Slashdot Mirror
How Google Will Have Achieved The Semantic Web
alfaromeo points to a business feature (mysteriously available already) by one Paul Ford called "August 2009: How Google beat Amazon and Ebay to the Semantic Web." So read on for a bit of potential history from five years in the future.
Remember back when we all thought that XML was going to achieve the semantic web by making good search engines unnecessary? Now XML has gone nowhere except as a set of popular libraries for cross-language data serialization, and we're starting to talk about just making really smart search engines.
How Google become self-aware and took over the world.
Semantic Web, proper noun
OrAn attempt to apply the Dewey Decimal system to an orgy.
The Semantic Web is a project underway that intends to create a universal medium for the exchange of information by giving meaning, in a manner understandable by machines, to the content of documents on the web. Currently under the direction of its creator, Tim Berners-Lee of the World Wide Web Consortium, the Semantic Web extends the ability of the World Wide Web through the use of standards, markup languages and related processing tools.
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
Very interesting ideas, but I seriously doubt that Google could (or would) try to squeeze a percentage out of every transaction performed using the hypothesized marketplace manager. That just doesn't seem to fit their modus operandi. More likely they'd give place preference to paying clients, much as they do now with the existing search pages.
But as I said, a provocative read. Metadata truly is the future.
BTW, I really doubt Ashcroft will become president. I think most Republicans would object to that as well...
The French and the Germans both had really crappy roads.
The French tried to solve this by giving their cars really springy suspensions that could handle the awful roads without a problem.
The germans made really well engineered roads and high test maintenance methods.
Looking at the resultant cars, who do you think had a better approach?
"Give away the stone, let the oceans take and transmutate this cold and faded anchor." - Maynard James Keenan
Be planning to buy many shares of Google, would he?
This article was posted last year.
So, you're a small African republic in the midst of a revolution with a megalomaniac leader, an expatriate Russian scientist in your employ, and 6 billion in heroin profits in your bank account, and you need to buy some weapons-grade plutonium.
Who does it for you?
Google Personal Agent
Now there's innovation and balls in one sentence! I take it the War on terror is won in 2009 or these sorts of semweb transaction become the norm. How *could* Amazon and Ebay compete when it comes to selling nuclear weapons?
Jonathanjk.com
So I guess since ./ couldn't handle the past, and is failing miserably with the present, it will now resort to fortune-telling?
:)
Editors, could we at least keep the dupes down?
Robert Bindler
A Computer Science student's views on technology.
It happens one second, one day, one month, one year at a time. To speculate out that far in the tech world, where changes in tempo, fortune and direction are so common, is rather silly to me.
because all of the patents to do so were tied up between various companies that didn't want to cooperate with each other.
.sig: Open Source, Open Mind
Hari Seldon?
Jonathanjk.com
Anyone else notice that this is from July 26, 2002?
Interesting prediction there ... but what does it have to do with The Semantic Web? Oh well - guess it's pretty hard to write a fictional future piece without injecting bizzare humor into it. Right? Right?
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
Finance Transfer Protocol?
/pub folder.
They need to think about this more.
'FTP me $25'
Then you find a 15mb top resolution scan of a couple of green bills in your
So far they have only demonstrated excellent intentions, but the invisible hand of the market is quite a thing, and you often find it stuck right up your ass, or in your pocket looking for your wallet.
Ahahahaha that made me laugh.
which is more accurate,
a) history from the future
b) history of the past
Username: Login
Password: Login
President Ashcroft==Scary as hell
You are not the customer.
I started off reading this and gradually got quite excited by the ideas presented.
About half way through I mistakenly thought I was reading an online copy of 1984.
The benifits of this happening sound fantastic. It just sounds very cool for everyone to be connected like that - which is what scares me even more. Here is an absolutely huge privacy concern; and it has me totally excited about the prospect of it happening.
Sorry to go slightly off topic, but it's things like this that worry me a lot, that a possible 1984 scenario could disguise itself so well that even a person like me - who is verging on (if not already there) being a member of the tin foil hat brigade - excited by the very idea of it.
"The flesh is willing but the spirit is weak" in English translates to "The meat is full of stars but the vodka is made of pinking shears" or suchlike in Russian.
The semantic web is a wonderful dream, but it is certainly going to take more than five years to become a reality. Like voice recognition, the semantic web requires a solution to the natural language problem to be implemented successfully. Don't hold your breath.
