Oversimplifying what P=NP would mean for dummies:
1) you have a problem known to be slow to solve(in NP)
2) you create a description of your problem as a sequence of logical operations (if you can make a logical circuit for it this can be done)
3) you translate that description in a special formulation known as CNF using just 3 variables(this point was already proven as possible and fast for all NP problems)
4) ??? - you take your newly developed polynomial time 3 SAT CNF solving algorithm and use it to compute a solution to the problem stated at 1)
5) $$$ - you now have a polynomial time algorithm to solve the problem stated at 1)

Glossary:
P - Polynomial time = Fast to solve even for very large inputs (finding if a given number is even)
NPC - Non determinisctic polynomial time complete = Very very slow to solve for somewhat large inputs (finding a solution for the travelling salesman problem with lots of cities)
NP - Non deterministic polynomial time = Contains all problems that are in P in addition to many others that aren't in P.
CNF - Conjunctive normal form = A way to write boolean algebra expressions(sequences of logical operations)
SAT - Satisfiability = Find out if there are any values for the variables that make a boolean expression true

P.S. for those still reading:
As for prime factorization it is known that it is in NP and in Co-NP but AFAIK there exists no proof as to whether it is in NPC, co-NPC or P. But we also know it to be in FNP and we know that if P=NP then FP=FNP and vice versa, hence prime factorization would be solvable in polynomial time by a turing machine as all FP problems are.

Bibliography:
See your favourite boolean algebra/logics book for CNF and SAT and your favourite computation theory book for Complexity.

I'll not believe it until I see it!

So much noise about some CS bachelor turned into IT Manager. He wants to leave? Good for him! What does that means to MS? Almost nothing, they'll just promote some younger and more energetic developer to take over.

You realize that EyeToy is just an USB camera, right?

Also you realize that Kinect has lots of IR detectors and emitters besides the camera, and is being used in lots of research lately, right?

But bollocks maybe the non-MS researchers behind the holograms, the interactive interfaces and such are just lazy lads copying EyeToy.

Actually it was quite different than the OJ Simpson case, a council of judges was formed to judge this case, one of the defenders lawyers was arrested for being involved. One politician was accused but turned out to be innocent(or so they say). They took six years to review what they have supposedly because of the high number of witnesses, and many of the accused were found out to be innocent and freed. Also other politicians tried to politicize the case to attack the governing party. There is the possibility of a bad judgement but one can only know for sure after the decision is public.

Yes 2000 pages is an overkill, but word could handle it if the user was competent.

Of course I think colleges everywhere should create a MS Word PHD, for those poor users that after 10 years using a computer don't know that caps lock is the cause of their text being all in uppercase.

Well you never entered a court or any other public service then, most of them still use XP, and knowing Ms Office is almost requisition to work there.

Well we will only know for sure what proof they have when the document gets to the public, meanwhile we have only the customary whining about anything no matter how insignificant on both sides of the trial, but for outsiders today this is somewhat of a "tradition" in our country even outside the justice system. If you're not whining you're for sure conspiring to do something that will take the food out of the workers mouth.

And of course we have Carlos Cruz trying to save his ass, with his site and speeches, and being given more TV time than any other person involved in the case just because he was a national celebrity.

Have you ever heard of proofs by contradiction? Or more importantly counter examples?

For something better rephrased (for the sake of logical analysis) as "All venture capitalists would not invest if it wasn't for software patents" you only need a venture capitalist saying the opposite, in fact you have a whole bunch of them saying that.

You can say it isn't significant because "Most VCs would not invest..." but thats not the issue there, and I suspect that a well made statistical analysis would indicate a strong correlation between being a VC and believing in the uselessness of software patents.

Are they not? They teach you in school electrons roam around protozoa.

No it would flag as the wrong answer. Also most of the time its easy to check if someone cheated for sure, just asked about the purpose of every line, and tell them to modify the program to do something else, if they can't they cant even tell you what they've done they've cheated for sure.

I'm currently using OpenBSD on a 233mhz pentium mmx with 64megs of ram, with X running. You know why? Because most"lightweight" linux distro would not even run the installation right (have you ever tried to use a livecd with 64megs? why the hell would I want a livecd for old computers with low specifications? Oh wait there is no text install...).

Apart from deli linux and fluxbuntu(that is strangely more lightweight than damn small linux) that were kind of slow.

I meant there is no need to use...

I said done more in depth, after all you mentioned OS programming and I can't even begin to imagine the amount of hacking that one needs in Common LISP or Scheme to do what is normally done Assebly and in C or other mid/low level imperative language.
By depth I mean freedom to manipulate the computer with little abstractions getting in the way.

But the point was that there is need to use low level programming and make everything from the quantum level up, but it really helps to know how the abstractions ones uses are implemented(or at least know what is a linked list, heap, ...) to make the best fitting choice to a particular problem.

Even if that was true(and it isn't) there is plenty of people that don't know how to use a bow and an arrow.