. That's a problem since we already have techniques for solving 2-SAT in polynomial time. In general if your proof technique can be used to prove something known to not be true, then your proof technique is broken.
The "relativization" barrier is similar. In trying to prove "P!=NP", it is really easy to also end up accidentally "proving" for certain oracles "X" that "P^X!=NP^X" when we already know that for those oracles "P^X=NP^X". The converse is also true: In trying to prove "P=NP" it is really easy to also end up accidentally "proving" for certain oracles "Y" that "P^Y=NP^Y" when we already know that for those oracles "P^Y!=NP^Y".
price discrimination [...] often benefits customers.
No, price discrimination allows the seller to capture the buyers economic surplus thus benefiting the seller at the cost of the buyer though the total social efficiency remains the same.
Even if price discrimination were a good thing, licenses are not necessarily needed. Many other goods are price discriminated without licenses prohibiting resale.
I bought the physical media. I don't need a copyright license to do that. And now owning a "copy" (defined in 17 USC 101 to be the physical media), I have the right per 17 USC 117 to install and run the software on that copy.
Actually, swing dancing is somewhat unique in that it's typically not choreographed (at least the social aspect of swing dancing). However, I have seen Lindy Hoppers who had choreographed dances that were absolutely amazing. And, much of other types of dancing (ballet, ballroom, modern, jazz) is choreographed.
Swing is not unique at being not choreographed. Competitive ballroom is usually choreographed, but social ballroom is improvisational.
Pretty much any couples dancing in a non-competitive, social setting (e.g. club, milonga, wedding, etc.) is of necessity not choreographed because choreography requires prior planning between the couple. Exceptions would be the bride and groom at a wedding, dances with a caller (e.g. square dance) or certain dances/songs with a well-known, set choreography (e.g. minuets?).
The words "I'm assuming" change the sentence from a potentially libelous statement about Commodore USA to a factual statement about the author's opinions and thus make the statement not libel (at least in the USA).
He never claimed they were a hoax. He claimed he is assuming they are a hoax. Under US law, "I believe they are a hoax" is not libel even when "They are a hoax" is.
So does that mean illegal services (such as torrent sites on a blacklist) might be blocked?
Perhaps, but before it could be any arbitrary block. Now there's a law that specifically says you can not unless it meets some exception, so I don't see how it could possibly be worse than before.
Unless companies view this law as saying how much they can get away with and still be legal. I don't know why but it seems like whenever a new law says "don't do X", companies take it as license to do anything that is not X even if before the law they wouldn't have done them. (There is probably some psychological/sociological phenomenon that explains this but that isn't my area.)
My assumption would be that if 33 attorneys general are trying to get a company to change its behavior, they're doing it because they must have gotten quite a few complaints, not because they're attention whores.
When the AG's issue press releases instead of talking to the company about their concerns, you should assume the AG's are doing it for the media attention. According to the article, the AG's did this with both press releases. The first time, the release lied by claiming they had sent a letter to to company when the letter wasn't postmarked until five days later. The second time, the AG's never expressed to the company the changes they'd like to see made before villifying them in the press.
Maybe the article is wrong and the company is lying about the AG's behavior. The article doesn't say whether the reporter tried to get the AG's side of the story, which probably means the reporter didn't. However, if the accusations in the article are true, then then, yes, the AG's were acting like "attention whores".
Both Maryland and Indiana explicitly declare that juries consider both law and fact. Maryland's constitution says, "[i]n the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact." Indiana's Constitution say a criminal jury “shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.”
A cop can choose not to arrest. A prosecutor can choose not to prosecute. Even a judge can (in limited cases) direct a not guilty verdict. Why should a jury not be allowed to nullify?
But most of all, it didn't have a clear 30-seconds or less explanation on what exactly it should be used to
They should have just said:
It is a wysiwyg, distributed, real-time, personal, sharable wiki, with a few extra features that any good wiki could use including tracking conversation threads, subscribing to updates for a page, notifying friends of pages you think they'd be interested in, and easy user access control. In detail:
First and foremost it is a wiki: it is easy to edit a page, it is easy to collaboratively edit, pages are persistent, you can view the history of a page.
