You want old jokes?
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these....
You want old jokes?
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these....
Their executive's stocks don't get scrutinized for insider trading, as happened to a certain Qwest executive...
Look, I was in my teens when I saw it in the theater, and I was not a fan or defender of Heinlein's (still have not read any of his books).
I still thought the movie sucked.
I got that it was satire, in fact I thought it was trying too hard to be satire. There was no subtlety and none of it was clever or funny. Nor did it lampoon the military in ways that actually challenged militarism or war on an intellectual level, it just made fun of the surface aspects of it (hurrr grunts are dumb, look at this parody of propaganda, etc). It felt like the director was just trying to bash his views onto the viewer without any introspection or intellect. Basically my reaction.
You know your movie sucks when a teenage boy thinks it lacks subtlety and intellect.
Not only am I from the United States (born in Iowa, currently live in Virginia), but I've spent enough time in emergency rooms (pursuant to EMT work) to know this is the law. Sorry, kid.
Check the bankruptcy declarations. The City of Detroit made various statements under penalty of perjury, and one of the most shocking was their admission that emergency response times averaged 58 minutes.
I can't explain the discrepancy between what Detroit says on a web site and what Detroit says in a courtroom. What I can do, though, is point you to my reference.
Mostly Detroit having been in a state of slow-motion collapse for 30+ years. Even the bankruptcy is caused by that -- it's not as if it suddenly came out of the blue.
30 years ago Detroit had 1.8 million people. Today it has about 700,000. A lot of businesses have also left, too. The city has spent 30 years acting as if nothing has really changed while the entire tax base has fled. Now the city is in a financial emergency of unthinkable proportions. Something like two-thirds of the ambulances have over 200,000 miles (320,000km) on them; there are 40% fewer police patrolling the streets than there were a decade ago; to save money, the city has shut off streetlights in something like half the city.
To make matters worse, half the city is functionally illiterate and thus can't find work in a modern economy. Unemployment in Detroit hovers around 50%.
Detroit's problems are the result of the city itself collapsing. The bankruptcy is just a symptom of the much bigger problems. Even if the federal government were to cut a $20 billion check to bail Detroit out of bankruptcy, these deeper problems would still exist.
Detroit is infamously bad, yeah. 58 minutes is the *official* Detroit response time. A few years ago I had to call the ambulance in Detroit for a neighbor who was having a stroke. We never found out what the response time was. We called the ER, who told us to bring her down ourselves. By the time we took her to the ER, sat with her through her diagnosis and admission and returned home, the ambulance *still* hadn't arrived. So I called 911 and canceled the ambulance call.
Where I come from, that's called "gross negligence" and "endangering lives".
I don't know where you are so I can't comment on your local laws. In the United States, it would likely be considered neither. Acts necessary to save human lives are neither criminally prosecutable nor subject to civil litigation.
The important word in that phrase, of course, being "necessary." Here's how a judge would evaluate your affirmative defense of, "Your honor, I had to drive like a madman: I had a man in obvious cardiac distress in the back of my car."
I am generally not a fan of urban driving. I own a Mustang GT and I go to the speedway whenever I can to race at high speeds in a controlled environment, but once I'm on public roads I obey the speed limit and I live in mortal fear of Suzy Homemaker in an SUV who's jawing on her cell phone instead of paying attention to her lane merge. I welcome the development of automated driving: for 99% of people it will be a massive step up in safety.
But let's not pretend that driving at 80mph in response to an immediate threat to a human life is something that we need to condemn. Those drivers amount to such a vanishingly small fraction of all accidents that I'm happy to give them a free pass. Go with God, may your tires have good tread, and I hope your passenger makes it.
I'm sure they'll air them at some point in the future, but for now there's a cost for remastering the episodes, and so I'd say it's fair for the beeb to try and recover some of the cost through iTunes/Amazon.
As someone who lives in Mountain View, I'd like to second this post. Google WiFi has never worked well. In my experience it hardly ever worked at all. I'd be happy to be rid of it.
Yes, the Halting problem is undecidable. That doesn't stop it from being NP-hard also.
Saying that it exists somewhere in NP-Hard may be technically true, in that NP-Hard encompasses all classes NP-Complete and harder (and UNDECIDABLE is definitely harder). But I don't know of a single reputable computer scientist who would characterize the Halting Problem as NP-Hard, in the same way that I don't know of a single one who would characterize 3SAT as being in EXPTIME. As my advisor once quipped, "That idea is too clever to be taken seriously."
Assuming one has an oracle is not the same thing as assuming one has a Turing machine that does something.
Clearly not, because if it were a Turing machine it wouldn't be allowed to exist. Hence the phrase, "hypercomputation." But if such an oracle could exist, it would mean P=NP simultaneous with P != NP, and that's just for starters -- a short list of the contradictions that would be forced to be true if any hypercomputational oracle existed is the sort of thing that will give mathematicians nightmares. This is why virtually the whole field of computer science believes that hypercomputational oracles cannot exist, and why a significant fraction believes that any line of reasoning that involves a hypercomputational oracle is invalid because it starts from a false premise -- that such a thing can exist.
And no, Davis is not condemning people trying to do real hypercomputation. He's condemning the entire field of hypercomputation as a discipline.
No. The Halting Problem belongs to class UNDECIDABLE, not class NP-Hard. I admire your attempt at rationalizing it, but Alan Turing proved this to the world's satisfaction. If you wish to prove the Halting Problem does not belong to UNDECIDABLE then you're going to have an uphill road to hoe. If you still believe the Halting Problem belongs to NP-Hard, I would suggest you begin by correcting its Wikipedia article.)
Your argument involving an oracle that solves the Halting Problem is absurd because you're assuming the existence of hypercomputation -- and if such an oracle could exist, then we would simultaneously have P=NP and P != NP. Martin Davis has gone so far as to declare hypercomputation both "a myth" and "a nonexistent discipline." Those are strong words coming from one of the brightest lights in the field of computational theory and computational complexity.
It's a bedrock principle of logic that if you start from a false proposition anything can be proven. You assume the existence of an oracle that can solve the Halting Problem. This is a false proposition. Anything can be proven once you make oracular assumptions.
At this point I'm pretty sure you're trolling. The Halting Problem is UNDECIDABLE -- it exists in a complexity class considerably beyond what is normally thought of as 'NP-Hard'.
And if you don't understand my parenthetical remark, well... that should be taken as a sign that your computational theory is seriously lacking. The meaning is quite clear to someone who has a proper understanding of what complexity class NP-Hard is about.
No, even then your characterization of NP-Hard is incorrect.
"A class of problems is NP-Hard if being able to solve it in polynomial time..."
If you can solve it in polynomial time, then it's in P. Even under your revised definition, you're implicitly arguing that P=NP, because that's the only way you can solve an NP-Hard problem in polynomial time. (And even then, you would only be able to solve the NP-Complete subset of NP-Hard.)
Permit me to stand for a moment on my all-but-dissertation Ph.D. in theoretical computer science:
Sorry, but the original poster was essentially correct. Your definition would make sense if it involved the existence of a polynomial-time transformation between an NP-Complete problem and the purported NP-Hard problem, but saying that "a solution to an NP-Hard problem allows for NP to be solved in polynomial time" is
With respect to the OP's talk about direction, I understood that to be a layman's distinction between solution and verification. If that was the OP's intent then he's guilty of at most an infelicitous choice of words -- he's not "at best confused, and essentially wrong."
Remember -- only 10% of anything can be in the top 10%.