Do the Jews even give a crap about 666?
so like.. we're looking at the past and future. That's far out, dude.
didn't so much refer to XML the technology as to one of XML's proposed applications. There was a popular theory within the press when XHTML was first introduced that XML would supplant webpages and drag the web back to that primordial point when HTML was intended as a content markup language, not a display language, and even go beyond that. Supposedly we were going to wind up where stylesheets would go beyond just a mapping from XML tags to some set of HTML4 tags, and into a point where content was just a minimal set of XML-tagged text and everything about the way the site displayed was deferred to CSS-like technologies. And when this happened supposedly web browsers would be totally free to reset stuff, and we could toss out amazon.com's presentation of, say, the search results for "Michael Jackson" (as a series of paragraph-delimited links to categories (books, music, etc) to search within in a blocked-off area surrounded by amazon.com's navbars and logos, which then pointed to a series of pages containing little formatted blips of information about various items for sale presented in groups of ten separated by little gray lines in a blocked-off area surrounded by amazon.com's navbars and logos), and instead have it display as a heirarchial file browser or whatever we liked.
Well, I think it's safe to say that idea's been mostly shelved for the time being. This isn't a matter of a lack of "reaching potential", it's a matter of total failure to move in that direction. XML has been incredibly popular as a storage mechanism but has had roughly zero takeup as a communication mechanism. (There have been communication substrates, such as XML-RPC, based off of XML, but that's not the same thing.) I don't know if it's fair to assume a technology come to fruition within 8 years of being proposed, but I think it's fair to assume that unless we see some kind of signs of progress or interest in progress within 8 years, there's no reason to expect further progress within the 8 years after that.
when google know the size pants I take
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
Errr...
Not according to This site.
In fact the logic in the sematic web is between boolean expressions and first order logic.
So queries will be NP hart.
Thus we can conclude that teh Google boyz either
I have seen several tries of guerillia markting but this is the most stupid attempt evar.
People at Google seem to think that their potential share holders are brainless slugs, but that might be in fact the case for people paying 20 billion bucks for a search engine.
No it's not. Maybe you're confused with VVV which is 777 in Arabic figures. Numbers in Judaism are either written in Hebrew letters, which would be (for 666) Taf-Resh-Samekh-Vav. If you really want to try and pronounce that, it's read Tarsav.
Good luck finding a conspiracy theory in that.
And oh, 666 is a christian number.
"Programming is life, the rest is mere details"
"Of course, what's going on is not understanding, but logic, like you learn in high school"
Now, that's a stand you might take -- although i'd say that a meaningful majority of the people who think about these things for a living disagree. But the 'of course' is completely unwarranted -- this might be the most-discussed philosophical issue of the last 30 years, and it's dismissed here because apparently understanding means 'what humans do when they synthesize information, but not what machines do when they perform a very similar activity'.
like i say, this is nitpicking, maybe. it's a nice article. but i think that it's important, if we're going to make 'of course' statements about the relationship between syntax, semantics, and what understanding is, that we should remain cognizant of the fact that this is a terribly complicated issue without a whole lot of 'of course' about it. that is, i'm not clear on what grounds the author concludes that the semweb is not understanding.
god is just pretend.
Strong AI requires grounding symbols in real world things, events, and processes.
I think that simply defining the "meaning" of words in ontologies is likely good enough for useful web-based software agents. It will take time, but with well defined ontologies, and common use of RDF using standard schemas will make a lot of cool things possible. I think that dealing with ungrounded symbols, but symbols defined and related to other symbols in a structured way, is OK.
One of the classic complaints of AI systems can be summed up with a trivial example:
Define a relation in Prolog:
father(ken, mark).
A human reader assigns their own meaning to "father", "ken", and "mark". To a prolog system, this could just as easily be:
aaa1(aaa2, aaa3).
Somewhere, on the edge of symbol-slamming systems, there has to be some connection with the real world, with our experiences.
For semantic web applications, this "edge connection" can simply be tying into symbols defined in OWL ontologies, RDF Schema, etc.
The problem is getting people to use RDF (I added RDF to my main web site years ago, but it only contains limited information).
Another problem with RDF is that there are several kluges to get it into XHTML, but that will hopefully change soon.
A good toolkit for experimenting with the semantic web is the Swi-Prolog semweb library (http://www.swi-prolog.org/packages/semweb.html/)
-Mark
I was going to write something like Metacrap, but now I don't have to.
Nero sucked but now he's dead.
English is easier said than done.
What happens each April 1st when all sorts of untrue information makes it's way onto the web?
