True. However I don't think the article really implies that P = NP (although the title certainly does). From what I can see the article only addresses the class of NP-complete problems. Factoring is not known or believed to be NP-complete so it wouldn't directly prove that factoring was in P. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Edit : For some reason I can't reply to posts so I'll do it here.
RiderOfGiraffes> It would will leave in question those problems in NP, but not NPC. Currently it is generally believed, but not known, that factoring is such a problem.
This is exactly my point. P = NPC doesn't imply anything about factorisation. Since factorisation is in NP we haven't shown that P = NP
kd0amg> NP-complete problems ... are, in essence, the hardest problems in class NP.
From what I understand they a 'thought to be' the toughest but this isn't proven. If this article turned out to be true then they are reduced to being as hard as P. So who is still standing as a contender for the hardest problem in NP? - factorization of course as it has never been demonstrated to be polynomially reducible to NPC.
The point I was trying to make (badly) was that the actual claim doesn't imply P = NP, only that P = NP-complete. Given that factoring isn't known to be NP-complete (or co-NP-complete) this paper doesn't imply that factoring is in P.
Speaking pedantically, P is in NP also. I suspect that NP is being used as shorthand for NP-complete, not just NP. As for actual deterministic factorization Wikipedia says that
'It is suspected to be outside of all three of the complexity classes P, NP-complete, and co-NP-complete'
So even if this showed 'P = NP-complete' it may not imply imply factorization is in P. I'm at the limits of my rusty complexity knowledge here so if any knows better please correct me.
> The question is whether Apple can come up with the next ipod or iphone without him.
I think the question is more 'Will people BELIEVE they can come up with the next ipod or iphone without him?'. The confidence that Apple products will win out has helped drive their success and allowed them to popularise novel products like tablet computers where others could not hope to. Whether the confidence and the 'reality distortion field' will be retained without Jobs is what I see as in doubt. If they introduce another great new product - will they get the same rate of adoption?
One thing that the whole event showed was how the government websites don't stand up to high loads whereas the mega sites (google, facebook, twitter) have no problem with such a localised situation. To cope with emergencies like this, the relevant govt agencies will have to look at distributed architectures possibly incorporating offshore cloud based services.
It implies that the people of New Orleans were basically to blame for there problems which some think is unfair.
> Australia just happens to resemble the best parts of America rather than the worst parts, in this regard.
Anyone who was sensing racial overtones in the first 2 sentences pretty much has their confirmation here. I don't know if the author intended this or not but if he did have a point regarding race and/or culture to make then it should be made with more intellectual honesty and evidence/reasoning. Instead it comes of as snide at best.
I though the outrage for New Orleans was most about about the authorities response to the floods. In Brisbane the response is seen as being pretty good.
The last flood in 1974 was slightly worse and there have been worse ones in 1893 and 1841. So I guess you could say we are a bit prone to flooding. A damn was built in 1984 to mitigate the effects but it was close to full due to exceptional rain leading up to the main deluge. The damn still helped considerably and allowed them to block some water flow at high tide, but there is some suggestion that more proactive emptying earlier would have helped.
> The fact that this single event occurred is sufficient to demonstrate that the 'How to have a mutually enjoyable sex life' script does not work universally
I'm sure there are wealthy, polite, and educated necrophiliacs also and single instances of sexual fetishes and requirements so strange as to be unimaginable by most of us. Does his mean that we need to adjust our entire model of human sexuality for each of these? Maybe for people so limited of thinking as to believe that any one model of sex could achieve 100% coverage, this could actually be useful information. But to automatically assume anything about 'ordinary' sexuality is ridiculous.
I can't believe this isn't the most popular comment. Kinda makes HN look a bit like a knowledge vacuum with all these recent discussions of how to ban results when a google service that's existed for nearly 5 years can do the job. The format of the results isn't quite a nice as the normal google search though.
I'm pretty sure remember hearing that that microwaving removed more nutrients than steaming, but less than boiling. I suspect in each case it somewhat depends how long and intensely you heat it for. Attempting to propagate vague notions I have about things :)
> Eat a bowl of cereal in the morning (and I mean something like oatmeal or raisin bran rather than some sugary crap) and it barely matters what else you eat (other than calorific content)
I think you are seriously overestimating the nutritional value of a bowl of cereal, even a relatively healthful one. You may not see the worst of the consequences until you reach your 30s but they will still be accumulating.
> In reality, if you publish 20 experiments with p=0.05 [1], 1 of them should be incorrect.
In reality it doesn't turn out this way because the results that get written and published tend to be biased in favour of novelty and demonstrating a relationship rather than the absence of one. How many similar experiments could have been terminated, never submitted or not published because they failed to show anything notable? This is one of reasons... 'Why Most Published Research Findings Are False'
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
That meta-study applied to medical studies and I think this genre would probably fair even worse when it came to long term replicability.
For MS to capitalise on the Kinetic's success they need to start releasing good official drivers for Windows soon so they can channel the wave of developer activity onto their main platform. At the moment it seems like you are better off using Linux or Mac with the hacked drivers. I don't think there is time to wait for some 'kinect integrated' version of windows but they could also start working on that. It will be interesting to see if they are if they are nimble enough to react to an unexpected level of success like this.
> This major release is a long time coming (~3 years).
For some of us this is a blessing. Upgrading can be daunting if you've customised heavily or used modules that don't work in a newer version. Anything less than 3 years for an upgrade that is incompatible with older modules/themes is too short in my view. Looks like we'll have to start thinking about upgrading to version 6 now.
> its probably worked because he actually facts of the case in his favor
I think that's the point. He makes it pretty clear that he considers the chances of this actually reaching court as close to enough to zero.
> not because of these shenanigans.
The 'shenanigans' obviously saves at least a short consult and by refusing to dignify the claim with a proper legal response (and doing so confidently) he may be saving an extended and costly engagement.
Of course if the claim actually does go to court you've disadvantaged yourself considerably.
Edit : For some reason I can't reply to posts so I'll do it here.
RiderOfGiraffes> It would will leave in question those problems in NP, but not NPC. Currently it is generally believed, but not known, that factoring is such a problem.
This is exactly my point. P = NPC doesn't imply anything about factorisation. Since factorisation is in NP we haven't shown that P = NP
kd0amg> NP-complete problems ... are, in essence, the hardest problems in class NP.
From what I understand they a 'thought to be' the toughest but this isn't proven. If this article turned out to be true then they are reduced to being as hard as P. So who is still standing as a contender for the hardest problem in NP? - factorization of course as it has never been demonstrated to be polynomially reducible to NPC.