dejb
Edit : For some reason I can't reply to posts so I'll do it here.
RiderOfGiraffes> It would will leave in question those problems in NP, but not NPC. Currently it is generally believed, but not known, that factoring is such a problem.
This is exactly my point. P = NPC doesn't imply anything about factorisation. Since factorisation is in NP we haven't shown that P = NP
kd0amg> NP-complete problems ... are, in essence, the hardest problems in class NP.
From what I understand they a 'thought to be' the toughest but this isn't proven. If this article turned out to be true then they are reduced to being as hard as P. So who is still standing as a contender for the hardest problem in NP? - factorization of course as it has never been demonstrated to be polynomially reducible to NPC.
'It is suspected to be outside of all three of the complexity classes P, NP-complete, and co-NP-complete'
So even if this showed 'P = NP-complete' it may not imply imply factorization is in P. I'm at the limits of my rusty complexity knowledge here so if any knows better please correct me.
Creative speculation is not religion just as thought is not superstition.
Creative speculation + experimental verification = science
Creative speculation + certain belief without evidence = religion
Creative speculation + allowing uncertainty = reasoning
Creative speculation + action = decision making
Creative speculation + business implementation = startup
I think the question is more 'Will people BELIEVE they can come up with the next ipod or iphone without him?'. The confidence that Apple products will win out has helped drive their success and allowed them to popularise novel products like tablet computers where others could not hope to. Whether the confidence and the 'reality distortion field' will be retained without Jobs is what I see as in doubt. If they introduce another great new product - will they get the same rate of adoption?
> Australia just happens to resemble the best parts of America rather than the worst parts, in this regard.
Anyone who was sensing racial overtones in the first 2 sentences pretty much has their confirmation here. I don't know if the author intended this or not but if he did have a point regarding race and/or culture to make then it should be made with more intellectual honesty and evidence/reasoning. Instead it comes of as snide at best.
The last flood in 1974 was slightly worse and there have been worse ones in 1893 and 1841. So I guess you could say we are a bit prone to flooding. A damn was built in 1984 to mitigate the effects but it was close to full due to exceptional rain leading up to the main deluge. The damn still helped considerably and allowed them to block some water flow at high tide, but there is some suggestion that more proactive emptying earlier would have helped.
I'm sure there are wealthy, polite, and educated necrophiliacs also and single instances of sexual fetishes and requirements so strange as to be unimaginable by most of us. Does his mean that we need to adjust our entire model of human sexuality for each of these? Maybe for people so limited of thinking as to believe that any one model of sex could achieve 100% coverage, this could actually be useful information. But to automatically assume anything about 'ordinary' sexuality is ridiculous.
The fact that the author chooses to generalise a 'proof' from a single personal encounter shows what sort of low standard she has for evidence.
I think you are seriously overestimating the nutritional value of a bowl of cereal, even a relatively healthful one. You may not see the worst of the consequences until you reach your 30s but they will still be accumulating.
In reality it doesn't turn out this way because the results that get written and published tend to be biased in favour of novelty and demonstrating a relationship rather than the absence of one. How many similar experiments could have been terminated, never submitted or not published because they failed to show anything notable? This is one of reasons... 'Why Most Published Research Findings Are False' http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
That meta-study applied to medical studies and I think this genre would probably fair even worse when it came to long term replicability.
For some of us this is a blessing. Upgrading can be daunting if you've customised heavily or used modules that don't work in a newer version. Anything less than 3 years for an upgrade that is incompatible with older modules/themes is too short in my view. Looks like we'll have to start thinking about upgrading to version 6 now.
> I don't, personally, need an algorithmic solution to spam.
Not now you don't. But if everyone started using your approach then the spammers would adjust their behaviour and use many domains instead of one.
I think that's the point. He makes it pretty clear that he considers the chances of this actually reaching court as close to enough to zero.
> not because of these shenanigans.
The 'shenanigans' obviously saves at least a short consult and by refusing to dignify the claim with a proper legal response (and doing so confidently) he may be saving an extended and costly engagement.
Of course if the claim actually does go to court you've disadvantaged yourself considerably.
Some possible ways it could be useful are
- Stop the reliance on 'security by obscurity'
- Motivate cooperation on how to secure these facilities or decentralize their function where possible.
- Inform public discussion on these issues which may possibly lead to new ideas / solutions
I'm not saying that it will necessarily be a net benefit but it certainly is possible.
The takeaway is that the maximum daily level intake they have is 4000IU for adults and their recommendation is 600IU.
This guy obviously has no clue about the realities of web publishing. How are ordinary users supposed to find the sites without the domain pointer? For most users, taking the domain name is the same as shutting the site down.