It is (in theory) distributed: you can control and host your own content and it still inter-operates with the rest of the "wave-scape".
It is real-time: you can use it as a chat for quick back and forth.
It is personal: you can put whatever you want on it. No limits on topics and no fighting over page namespace.
It is sharable: you can write pages that only you can see, share them with a few friends, or even the whole world. It is up to you.
It does threaded conversation: most wiki's have a "talk" or "discuss" page, but don't really support threaded conversation. User's have developed conventions to get around this (like text nesting levels), but how they don't have to work around it. It is built in.
Ok, maybe that was more than 30 seconds, but you get the idea. When I thought of it as "chat" or "e-mail" it didn't make sense, because I already have perfectly good chat and e-mail. What I don't have is a wiki where I can put my private notes or share my designs with colleges to let them update/fix/annotate them.
It is a shame Google is giving up on it. Fortunately if you drop the distributed aspect (which I think got Wave bogged down in technical details), it shouldn't be too hard to clone the ideas there. For that matter, with just a few tweaks it could even be a Facebook killer. After all, being "wysiwyg, real-time, personal, sharable" isn't too far from being "social". (I mean "social" in the sense of Facebook, not just "social" in the sense of collaborative content creation.) Google came this close to inventing the "social wiki". Now I guess it is up to us.
Reacting has become the solitary goal of politicians... Cases in point:... MADD... Pledge of Allegiance... Witchhunt to Determine Who Killed Michael Jackson
Wow, I didn't know Mothers Against Drunk Driving were started by the government. And the Pledge of Allegiance was invented to make us feel safer? I never knew! By the way where is this witch hunt happening? I haven't been to a good burning in a while and I want to get in on the action.
(Yes, I'm being facetious. But at least pack your troll with realistic examples.)
So just remember that when someone says a newspaper has a liberal bias what they are saying is that the newspaper has a bias towards being broad minded, tolerant, favouring reform and progress and supporting civil liberty.
No, they are saying what they intend to say. If someone says that a newspaper has a Republican bias, you can't claim they are really saying the newspaper favors governments that are republics.
We'll I guess you can claim that, but it would be a mutilation and a willful misinterpretation of the original author's intent. At best you can claim that they are misusing the word, but then what word are they supposed to use?
Great, so now the Feds don't even have to ask AT&T for access to tap my Internet. They'll already have direct access to the copper.
Schools, water, electricity, roads. None of these are nationalized. Government run, yes. Federal run, no. Having a municipality own the copper sounds like a great idea to me, but please not the federal government.
Could you elaborate? I agree that day trading can improve market liquidity, but I have difficulty believing the fair-market value changes quickly enough that millisecond trades improve the market. However if you have some good arguments, I'm willing to be persuaded.
If I remember correctly, the thermal voltage is related only to the build-in voltage of a diode and has nothing to do with the average energy of electrons.
Even aside from that, he is talking about energy-level separation not energy. It is important because it represents how much energy must be put into (or taken out of) the system to flip a bit (i.e. change an electron's energy state from one level to the next). If the background thermal noise is higher than the separation, then bits will just randomly flip. But with the levels separated by this much, it won't happen as often and you can build reliable bit storage.
In the grand scheme of things, an electron in a 24mV field isn't that much. A single photon of visible light has around 1.5eV of energy. So don't expect to see any sparks.
(I am not a physicist. I did take advanced courses in the physics of electronics and semiconductors as part of my degree, but that was a long time ago and I'm quite rusty.)
English text has about 1.0-1.5 bits of entropy per letter [1], but randomly generated typeable characters contain about 6.5 bits of entropy per letter [2]. So actually "Purple Elephants make for a rough Work Day" is a easier to crack since it has only ~63 bits of entropy while "1qaz@WSX3edc$RFV" has ~117 bits of entropy. 63 bits
[1] Schneier, B: Applied Cryptography, Second edition, page 234. John Wiley and Sons.
[2] Assuming an even random distribution and ~90 typeable characters (A-Z, a-z, 0-9, and standard symbols on a qwerty keyboard)
You have a good point. For a barter system to work, you need differentiated goods and differentiated relative production (see the classic Farmer and Rancher barter example in Economics). So what we have to do is convince everyone to run different styles of processor that are better at different kinds of computation... eh, never mind. It might work, but I'm not liking where this is going.
