Interesting, though, when one cites a Fuller Dome, people generally expect a geodesic dome, the design for which Buckminster Fuller is better known: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic_dome These DDUs are an entirely different design.
They *did* invest in the Kinect 2. The Kinect 2 has also been a major success.
This is actually the opposite of something that's wrong with a company. They used the money that they had in order to fund research in order to produce a better product, and somewhat simply to do new and interesting research. I can't see why you would think that this is a bad thing.
People cite the "nimble" bit when they mean that a company is stuck in its ways or unable to adapt to change. Doing major research and development is the opposite of that. It's where people who are experts in a field use their talents to really thoroughly explore new ideas.
Moreover, your assertion lies on the idea that, somehow, this research isn't paying off. The consequence of that would be that they somehow fail to make money on the XBox One. It's a little early to be calling the XBox One a commercial failure, given that it won't be.
I agree, and I mean no offense to the admins when I say this. If every tech site tries to be a general news site, there will be no tech sites. Content like this dilutes the technical content of sites like Slashdot. There are plenty of places to talk politics. There should be a place to talk tech.
The FBI should just pick up this book: http://www.amazon.com/Influence-Psychology-Persuasion-Business-Essentials/dp/006124189X
There's a chapter that discusses North Korea's program for dealing with POWs during the Korean War. It was astonishingly effective, and, at least the parts in the book, didn't seem to involve much torture.
Honestly, Slashdot has been one of my favorite websites ever since it was shown to me in high school. Within a year or two after I started reading Slashdot, it became *the* place to become "in the know" with what was going on in technology.
A big part of the direction that Slashdot has moved in has been a product of this. More and more people knew that Slashdot was a place to go to to get "in the know," but the pool of truly enthusiastic, sharp, science and engineering minded people became diluted with people who simply wanted to be associated with that. Everyone wanted to participate, and the signal to noise ratio went down. It's unfortunate, but the thing that initially attracted people here was largely due to your vision and your efforts. I don't believe that your departure is likely to improve the site. I know that I, at times, have been critical of the direction that Slashdot has gone in (and at times you have expressed frustrations with the site yourself, or at least, frustrations with what you should do with it), but this change in direction has largely been a product of the change in readership. It has been your vision that has managed to keep it sane.
What is truly unfortunate is that, looking around the Internet for a site that gives me the same enjoyment that Slashdot did in its heyday, I have come up empty-handed. It really does feel like there is nowhere online for the old-school geek anymore. Everyone wants to be part of that now. In fact, being a "hipster" now involves saying how geeky and quirky you are. It's pretty annoying seeing kids who can't even program move in on my turf like that.
Anyway, thanks for all of the effort that you've put into this site, and I honestly do hope that we meet at an Open Source convention of some sort someday. If we do, I'll buy you a beer.
You know, I just shouldn't have chimed in. I'm beginning to regret that I did.
Thank you for speaking down to me. Now, lets get to business.
I get it. I actually understand computational complexity very well. Had you read the follow-up post, which was posted well before your post, you would see that I added the caveat "if P!=NP", long before you had a chance to talk down to me.
I actually threw in the caveat in a follow-up post (since I wasn't very atomic about it) that this was if P!=NP. Nothing that I said affects class inclusions once that caveat is thrown in.
Okay, but in the sense that any of the games in the original submission are NP-Hard, so are Chess and Go.
I've never seen one, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
The generalizations of both games are NP-Hard. They're only constant time because of the fixed number of pieces and places for those pieces to go.
I should caveat all of this. The "no polynomial-time algorithm" bit is only true if P!=NP. If P=NP, then there is a deterministic polynomial-time algorithm for NP-Complete problems. NP-Hard, however, just means that it's at least as hard as NP, so, it's possible that there's no algorithm for that harder problem. You have to be really really precise when talking about this stuff.