[citation needed]

A bug in your script is far more likely than a collision between two files in full 128 bit md5, barring a deliberate attack on md5 to create the collision.

No it isn't. It might not be in P, but it almost certainly is not NP hard. (Barring something like P=NP that would imply everything in P is NP hard)

This result was rather interesting for SODA because it wasn't an improvement in time complexity over the best known algorithm. There are asymptotically faster previously known algorithms for computing sparse FFTs, but they aren't actually faster than the current (extremely optimized) FFT implementations unless the output is extremely sparse.

This algorithm isn't quite as asymptotically fast but it has a much better constant factor, so it is more likely to be effective in practice on inputs which are not extremely large and/or outputs which are not extremely sparse.

Posting a story about how a presentation will be given at SODA... about a day after SODA ended.

I actually went to this talk, which was scheduled for the first 8:30 AM timeslot as part of their evil conspiracy to get me to wake up early. The approach seemed remarkably straightforward, but I haven't gotten around to actually reading the paper yet -- I was too busy sightseeing around Kyoto.

[citation needed]

[lol]

Fusors are a standard neutron source, and they're fairly straightforward to build.

The idea that you could throw hydrogen ions at each other with enough energy to fuse is fairly obvious. It turns out that the obvious ways of doing so are orders of magnitude short of generating net power, but they do generate neutrons.

You must be new here.

Right, I've been duped into looking at the prices of things people actually buy, rather than their more expensive 1990 equivalents.

This is a standard definition of "regret" in an economics context.

No.

You can't use separated entangled qubits to send information faster than light. It doesn't work that way. There are a bunch of tricks and operations you can do, but none of them result in the other end being able to distinguish a change of state.

Eliminating arbitrary differences in regulation is stupid?

The downside is it removes an incentive to patent (or publish) rather than keep something as a trade secret.

And also note that you don't need to be able to reduce SAT to a problem for it to be hard!

Factoring is almost certainly easier than SAT but harder than anything in P.

I think no such thing, and neither do they.

Remember how my first response in this thread was that you had your definitions backwards? I'm saying factoring is NP-easy. Nobody who actually knows what they're talking about thinks its NP-hard.

A problem doesn't need to be hard to reduce it to SAT.