You've got me thinking. Goggles that let me see magnetic fields haven't changed reality(*), they've just changed my ability to perceive reality. All this "augmented reality" stuff should be called augmented perception.
(*) Assuming objectivism. I'm talking as a scientists. All you subjectivists can go have a party somewhere else.
The summary says the US is "one of four countries that have not ratified" but the link just lists four notable countries. Scroll down a bit and you will see that they list 15 countries haven't ratified any of the "International Toxics Agreements" (only 15 have ratified all). But is it worse than that since they only list 163 countries when there are 195(*) countries in the world. Assuming the countries they don't list haven't ratified on then that means there are a total of 47 countries that haven't ratified.
Technically the US is "one of four countries that haven't ratified", but technically it is also one of five countries that haven't ratified, and one of three, one of 12, one of 18 and one of 47 countries that haven't ratified.
(*) The UN has 192 member countries but excludes Vatican City, Kosovo and Taiwan.
By the time a bill comes up for a vote most of the politics of has already happened. If you want your views represented, you have to get them in the bill while it is still in committee. Some of this is lobbying/persuading your fellow committee members that your ideas are good. Some parts amount to finding a compromise that will gather enough support and still be close to what you wanted. Other parts just boil down to political and procedural maneuvering (e.g. passing a measure that indirectly results in the policy you want).
Frankly I don't see how a "vote by the polls" senator can do any of that.
Next time just say you're dumber than a bag of hammers... The fact that 3.5M hits isn't enough to start your search validates you're a complete fucking idiot.
Let me know when you are interested in a civilized discussion.
Google may turn up 3.5M hits, but like I said before I can find nothing relevant in them. They are mostly unrelated news items about Catholics fighting brothels. The closest hits I can find are all about debunking the claim.
I have given you every opportunity to provide evidence supporting your claim. Instead you have responded with personal attacks. If reason and evidence are on your side, then why haven't you used them?
Slashdot Mirror
The proof tried to show that 3-SAT is not solvable in polynomial time. But the same techniques (if valid) would have also proven that 2-SAT (a simpler version of 3-SAT) is not solvable in polynomial time. That's a problem since we already have techniques for solving 2-SAT in polynomial time. In general if your proof technique can be used to prove something known to not be true, then your proof technique is broken.
The "relativization" barrier is similar. In trying to prove "P!=NP", it is really easy to also end up accidentally "proving" for certain oracles "X" that "P^X!=NP^X" when we already know that for those oracles "P^X=NP^X". The converse is also true: In trying to prove "P=NP" it is really easy to also end up accidentally "proving" for certain oracles "Y" that "P^Y=NP^Y" when we already know that for those oracles "P^Y!=NP^Y".
price discrimination [...] often benefits customers.
No, price discrimination allows the seller to capture the buyers economic surplus thus benefiting the seller at the cost of the buyer though the total social efficiency remains the same.
Even if price discrimination were a good thing, licenses are not necessarily needed. Many other goods are price discriminated without licenses prohibiting resale.
I bought the physical media. I don't need a copyright license to do that. And now owning a "copy" (defined in 17 USC 101 to be the physical media), I have the right per 17 USC 117 to install and run the software on that copy.
Actually, swing dancing is somewhat unique in that it's typically not choreographed (at least the social aspect of swing dancing). However, I have seen Lindy Hoppers who had choreographed dances that were absolutely amazing. And, much of other types of dancing (ballet, ballroom, modern, jazz) is choreographed.
Swing is not unique at being not choreographed. Competitive ballroom is usually choreographed, but social ballroom is improvisational.
Pretty much any couples dancing in a non-competitive, social setting (e.g. club, milonga, wedding, etc.) is of necessity not choreographed because choreography requires prior planning between the couple. Exceptions would be the bride and groom at a wedding, dances with a caller (e.g. square dance) or certain dances/songs with a well-known, set choreography (e.g. minuets?).
The words "I'm assuming" change the sentence from a potentially libelous statement about Commodore USA to a factual statement about the author's opinions and thus make the statement not libel (at least in the USA).
