No, you can't. A Hamiltonian path is just an unclosed Hamiltonian cycle. Copy-pasted directly from wiki:
Related problems
1. An equivalent formulation in terms of graph theory is: Given a complete weighted graph (where the vertices would represent the cities, the edges would represent the roads, and the weights would be the cost or distance of that road), find a Hamiltonian cycle with the least weight. It can be shown that the requirement of returning to the starting city does not change the computational complexity of the problem. You're having the same problem as the people who published the article had.
Your summarization isn't right at all. It implies to me that if you traverse a 00000001 delay node and a 00010000 delay node exactly 15 times you'll be marked as a correct solution. The process for them to determine the optimal path is actually far more complex.
I just checked and IsEvidenceAgainstYou(kitten corpses == machine source code) resolved to true. So upon examining the kittens if you find semen in them, you've proven yourself innocent. You said you drowned kittens, not raped AND drowned kittens.
Now if finding a bug in the carcass was as damming for them as finding a bug in the code...
There are Choose(n,2) pairs, which is O(n^2). The problem with the algorithm lies in:
Say they're all approximately the same length. Well the only taut string is going to be the string typing the start and the end, and all the rest are going to be completely limp. Cut it. Now the tension shifted to one extra junction. If you keep cutting, how are you sure you didn't cut a path you will eventually need?
The order of cutting matters. There are on the order of (n^2) strings and consequently on the order of (n^2)! ways to cut. Since you only need a path of length n it's n!.
Let's see how my 10th grade Astronomy does. Hopefully somebody smarter will respond and we'll get some real answers!
I doubt we've actually seen the planet. We know a lot about stars due to their parallax (how much they shift in the night sky over the course of a half-year), their relative luminosity (how bright they appear), and even a spectrum analysis to determine what the star is "burning" (which tells you the age, TrES-4 seems to be on the older side) which allows us to know pretty much everything about them -- how far away they are and a pretty good guess at their mass.
As planets orbit their suns their small relative mass causes the sun to actually wobble. It's only been recently that we've had measuring tools sensitive enough to detect this wobble. Consequently we're only seeing the wobbles of stars over the past relatively few years, so if an orbit takes 80+ years we might not be seeing it yet (our Jupiter takes almost 12 years to orbit the sun). That's why we're getting so many reports of large planets very close to their suns (the closer to the sun, the faster the orbit and consequently the more easily observed wobble).
Anyway, moons and rings and really should have little or no bearing on the wobble of the sun. I'd be very surprised we were looking at light variations of an object 1400 light years away. Basically we know with high confidence the mass of the sun, and based on the speed and degree of wobble we can compute the location and mass of the orbiting planet. We know how gravity works and we assume something with that much mass is a gas giant, so we can compute it's size.
So here's where I really need help. What I don't understand is why it's befuddling. Google says the mass needed to create a star is 60x that of Jupiter, not a measily 1.7x. What's the issue? Big planets like that usually break off into two? The description in the article almost makes out like this was a binary star system and the one ate the other.
That is unless that "tiny nuke far out in space" shatters the crystalline conduit which inadvertently frees the evil villains General Zod, Ursa, and Non from the Phantom Zone.
Aren't most peoples' heads cocked naturally to the left, so the "norm" is just easier to read? Are you left handed by chance? Your style makes me dizzy.
Yes, they've openly acknowledged that Battlestar Galactica is much more resonant post 9/11. "Science Fiction" isn't about good science ("The Singularity is about to explode! Weapons to maximum!"), and it really only uses fiction as an allegory for present day, very nonfiction concepts and events.
So I see my OS choices in the next five years as: Windows Vista, Mac's OS X, or some Linux variant.
I don't really want to do another Windows. As long as the Mac has Blizzard's support with games like WoW, I may actually be able to abandon Windows. I've tried Debian, Red Hat, Fedora, and Ubuntu. Let's just say I'm an idiot and I'm good at breaking X without knowing how to fix it. I've got a stable, backed up Linux virtual machine that I'm very happy with, and I can use that to write papers in TeX and do assignments for my uni courses; but I don't really feel comfortable with performing any kind of minor or even cosmetic surgery on Linux. I'd really like to, but after breaking each distro with minor config changes...
Anyway! The actual question!
