You're misunderstanding something. P=NP is about whether two sets are equal. If it's "undecidable" or "independent", then ZFC is consistent with either P=NP or P \neq NP.
Independent doesn't sound like the same thing as undecidable.
Given a program P, it is undecidable whether that program will halt. There is an answer: P either halts or it doesn't. There is just no way to find out (in general).
Yes, 'undecidable' is used for a similar class of mathematical problems. For example, the continuum hypothesis - another question about an equality of sets - is undecidable in ZFC. This notion is strongly related to undecidability on Turing machines (possibly equivalent, depending on how you look at it).
They are intimately related. If you look at how Gödel's incompleteness theorem is stated, the existence of "effective procedures" (I.e. Computable functions) figures in intimately.
Scott Aaronson is probably one of the best at explaining theoretical computer science, if you're interested in these topics you should follow his blog.
But don't apologize too much, because now you have "a thing": efficient js. You can make a lot of well-deserved money with a thing like that, so long as you cultivate your mastery of it over time.
Sure, you can spend as much as you can possibly imagine on some equipment. Linhof, Cambo, Leaf. Those are more business investments for the majority of people who buy them, in a sense.
The Bush administration announced its policy on captives from Afghanistan in February 2002. It drew a theoretical distinction between al-Qaeda fighters and members of the Taliban forces. Since al-Qaeda was a non-State group, the conflict between the United States and al-Qaeda was outside the reach of the Geneva Conventions, the White House said. By contrast, since the Taliban were the de facto armed forces of Afghanistan, the Geneva Conventions did apply to the conflict between the United States and the Taliban. However, according to the White House, the Taliban forces did not meet the criteria set out in the Third Geneva Convention for attaining POW status. Therefore, in practice, all detainees from Afghanistan were “unlawful combatants” who did not deserve the privileges of prisoners of war.
Nevertheless, the White House proclaimed, the prisoners would receive “many POW privileges as a matter of policy.” Included in the listed privileges which would be extended detainees held at Guantanamo were appropriate Muslim meals, opportunities to worship and correspond and send mail, subject, of course, to the security needs of the facility and the U.S. government. This limitation on the right of correspondence is permitted by Article 76 of the Convention.
Are you attempting to dispute or corroborate that these prisoners are not, in fact, prisoners of war? You're quoting from the creative legal department of the Bush administration, in which it is made clear that the men are not categorized as prisoners of war, but were instead supplied a different distinction so as to remove them from Geneva Convention protections. Instead, your quote only says they've been allegedly provided POW privileges as a matter of policy.
Policy does not equal protection under and adherence to laws of war.
I think a lot of people aren't aware of this, but the US has helped (sometimes very directly) to overthrow quite a few democracies. Look at Iran, and their transition to the Shah; or Allende/Pinochet and Milton Friedman's experiments.
I've looked into some detail on the Iran issue and i suggest others do to. To say the US "overthrew" the Iranian gov't does tell the whole story. There was a large, domestic grassroots effort in Iran to overthrow Mossadegh. Did the US and Britian help that effort? Sure, but to say they imposed their will on the country is going a bit far.
