Actually one way to define NP is that the solutions can be verified in polynomial time; although the complexity class is usually defined in terms of a universal turing machine.

I think you might be confusing NP with NP-hard. An NP-hard problem is at least as hard as NP (in other words, if you can solve NP-hard then you can solve any NP), but having a solution doesn't necessarily mean you can verify in polynomial time.

AFAIK, no general solutions for NP-complete or NP-hard complexity classes have been shown for quantum computers, only a few instances like factoring have been shown to be faster in quantum computers.

How is not liking gay people a disagreement?

When web browsers display HTML differently, no one dies. That's why we can be uncompromising about following standards.

Not having a universal standard may be a good thing for autonomous cars. Car 1 suggests a proposition to the other cars, like "I'm going to speed up". Car 2 had damn well better not assume that what car 1 is saying is true. Car 2 should operate safely whatever car 1 says, and any messages from car 1 should only be used to optimize travel. If car1 says "I'm going to speed up" then slams on the breaks, car2 better be able to handle that.

In fact, cars should be designed assuming that other cars will mess up the standard sometimes.

Yeah, I plan to make my kids listen to gcc syntax error messages.

They don't represent Slashdot. However, Slashdot doesn't represent the US. Governments always reflect the greater wishes of the governed. Anyone who thinks that representatives passing stupid legislation isn't a direct reflection of the nature of the majority is probably a member of that majority.

I agree with your sentiment.

However, if people insist on calling what the NSA is doing spying, then I will point out that they are also spying on us, and that the penalty for spying on the US is the death penalty.

No one should be expected to follow laws that have no basis in reason.

Those who do are not being responsible, they are being selfish.

Btw, Georgia is also one of the 4 states with explicit rights for jury nullification.

You missed the part of the article where it points out "On October 10, 2006, the United States announced the creation of a task force made up of officials from several U.S. agencies that will pursue more aggressively violators of the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba, with severe penalties."

Let's change that up a bit.

Sorry Iran, US laws are more ridiculous and our penalties are greater.

The only link that matters still works.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

Too bad they can't reference this one more.

A lawyer should be allowed to defend any person, against any charge, against any evidence, without any fear of legal repercussion.

I would prefer the more objective approach, "any lawyer who aids in sending out frivolous (read: obviously going to be overturned) patent notices should be disbarred."

I imagine it wouldn't be impossible for something like that to find its way into some legislation.

1) Make those who file for patents pay even if the patent is not approved.
2) Give a portion of the money paid to the first people who find prior art or make a good case for not supporting a patent.

And I'm going to reply to myself. And every lawyer involved in sending these notices should lose their license.

Dovden asked for $10,000. There was probably only a 1 in 1000 chance someone would fight and win. Dovden knew for certain that their patent wasn't innovative; this was no honest misunderstanding. Any damages less than $10000 * 1000 = $10,000,000 makes this a profitable business model.

Any ruling fining Dovden less than $10,000,000 is not enough.