It is mathematically proven to be unsolveable within finite time, as the problem is in class NP.

No. No it is not. I am not sure where you got this, but chess is easily solvable in finite time. It is a simple tree search but incredibly massive. My desktop, given enough time and a massive increase in memory, could solve chess. Granted the memory would take up a planet the size of Saturn and the time would run into issues with the heat death of the universe, but this is much different than being "unsolvable within finite time".

I play chess at the tournament level, and have played computer chess since the early 80's when the things were little more than jokes.

You simply cannot internalize the chess computer's algorithms. Believe it or not computers suck at chess and positional understanding. I did an experiment where I played a series of games against Fritz. I gave myself infinite time, sometimes taking 30-40 minutes per moves. I am not a titled player, but am above average for a tournament player. I did very well against Fritz when I had time to make sure my calculations were solid and found many times that Fritz really misevaluated the position. In one case, it insisted that it was up by 1.5 pawns but after 6 or 7 normal humans moves that a "C" player would have found, Fritz realized it was actually slightly worse.

Put a computer in a closed position and it flounders. The computer does not understand a position, it simply has a fairly decent evaluation engine combined with the ability to see every stinking possibility. It does not get tired. It does not have the emotional baggage that sometimes makes chess mistakes.

The computers understanding (evaluation) of a position is perhaps FIDE (ELO) 2000. It's calculation ability is perhaps FIDE 4000. Combine the two, and you get a "person" capable of FIDE 3000 chess. Give a grandmaster more time, and you tip the balance to the positional understanding rather than the raw calculation speed.

So now you get to the point about "internalizing" the chess moves is simply not possible. Put a computer in a complex Queen vs Rook ending, and you will see the computer play moves that a human just would never do. It isn't based on a few principles and understanding them. It is based on a 12 eyed monster seeing every stinking move possible 12-14 plies deep. Computers revolutionized our understanding of this endgame and many more.

Beyond the endgame, there are many points in a chess game where you can tell a computer made a move. First, the move objectively works, but does not fit any type of theme, or normal principle of the game. It isn't simply a good or even great move, it isn't that it just doesn't make sense immediately but rather it doesn't fit any framework of human understanding.

So, yes, I am convinced that you can pick up on cheating based upon a series of moves given the right circumstances.

And no, this is nothing new. Cheating has gone on in chess for decades. Computers have just made it easier for the non-elite to cheat.

Except there is no evolutionary pressure to select for thicker skulls. The injuries cause problems long after the players have ended their career and have had their kids.

Ticker symbol(s). Emerging markets have done well, but I find it hard to believe that your returns have been so consistent for 12 years. 2008 was a real bear market in the emerging markets. Many funds lost 40% plus, even the more conservative ones.

Slight correction. My return was about 12% for the final 10 months of 2012. This is money I had rolled over from a prior employer so had full control for only the 12 months. I was in index funds before that as well, but can't easily roll those gains into the numbers I reported.

In an efficient market, all players have the same information and you cannot gain additional return without additional risk. And the fact is that unless you are an insider, you won't even meet the optimum risk/return frontier. I'm willing to bet if we looked at your returns, you'd be well below the frontier. It is good that you but and hold, but the downside is that it takes a handful of bad picks to bring you down and bring you down hard

My approach guarantees I will make market returns with average risk. Doing as well as the market is not a crime and is quite good. I pay almost no management fees. Even in my non-tax sheltered accounts I pay almost no taxes because nothing is realized. Brokerage fees are similarly insignificant. Anyone who claims to consistently beat those returns is taking additional risk or plain out not understanding their real returns. On top of it all, I spend a whopping zero minutes a week doing research as I really don't have to. And you can research your funds all day long, but you'll never have the insider info a lot of private analysts have and which affect the market.

I am invested in the US mostly, with significant minorities in Europe and Hong Kong. My total return in 2012 was just a shade under 12%. Not bad for a low risk strategy.

In fine Slashdot tradition, let's hear from 52 people telling us that correlation does not imply causation and that only people with brain trauma or predisposed to it play football.

There are no religious grounds here. I am Christian, have read the Bible front to back a couple of times and don't recall any prohibition on flu shots. Basically this person has a personal conviction against flu shots. That is absolutely fine. However, that means the nurses are in violation of company rules which make a lot of sense. It is the hospital's right to fire them.

No controversy here.

FTA: "While 2008 is famous for a huge summer spike that drove the average above $4 a gallon, price weren’t as consistently high as this year, leaving 2008 in third place overall at $3.25."

I think you are thinking of 2008 as your "couple of years ago", and the article does a good job of talking about that.

A 90 second search revealed the following "A common choice is to choose units such that the maximum possible efficacy, 683 lm/W, corresponds to an efficiency of 100%"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy

Is there a theoretical maximum lumens / watt ratio? My 30 second search on Google does't show any relationship between the two terms, but I have to imagine there is some type of maximum...

It is called a joke. Sorry you didn't get it, but I promise not to make fun of slow individuals like yourself.

Title: New IE Vulnerability Used In Targeted Attacks; IE9, IE10 Users Safe
Sentence Two: While IE9 and IE10 are not affected, versions IE6, IE7, and IE8 are
Then: "We are actively investigating reports of a small, targeted issue affecting Internet Explorer 6-8,"
Then: People using Internet Explorer 9-10 are not impacted.""

Could someone please tell me which versions are vulnerable and which ones are not?

Although acceleration is not the same as speed, AC is right. Even if you assume the probe's weight is negligible, you begin to run into issues with thrust to weight of fuel. Over the five years cited in this story, the ion thruster consisting of fuel only would get you to 75km/s, or about a 14,000 year flight to alpha centauri. Scaling up doesn't help much as the ion thruster has to accelerate a larger mass.

Just realized how careless I was. My calcs assume acceleration from propulsion only. Voyager 1 took up much less fuel but is going at a pretty good clip due to gravitational assists. So the comparison is not apples-to-apples. Voyager 1 has used about 80 kg of mass to get to its current speed, but a good part of that was due to energy from being placed in orbit and from a slingshot around Jupiter.