Same AC here...

I forgot to add that in Genesis 19:32, that same righteous man tricks is daughters into thinking he's the last man on earth so he can knock up his own daughters.

This is the same Lot that is such a wonderful person god goes out of his way to spare him from the burning of soddom. Yet god kills his wife just for looking back at the city where her friends and relatives are dying and screaming.

Lot is really god's kind of fellow.

One can prove, without leaving room for doubt, that the halting problem is undecidable,

A really ignorant programming teacher at a local community collage her has found a way to decide the halting problem. A student asked her what sort of things you could validate with an asp.net validator. She said anything. He gave an example of a halting problem and she said yes.

In the words of one of her colleagues, "she's as dumb as a brick", so if she can decide the halting problem, can't someone smarter come up with a general solution?

Mostly wrong, and even the parts that a right, you make far more confusing than the need to be. I think you're using your maze example to try and represent branching within the algorithm and only confusing yourself. How would the maze for multiplying two numbers together (a P algorithm) look different from the maze for the satisfiability problem (an NP-complete algorithm)? I really can't picture your maze for either of them.

As far as your nondeterminism allowing you to simultaneously try each path, make copies of yourself, etc. It's just confusing, it makes NP harder to understand, and really clouds what's actually going on. Look at it this way. Nondeterminism allows you to always choose the correct path. Every branch you come to, you have the magic ability to pick the correct path on the first try. I call it a magic ability, you call it a super power. Forget about trying to understand how you're trying all paths; the whole concept is a mathematical model, so why inflate it with bloat trying to explain something that need not be explained?

Totally wrong. First, as the previous response said NP-hard is a separate set from NP. The intersection of the two sets is called NP-complete. NP-hard are the "hardest" problems in this class is axiomatically wrong because NP-hard is not a subset of NP.

Second, by definition of NP-hard, given a polynomial-time solution to any NP-hard problem, you can solve *every* NP problem in polynomial time, so what you meant to say is The question of "P==NP?" really amounts to "is there a polynomial-time solution to any problem that has been rigorously proven to be NP-hard?

It's not that the display resolution is too low, it's that Apple's marketing department is near-sighted.

That's what I'd prefer. A Nikon coolscan 9000 is *only* about $2000 and should give you about 120 megapixels from a 6x6 frame. IMO that setup gives the best of both worlds and much better image quality than the 39-50 megapixel backs.

All of that comes under the category of knowing your equipment.

Wow...where can I buy a Turing-complete microcontroller?

Until he installs an infitite tape, this is computationaly equivalent to a Finite Automata.

This is slashdot, why talk to someone when there's a perfectly stupid, immoral, anti-social solution that really shows what a pathetic person you are? Don't you have a tv-b-gone so you can shut someone's TV without having to ask them to turn it down?