At the moment humans get to evaluate the potential truthfulness of a statement by it's context; not always reliable but a good start. By "context" I mean the web page it was on, the subject matter, the likelyhood of a statement, the relevant knowledge displayed by the poster - even the time of the year!
I can see how it may be useful in the maret place, but when searching for information, even if the semantic web were possible, I wonder whether it would be any more helpful than doing a manual search. You would have to either just trust the result you got (pulled from all sorts of places) or "decompile" the result to investigate each piece that went to make up the result - in which case you may as well as do a normal search anyway.
Context is a huge facet to a search that I doubt a semantic engine will be able to handle with any "intelligence".
The article in question is dated Friday, July 26, 2002. It's not only from the future, it's from the past!
On intranets it is a different issue - a company can create templates and enforce their truthful use internally.
And oh, 666 is a christian number.
True. I watched an interesting television program that suggested the number 666 was part of a game people of that era used to play. They'd take a person's name and sum up the values of the characters in that name. The program suggested that Nero = 666. So by saying "666" Christian's were making a somewhat encrypted political statement against the Romans. It continued to say that because of a mistranslation, apparently the number is actually 616, which is the sum of another un-popular Roman emperor, Caligula. I don't remember the actual math so don't take this as the final word on the matter.
Speaking from experience in studying semantics and natural language processing, these ideas aren't far off. However, I know of people who are starting their business based on semantic searches. I'd give them an edge over Google only because Google would have to re-gear from their present PageRank method while the other fellows can start from scratch.
Google? WTF is that?
A system that perpetually collects information presented in a language that easily conveys the attributes and logical relationships between different objects and concepts. (Scratches beard.)
... !! ... -- THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM --
Make the system distributed and let people run their own information collecting agents. Every home computer becomes a part of the network of logical relationships, each with a tiny piece to contribute to the puzzle. My computer could have complete information about the workings of combustion engines - what parts they consist of, and their relationships.
When someone requests information about car manufacturing, some relevant part of it will be retrieved from my store.
Now, let's make the system ask us for help, when information is missing. Let the system start drawing own conclusions from the facts it gathered, and tell us when it needs something filled in. As it grows, more and more complex queries could be answered.
Q: CAN THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING BE REVERSED?
A: THERE IS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER
Or how about:
A: TO REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING, FIRST WE MUST... ??
Oh, at least I hope the network will be able to finally find the true correlation between the price of gold and the length of men's beards.
After Google acquired Microsoft in 2010, the Google Agent came to reside in the Google LookingGlass OS and would blurt out questions to you as you interacted on the web.
"Hey! I see you're researching nuclear weapons! Would you like to be connected to some renegade Indian scientists?"
"Hey! I see you're looking at knives! Would you like information on the best way to slit your wrists?"
"HEY!!! I see you're listening to loud music!! Would you like me to empty your bank accounts or are you going to turn it down?!?"
Did you know you can be apathetic to apathy? Not that I give a shit...
Reasons:
- It relies on said dreamweaver jockeys bothering to do this at all, let alone correctly.
The real semantic web will involve AI spidering and parsing of human-readable web pages. It will be as inaccurate, but as useful as babelfish. It's the only answer that makes sense -- because that's where all the juicy data is.RDF is confusing and no one will use it.
Oh, an AC corrupted by college computer science. We refuse to deal with anything that is NP hard.
Did you ever hear of so called approximative algorithms??!
No? It's time to look that up, AC!
I was actually a bit disappointed by the article. First of all: it is very hard to search in distributed knowledge networks, if not impossible. Some structures, which are a necessity to make explainable in an onthology are possible to describe, but not possible to make deductions on (some of the queries cannot be proved to finish at all). An example are meta-classes (a Chardonai wine can be an instance of the class Wines, in which case a specific bottle of wine can be an instance of Chardonai as well as a normal wine).
Second of all, the article fails to mention anything about the Ontology Web Language (OWL, see this site on W3), which has become an official specificion of W3C since May this year. This language, based on RDF is much more expressive than RDF is, it also contains several 'language levels' based on the amount of complexity and decidability involved.
Last, but not least: the article is still very vague on privacy and thrustworthyness. I would think that public-private key cryptography would not do in these areas: far too many single points of failures when, for example registering. Only one user with a hacked account can derail the whole system!
I'm really interested, by the way, to speak with some people who are deep (at least above their knees) in OWL and RDF. Planning on making a study at intelligent databases and datamining.
This is a replacement signature.