He never claimed they were a hoax. He claimed he is assuming they are a hoax. Under US law, "I believe they are a hoax" is not libel even when "They are a hoax" is.
So does that mean illegal services (such as torrent sites on a blacklist) might be blocked?
Perhaps, but before it could be any arbitrary block. Now there's a law that specifically says you can not unless it meets some exception, so I don't see how it could possibly be worse than before.
Unless companies view this law as saying how much they can get away with and still be legal. I don't know why but it seems like whenever a new law says "don't do X", companies take it as license to do anything that is not X even if before the law they wouldn't have done them. (There is probably some psychological/sociological phenomenon that explains this but that isn't my area.)
Use a Tweel instead of a pneumatic tire. I hear their biggest problem is they make noise. Now that is an advantage.
If the prosecution had already used up all their peremptories by the time she came up in the process, they were stuck with her.
Really? When I was called for jury service, the layers declared their peremptories after they interviewed all the potential jurors.
My assumption would be that if 33 attorneys general are trying to get a company to change its behavior, they're doing it because they must have gotten quite a few complaints, not because they're attention whores.
When the AG's issue press releases instead of talking to the company about their concerns, you should assume the AG's are doing it for the media attention. According to the article, the AG's did this with both press releases. The first time, the release lied by claiming they had sent a letter to to company when the letter wasn't postmarked until five days later. The second time, the AG's never expressed to the company the changes they'd like to see made before villifying them in the press.
Maybe the article is wrong and the company is lying about the AG's behavior. The article doesn't say whether the reporter tried to get the AG's side of the story, which probably means the reporter didn't. However, if the accusations in the article are true, then then, yes, the AG's were acting like "attention whores".
I thought RSA might still be P even if P!=NP because we don't know if integer factorization is NP complete.
Both Maryland and Indiana explicitly declare that juries consider both law and fact.
Maryland's constitution says, "[i]n the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact." Indiana's Constitution say a criminal jury “shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.”
A cop can choose not to arrest. A prosecutor can choose not to prosecute. Even a judge can (in limited cases) direct a not guilty verdict. Why should a jury not be allowed to nullify?
But most of all, it didn't have a clear 30-seconds or less explanation on what exactly it should be used to
They should have just said:
It is a wysiwyg, distributed, real-time, personal, sharable wiki, with a few extra features that any good wiki could use including tracking conversation threads, subscribing to updates for a page, notifying friends of pages you think they'd be interested in, and easy user access control. In detail:
Ok, maybe that was more than 30 seconds, but you get the idea. When I thought of it as "chat" or "e-mail" it didn't make sense, because I already have perfectly good chat and e-mail. What I don't have is a wiki where I can put my private notes or share my designs with colleges to let them update/fix/annotate them.
It is a shame Google is giving up on it. Fortunately if you drop the distributed aspect (which I think got Wave bogged down in technical details), it shouldn't be too hard to clone the ideas there. For that matter, with just a few tweaks it could even be a Facebook killer. After all, being "wysiwyg, real-time, personal, sharable" isn't too far from being "social". (I mean "social" in the sense of Facebook, not just "social" in the sense of collaborative content creation.) Google came this close to inventing the "social wiki". Now I guess it is up to us.
Reacting has become the solitary goal of politicians ... Cases in point: ... MADD ... Pledge of Allegiance ... Witchhunt to Determine Who Killed Michael Jackson
Wow, I didn't know Mothers Against Drunk Driving were started by the government. And the Pledge of Allegiance was invented to make us feel safer? I never knew!
By the way where is this witch hunt happening? I haven't been to a good burning in a while and I want to get in on the action.
(Yes, I'm being facetious. But at least pack your troll with realistic examples.)
So just remember that when someone says a newspaper has a liberal bias what they are saying is that the newspaper has a bias towards being broad minded, tolerant, favouring reform and progress and supporting civil liberty.
No, they are saying what they intend to say. If someone says that a newspaper has a Republican bias, you can't claim they are really saying the newspaper favors governments that are republics.
We'll I guess you can claim that, but it would be a mutilation and a willful misinterpretation of the original author's intent. At best you can claim that they are misusing the word, but then what word are they supposed to use?
