So then does the proof that P!=NP require polynomial time, or non-deterministic polynomial time to trust based on its length?

Rather than having all developers at a round table facing toward each other I would surround them with desks and have them facing out from each other. That way collaboration is as easy as scooting your chair to an adjacent developer but you're looking away from each other when you're each trying to concentrate on your own thing. A few weeks ago I spent some time in a workroom with a couple other developers and hated it. For some people that might help but to me it was distracting.

The question at hand cannot be "how do we compromise in such a way that everyone is satisfied". If there are such a things as "right" and "wrong" and if they are immutable and not decided by the current whims of society then killing in the first trimester is either wrong or it is not. I say that it is because I believe that a viable zygote is a being with a soul from the point of conception.

I suppose I'll flirt with Godwin's law and make a skirting comparison to Nazis: What if we could have satisfied Hitler by killing one Jewish man and by doing so have saved millions? For the sake of argument we'll say that this man is very much opposed to the idea - he's not as willing to lay his life down to save many as Jesus (John 10:18). Would it be right to do? Do the ends justify the means? I could not kill the man because even though the benefit to society would be enormous his life is not mine to take. Likewise I can't relegate that which I believe to be murder to those within the first trimester.

A human can be a human without a name. I'm having trouble finding an example but I believe that some cultures wait a period of time before naming infants.
A date of birth does not define humanity. Consider a woman two weeks past due. Her baby is fully developed, feeling, thinking, dreaming, moving. The fact that that baby has not yet been physically separated from its mother is irrelevant to its humanity.
Some human beings are born without eyes.

You argue that having a brain to feel with is a requisite for humanity. I disagree. Consider a man in a coma. If I kill him then it is wrong because he may have come out of his coma at some point in time. The fact that at that point in time he appeared to have no thoughts, sensory input, or motor output, does not stop me from being a murderer. At this point I see several options: One can concede that I am correct and that not yet having developed a nervous system does not preclude humanity. One can argue that it is not murder to kill the comatose man. One can argue that my example is inappropriate. I'll skip the first two possibilities and focus on the third.

One could say that the comatose man is distinguished from the zygote in that the comatose man is not brain dead and presumably has some neural activity. Granted. I chose a comatose man because it fits our current level of technology. If that comparison causes quibbling then I'll change my comatose man into a cryogenically frozen normal man. He's at absolute zero - there are no chemical reactions occurring within him. He can be safely thawed out with nanotechnology to repair his shattered cell membranes. He is just as unthinking as the zygote. If it is wrong to destroy him then I'd say that the zygote being unthinking has no relevance on the morality of destroying it. An interesting side-note is that the zygote is arguably more alive than my ice-man.

Alternatively one could argue that my coma patient is distinguished from my zygote in that he was once thinking while the zygote has not yet progressed to such a level. The entirety of this debate could be brought to a discussion of the metaphysical since "human" is a definition that we've come up with and not something truly innate to nature but particularly an attempt to distinguish between two equally unthinking things based on the fact that one once thought seems to step outside of what the situation is and looks to a level outside of nature. It may hinge on the idea that humanity is gained at a certain point of intellect and not lost until death. If we go the route of the metaphysical then I'd say we need to define the criteria for what metaphysical aspect makes a human a human (personally I'd say ensoulment). Moreover you'd have to choose a point in time that this trait was gained. I can understand arguments that demand a higher level of thinking than what is possessed by a zygote but I think that it is quite difficult to nail down a point where humanity would be gained when one considers the span of human intelligence and, in particular, the limitations that some human beings live with. If a certain manner of thinking or awareness is required then we'd have to be open to the idea that some among us don't possess it.

The comparison to a parasite is not helpful. I acknowledge that there is a similarity to parasitism in that a developing child normally puts an increased burden on the mother to supply resources. The similarities end there. I am not a doctor but my understanding is that having children increases the life expectancy of a woman. I am not a biologist but I've never heard anyone talk about parasitism in regard to parent/child relationships (except in other abortion discussions). I believe that parent/child relationships are generally excluded from the classification of parisitism. Beyond the biological aspect of your statement you seem to be undermining the idea of a zygote being human by comparing it to a parasite. Even if it were a parasite then that would not preclude humanity.

If it's not viable then it's arguably not human. That point aside we do not know that it's not viable. If I go hunting and take a shot at something I need to be reasonably sure that it is not a human before I do so. It is not acceptable for me to take a shot if there is a 50% chance that my target is a human. I don't know the frequency of zygote viability. I chose 50% as a nod to that.

The aborted don't get a choice. The term pro-choice therefore seems misleading. I would also note the lack of choice for a male who has no say in the life of his child but that one is less direct since he isn't physically involved at that point.

I wrote a program in Java that used an artificial neural network to play Warning Forever. I took an evolutionary approach to training the networks because it was an unsupervised task. The program started with a pool of random networks, determined fitness by whatever criteria I used on a given run, and bred the networks together to make a new generation.

My program had no capacity to play the game with a different interface than a human. It actually read the values of the pixels on the monitor, processed them through its network, and yielded keystrokes.

It never got very good and eventually I got bored and moved on. I have some ideas for yielding better results that I want to try someday. Here's what happened:

1) Playing on lives didn't work because eventually a network would destroy the boss' offensive capabilities and hide in a corner. The game would never progress.
2) When I tried playing the game on a timer and ranking networks by what level they got to it ended up not moving at all and just shooting forward to destroy some bosses.
3) When I tried ranking by time survived the network would again just destroy the boss' offensive capability and hide.

1 is technically a perfect solution for the fitness criteria that I supplied. 2 and 3 are both examples of local minima where the networks found an early solution that dominated the competition (other networks, not the boss) and thus the gene pool.

as one of the three applications that I'll be allowed to run simultaneously?

He wasn't arguing that imaging the laptop would somehow grant the ability to decrypt the data. He was arguing that imaging the laptop would make it pointless for the suspect to cause the destruction of the data on the original machine.

If he enjoys such things then he's an evil man. That said, was he informed of his Miranda rights before he showed them that? Perhaps a reminder of his right to plead the 5th would've kept him from incriminating himself.

An incriminating statement by a suspect will not constitute admissible evidence unless the suspect was advised of his or her "Miranda rights" and made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of those rights - Wikipedia

I am not a lawyer, but perhaps the same inability to use self-incriminating statements could be applied here.

I would say that if the police really want to catch him then what they should do is image 64 laptops from his and play the guessing game on all of them simultaneously until they crack his key. He could be free during this period and even receive his laptop back.

I wish I had mod points. +1 Funny.

Doesn't Microsoft hold a patent on this?

Blame the victim.