I read in other articles and on Wiki that Leopard will run on x86 Intel style CPUs, and that this particular version you're actually allowed to run on non-Apple specific hardware. I also read that it wouldn't be running on AMD. That doesn't make sense as I thought deep down the only difference was optimizations, and even AMD gets to have those if it's old enough. MMX, SSE1&2, etc.
Can someone please clarify this? Will I be able to run Leopard on my OEM self-built AMD 64 3000+ based machine?
I think "EVE: The Movie" would be pretty short. Probably too short to be a movie.
Remember that the hero always inevitably visits the busiest system in the universe, which is only gonna get 'em pod killed in like the first five minutes by a smartbomb station camper.
Or maybe it'll be the story about the guy in the cloaked ship that smartbombed the Titan, blowing months and months (a whole year?) of work. Oh wait, that was sorta Luke in Star Wars:ANH.
And if it takes after EVE:TV's tourny you won't even get to see the ships actually blowing up, they'll just despawn.
Definately too short for a movie. Maybe a TV commercial. "Come play EVE, where someone who has been playing for 4 years can kill you before you leave the newbie training area."
You sir are the grinch of fun day. I have the perfect idea for an outfit that you could wear, and while IAMACD (I am not a Costume Designer) I'm sure your giant hemorrhoid will simply dazzle.
Slashdot Mirror
Fuck you. If I had mod points I'd trace your IP and mod you to hell. GIVE A FUCKING NSFW WARNING.
I'm a minor and you just exposed me to pornography! You molesting clod!
So you pretty much confirmed that it's the DRM in action. Thanks.
Your comment is a dupe http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/1 0/1530251.
3 &threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=2018607 3 points out that the other 6 were in the past 10 years, and we're talking the bug causes a lead by a very small difference.
And this user comment http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=26646
"The 1930s are down at 5th and 6th place. 2005 and 2006 are left out because you can't calculate a 5-year window around them yet."
Another user comment pointed out that the temperatures lately have been in the neighborhood of the Dust Bowl era, and that should be unsettling.
No, no, and no. Global warming is going to cause an ice age! I love it, we absolutely can't be wrong!
No, that makes it retarded.
Related problems 1. An equivalent formulation in terms of graph theory is: Given a complete weighted graph (where the vertices would represent the cities, the edges would represent the roads, and the weights would be the cost or distance of that road), find a Hamiltonian cycle with the least weight. It can be shown that the requirement of returning to the starting city does not change the computational complexity of the problem. You're having the same problem as the people who published the article had.
Your summarization isn't right at all. It implies to me that if you traverse a 00000001 delay node and a 00010000 delay node exactly 15 times you'll be marked as a correct solution. The process for them to determine the optimal path is actually far more complex.
I just checked and IsEvidenceAgainstYou(kitten corpses == machine source code) resolved to true. So upon examining the kittens if you find semen in them, you've proven yourself innocent. You said you drowned kittens, not raped AND drowned kittens.
Now if finding a bug in the carcass was as damming for them as finding a bug in the code...
There are Choose(n,2) pairs, which is O(n^2). The problem with the algorithm lies in:
Say they're all approximately the same length. Well the only taut string is going to be the string typing the start and the end, and all the rest are going to be completely limp. Cut it. Now the tension shifted to one extra junction. If you keep cutting, how are you sure you didn't cut a path you will eventually need?
The order of cutting matters. There are on the order of (n^2) strings and consequently on the order of (n^2)! ways to cut. Since you only need a path of length n it's n!.
I sure hope not. I like to ride things, and well... I sit on my comp with it between my legs, and the dvd burner is tucked just under my balls!
Yes it's pretty and balanced and such, and I bet you could convert it to music and it would be a fine jig, but... What does it do?
Let's see how my 10th grade Astronomy does. Hopefully somebody smarter will respond and we'll get some real answers!
I doubt we've actually seen the planet. We know a lot about stars due to their parallax (how much they shift in the night sky over the course of a half-year), their relative luminosity (how bright they appear), and even a spectrum analysis to determine what the star is "burning" (which tells you the age, TrES-4 seems to be on the older side) which allows us to know pretty much everything about them -- how far away they are and a pretty good guess at their mass.