Great, so now the Feds don't even have to ask AT&T for access to tap my Internet. They'll already have direct access to the copper.
Schools, water, electricity, roads. None of these are nationalized. Government run, yes. Federal run, no. Having a municipality own the copper sounds like a great idea to me, but please not the federal government.
Nice try. Next time make your social engineering more subtle.
Could you elaborate? I agree that day trading can improve market liquidity, but I have difficulty believing the fair-market value changes quickly enough that millisecond trades improve the market. However if you have some good arguments, I'm willing to be persuaded.
If I remember correctly, the thermal voltage is related only to the build-in voltage of a diode and has nothing to do with the average energy of electrons.
Even aside from that, he is talking about energy-level separation not energy. It is important because it represents how much energy must be put into (or taken out of) the system to flip a bit (i.e. change an electron's energy state from one level to the next). If the background thermal noise is higher than the separation, then bits will just randomly flip. But with the levels separated by this much, it won't happen as often and you can build reliable bit storage.
In the grand scheme of things, an electron in a 24mV field isn't that much. A single photon of visible light has around 1.5eV of energy. So don't expect to see any sparks.
(I am not a physicist. I did take advanced courses in the physics of electronics and semiconductors as part of my degree, but that was a long time ago and I'm quite rusty.)
within a small margin, this appears to be the standard ratio of the internet.
I think that's called Sturgeon's Law.
English text has about 1.0-1.5 bits of entropy per letter [1], but randomly generated typeable characters contain about 6.5 bits of entropy per letter [2]. So actually "Purple Elephants make for a rough Work Day" is a easier to crack since it has only ~63 bits of entropy while "1qaz@WSX3edc$RFV" has ~117 bits of entropy.
63 bits
[1] Schneier, B: Applied Cryptography, Second edition, page 234. John Wiley and Sons.
[2] Assuming an even random distribution and ~90 typeable characters (A-Z, a-z, 0-9, and standard symbols on a qwerty keyboard)
You have a good point. For a barter system to work, you need differentiated goods and differentiated relative production (see the classic Farmer and Rancher barter example in Economics). So what we have to do is convince everyone to run different styles of processor that are better at different kinds of computation ... eh, never mind. It might work, but I'm not liking where this is going.
You've got me thinking. Goggles that let me see magnetic fields haven't changed reality(*), they've just changed my ability to perceive reality. All this "augmented reality" stuff should be called augmented perception.
(*) Assuming objectivism. I'm talking as a scientists. All you subjectivists can go have a party somewhere else.
The summary says the US is "one of four countries that have not ratified" but the link just lists four notable countries. Scroll down a bit and you will see that they list 15 countries haven't ratified any of the "International Toxics Agreements" (only 15 have ratified all). But is it worse than that since they only list 163 countries when there are 195(*) countries in the world. Assuming the countries they don't list haven't ratified on then that means there are a total of 47 countries that haven't ratified.
Technically the US is "one of four countries that haven't ratified", but technically it is also one of five countries that haven't ratified, and one of three, one of 12, one of 18 and one of 47 countries that haven't ratified.
(*) The UN has 192 member countries but excludes Vatican City, Kosovo and Taiwan.
By the time a bill comes up for a vote most of the politics of has already happened. If you want your views represented, you have to get them in the bill while it is still in committee. Some of this is lobbying/persuading your fellow committee members that your ideas are good. Some parts amount to finding a compromise that will gather enough support and still be close to what you wanted. Other parts just boil down to political and procedural maneuvering (e.g. passing a measure that indirectly results in the policy you want).
Frankly I don't see how a "vote by the polls" senator can do any of that.
Next time just say you're dumber than a bag of hammers ... The fact that 3.5M hits isn't enough to start your search validates you're a complete fucking idiot.
Let me know when you are interested in a civilized discussion.
Google may turn up 3.5M hits, but like I said before I can find nothing relevant in them. They are mostly unrelated news items about Catholics fighting brothels. The closest hits I can find are all about debunking the claim.
I have given you every opportunity to provide evidence supporting your claim. Instead you have responded with personal attacks. If reason and evidence are on your side, then why haven't you used them?