Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Because ... (Score 1) 177

Now, because they announced it beforehand, pundits will spend the next weeks complaining, loudly vociferously, obnoxiously, all the way until MS actually release it. Users will be as pissed of as in the other scenario, because despite the previous communication, they won't bother listening, and won't know about it anyway.

Comment: Re:There should always be contingency plans.. (Score 1) 307

by marcosdumay (#46662991) Attached to: Should NASA Send Astronauts On Voluntary One-Way Missions?

it has to be done with real humans or we can't know if it will succeed

Maybe I can help with some rules of thumb:

1 - If there is no breathable athmosphere, it will not succeed.
2 - If you don't produce anything to eat, it will not succeed.
3 - If there is no local manufacturing, it will not succeed.
4 - If you can not keep a rabbit, dog, rat, or whatever alive, it will not succeed.

After you do all that, yes, maybe you'll have a reason to test it with people.

Comment: Re:NP vs. P doesn't exist in the real Universe (Score 1) 199

by marcosdumay (#46662249) Attached to: P vs. NP Problem Linked To the Quantum Nature of the Universe

A way to solve a problem is an algorithm for some kind of computer (to use the example of a previous post, a hurricane does compute the Navier-Stokes equations for a set of parameters).

The article gets crazy only when it requires that the algorithm be quick and efficient.

Comment: Re:Are all NP-hard Problems equivalent? (Score 2) 199

by marcosdumay (#46662209) Attached to: P vs. NP Problem Linked To the Quantum Nature of the Universe

A solution to a NP-hard problem can be used to solve any NP problem, but a NP-hard may, or may not be an NP problem. What means that no, not all NP-hard problems are equivalent (and that's for sure).

The set where all are equivalent is named "NP-complete". Those are the NP-hard problem that are also NP.

Comment: Re:Inflation (Score 1) 194

In the exact sciencies, you get consensus to nearly all questions that you craft well enough to exclude any kind oppinion, but you'll get plenty of "nobody knows". You won't get any kind of consesus on the likehood of a non-mainstream theory being right, and very little on how right (or wrong) are the mainstream theories, except if you use some completely objective measurement.

In human sciences you won't have any "nobody knows" answer to those first questions. You'll have consensus on the known ones, and plenty of hand waving on the not known. You'll also get hand waving in the exact sciences, the difference is that they come after the "we don't know" part, while in the human sciences that part is missing (or maybe implicit, I don't know).

"Atomic batteries to power, turbines to speed." -- Robin, The Boy Wonder