I remember studying algorithm time complexities, where ideally the time complexity of an algorithm is a polynomial function -- like O(n)=n^2, or even O(n)=n^100. Most things that seem really hard at first are exponential, O(n)=2^n or whatever. *IF* somebody gets a brilliant stroke of inspiration, those exponential time complexity algorithms sometimes get tweaked to become logarithmic, like O(n)=log(n).

But almost never does a problem that seems really hard at first (exponential) get some brilliant solution that makes it jump into easy (polynomial).

I think we get so caught up in the abstract concepts and semantics that we tend to overlook what seems like common sense: some problems are simply harder than others, with no "magic bullet" solution. So, I think that P is almost certainly NOT equal to NP. But that quote around the 10 minute mark puts that in a pretty eloquent way that is easy to understand even to the layman -- a trait which is entirely too uncommon in academia.

BUT, I must admit that the few occasions when I studied an algorithm that seemed like it obviously couldn't get any better than exponential time complexity, only to be shown a brilliant outside-the-box solution that brought it down to logarithmic time complexity definitely taught me some humility. So, you never know.

That's just the nature of battle, there is no magic bullet weapon. Everything has some weakness. That's why there are so many variations working together. Tanks being support by infantry, infantry being supported by air, and so on. Light vehicles, heavy vehicles. Every aspect is covered. They are all made for different reasons and nothing is left to chance.
It was also a very unlikely hypothetical situation. A squadron wouldn't have to "drop everything and run in". They would be assigned as over-watch or what used to be known as top cover. Which is done in every section of the armed forces. From planes to infantry.

The F-35 is faster, and that is what matters in a beyond visual range combat. As soon as a missile is launched from up to 100KMs away, you will be "running away" because you don't want to take the chance that your ECM and Chaff might have not been effective. You will use every tool available to keep you alive, and one of the best ways is to drag out the enemy missile long enough for it to run out of energy before it can reach you. Since a snaking path is longer than a straight line, the enemy missile will have to fly further.

There really aren't any compromises except for the acceleration and maneuverability which I mentioned in my response to Newt is not really relevant. The other reason is that the F-16 is already at the physical limits of acceleration and maneuverability. Any more and the pilot would die. So the key is senors, weapons and stealth. Unless of course we start using fighter drones as instead of pilots. Then you could probably get away with some additional performance. But otherwise human piloted plane performance was already maxed in the 70s.

Canadian from Manitoba checking in here. Things like crutches, prescription medications, and ambulances are out of pocket expenses. Got something like diabetes? Expect to be spending a lot of money every month on drugs.

For life threatening emergencies or even broken bones and stitches our system works great for people, and no worries about going broke, you just go in anyways. Our federal and provincial taxation levels though are also much higher than in the US and a large percentage of that is spent directly on health care. I don't know what level of health insurance that amount would buy each Canadian, but it is important to remember that the Canadian healthcare system is NOT free.

I must say I do prefer the Canadian system to the American one. Largely on the basis of not seeing working class families being financially destroyed by life threatening and uninsured medical conditions.

I can't just say that though without pointing out that our Canadian system has it's own serious flaws. I know of people with back injuries putting them off work until they can get surgery, and that surgery being a waiting time for them measured in years. They flew down to the states to spend thousands of dollars out of pocket to get the surgery in weeks instead, and were financially ahead too over those two years since they could get back to work. Patients showing symptoms that might indicate major heart conditions or other illnesses who would get an immediate MRI or other expensive diagnostic in the states straight away will routinely wait months in Canada.

That is all just a long winded way to say the Canadian system is far from perfect and has very serious problems and flaws in it that are negatively impacting peoples health and financial well being too. It's no magic bullet.

Most fuel cell vehicles get hydrogen from natural gas = emissions (though less than gasoline vehicles).

However, another problem is that fuel cell vehicles are incredibly inefficient, in the ways of 47%. As a comparison, gasoline vehicles are about 37% efficient while electric vehicles are 99% efficient.

It's certainly no magic bullet, but it's better than the shit we have now, that's for sure.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^crotchflame:
There's nothing about inflation or speculation that requires fiat money.

Huh? That's what inflation is--the expansion of the fiat monetary base. WTF are you talking about?
Without a system built on fractional reserve debt, there is no method to engage in fraudulent speculation. There is no bubble, there is no artificial expansion in debt.


Inflation is a rise in general price levels. Just because the price of gold is fixed with a gold standard doesn't mean everything else is. But to be fair, inflation did tend to be lower under fixed currencies with little threat of runaway inflation and the long-run prices determined by gold mining activity. BUT this came at the cost of a more serious threat of deflation and bank runs, which you can easily argue is much worse.

What's the difference between speculation and investment? It seems people are always certain which is which after the fact, but a full reserve banking system would reduce both activities. It's a matter of degree, there are no magic bullets.