As planets orbit their suns their small relative mass causes the sun to actually wobble. It's only been recently that we've had measuring tools sensitive enough to detect this wobble. Consequently we're only seeing the wobbles of stars over the past relatively few years, so if an orbit takes 80+ years we might not be seeing it yet (our Jupiter takes almost 12 years to orbit the sun). That's why we're getting so many reports of large planets very close to their suns (the closer to the sun, the faster the orbit and consequently the more easily observed wobble).
Anyway, moons and rings and really should have little or no bearing on the wobble of the sun. I'd be very surprised we were looking at light variations of an object 1400 light years away. Basically we know with high confidence the mass of the sun, and based on the speed and degree of wobble we can compute the location and mass of the orbiting planet. We know how gravity works and we assume something with that much mass is a gas giant, so we can compute it's size.
So here's where I really need help. What I don't understand is why it's befuddling. Google says the mass needed to create a star is 60x that of Jupiter, not a measily 1.7x. What's the issue? Big planets like that usually break off into two? The description in the article almost makes out like this was a binary star system and the one ate the other.
That is unless that "tiny nuke far out in space" shatters the crystalline conduit which inadvertently frees the evil villains General Zod, Ursa, and Non from the Phantom Zone.
Now I admit, this is a pretty obscure reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_II and probably a little long...
First it was digital scales, now Weight Watcher accurate scales.. now I have to worry about how much I weight on a nano-scale?!
Aren't most peoples' heads cocked naturally to the left, so the "norm" is just easier to read? Are you left handed by chance? Your style makes me dizzy.
..just like on that South Park episode about the kids who said 9/11 was done in the studios too. Or something.
Yes, they've openly acknowledged that Battlestar Galactica is much more resonant post 9/11. "Science Fiction" isn't about good science ("The Singularity is about to explode! Weapons to maximum!"), and it really only uses fiction as an allegory for present day, very nonfiction concepts and events.
Funny how the only positive post regarding the extension was from a guy who liked Enterprise.
Seinfeld died right. Somebday, may other shows learn from its wisdom.
What does the guy who wrote Star Trek have to do with this?
He couldn't wait 30 minutes? Wow. At least he enjoyed his first experience.
I actually went to the article and this is what greeted me: http://www.trustedreviews.com/images/article/summa ry/4414.jpg
This pup doesn't look that big to me!
So I see my OS choices in the next five years as: Windows Vista, Mac's OS X, or some Linux variant.
I don't really want to do another Windows. As long as the Mac has Blizzard's support with games like WoW, I may actually be able to abandon Windows. I've tried Debian, Red Hat, Fedora, and Ubuntu. Let's just say I'm an idiot and I'm good at breaking X without knowing how to fix it. I've got a stable, backed up Linux virtual machine that I'm very happy with, and I can use that to write papers in TeX and do assignments for my uni courses; but I don't really feel comfortable with performing any kind of minor or even cosmetic surgery on Linux. I'd really like to, but after breaking each distro with minor config changes...
Anyway! The actual question!
I read in other articles and on Wiki that Leopard will run on x86 Intel style CPUs, and that this particular version you're actually allowed to run on non-Apple specific hardware. I also read that it wouldn't be running on AMD. That doesn't make sense as I thought deep down the only difference was optimizations, and even AMD gets to have those if it's old enough. MMX, SSE1&2, etc.
Can someone please clarify this? Will I be able to run Leopard on my OEM self-built AMD 64 3000+ based machine?
I think "EVE: The Movie" would be pretty short. Probably too short to be a movie.
Remember that the hero always inevitably visits the busiest system in the universe, which is only gonna get 'em pod killed in like the first five minutes by a smartbomb station camper.
Or maybe it'll be the story about the guy in the cloaked ship that smartbombed the Titan, blowing months and months (a whole year?) of work. Oh wait, that was sorta Luke in Star Wars:ANH.
And if it takes after EVE:TV's tourny you won't even get to see the ships actually blowing up, they'll just despawn.
Definately too short for a movie. Maybe a TV commercial. "Come play EVE, where someone who has been playing for 4 years can kill you before you leave the newbie training area."
You sir are the grinch of fun day. I have the perfect idea for an outfit that you could wear, and while IAMACD (I am not a Costume Designer) I'm sure your giant hemorrhoid will simply dazzle.
I put on my robe and tinfoil hat...?
Man I am really looking to the new WoW sequal, WHoA!
And if you go to their forums you'll see everyone is posting "blue" except the CMs which are all level 1 trolls :)