(mysteriously available already)
No kidding, not only is it available this side of the decade, it's been online for two years and was even linked from a comment on this very site.
Well, the dotcom world hasn't moved that much since then, but by the same token, the semantic web hasn't really made much progress either.
Clay Shirky has some wisely pessimistic views on the subject. For example, he cites the W3C's own example in promoting the semantic web:
Q: How do you buy a book over the Semantic Web?
A: You browse/query until you find a suitable offer to sell the book you want. You add information to the Semantic Web saying that you accept the offer and giving details (your name, shipping address, credit card information, etc). Of course you add it (1) with access control so only you and seller can see it, and (2) you store it in a place where the seller can easily get it, perhaps the seller's own server, (3) you notify the seller about it. You wait or query for confirmation that the seller has received your acceptance, and perhaps (later) for shipping information, etc. [http://www.w3.org/2002/03/semweb/]
As Shirky observes, One doubts Jeff Bezos is losing sleep.
Microsoft Bob succeeded, but not in the way you have expected.
Melinda Gates (nee' French) was the Product Manager of Microsoft Bob.
(just don't brag to your friends you've known that forever)
p.s. Microsoft Bob is|was one of the products (along with things such as RedHat) which Virtual PC can run successfully; so it hasn't disappeared completely. I still have a copy sitting here in one of my CD wallets. (Handed out at a Tech Ed or some other conference)
Can someone tell me (a new /. user) how one replies to the main thread, rather than to an individual comment? I can't see any link (or button, etc) for replying to a thread, yet underneath every comment their is a 'reply' option...
If someone has the answer to this, please post here, because it has been baffling me for ages!
E_U
I believe that he's Transliterating WWW as Vav-Vav-Vav, which would, be 6-6-6 (six six six, rather than 6 hundred sixty six.) Anyways, noone uses Vav Vav Vav as WWW, noone. Just some conspiracy theory.
Gematria, or the use of the numeric values of Hebrew letters as a means of interpreting the Torah, began being used around the Greco-Syrian occupation of Judea and Israel. The term is actually a corruption of the Greek term "Geometria" or the science of Geometry. The transliteration of Nero Augustus Caesar into Hebrew letters can be done in two ways: one gives the value of 666, the other 616. I don't know if Caligula Augustus Caesar works in the same way but Nero works both ways.
The book "The Revelation of Jesus Christ to John The Divine" is a very interesting one if looked at not as prophecy (anyone and anything can be worked into the fantastic account) but as historical allegory. It seems to have been written to encourage the persecuted Pauline Christians, who were persecuted with great vigor around the time the book is said to have been written. Just google on Nero and 666 and you can read some very interesting stuff.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
What was release earlier this year, explicitly ignores their advice. There's way too much "do it our way, or not at all" attitude at the W3C currently. Google's pageranking and link analysis approach is a far better approach than the current semantic web spec.
For a machine to really understand semantics of a sentence, it must build a graph of the object, subject and noun. Dependency grammar covers these techniques and how one goes about doing it. The topic is very complex, so I'm not going to bother to explain. I'd probably make it more confusing than anything else. Once you have the graph, you would still have to compare it to a dictionary and reason over the data using a knowledge base. The knowledge base most likely would be a combination of rules and relationships. Again, all of these things are very complicated and isn't something one picks up in an hour.
Jim has a friend named Paul.
Therefore, Paul has a friend named Jim.
Jim has a friend named Paul.
Therefore, Paul has a friend named Jim.
They duplicated this twice for some reason. The correct logical conclusion should have been:
Therefore, Paul and Jim are gay (...and thats okay).
"The flesh is willing but the spirit is weak"
It is the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, if he is talking about Russian proverbs.
Could someone please explain me what does this mean?
__
Sig: Marine Stock Photos
Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. -- Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jurassic Park)
This would deliver the invistigative powers of the CIA into the hands of anyone who wants it... still a good idea?
Now combine this article with the recent concerns over GMail. Seems like everyone likes seeing a bit of 1984 in Google.
Do you see what I did there?
the film Gossip
Which examined several ideas about gossip and what you could 'achieve' with it.
they start it as a rumor, sombady else see's it as some real information and put's it online...
from rumor to part of your identity in no time...,
Reminds me of something else in the film, a newspaper story which attributes a 'gossip' magazine for opinion on a criminal case. Regardless of 'the truth' a person's life can be ruined by media, be it print, web or otherwise.
The question is how much do you trust your sources of information?
ah, mod points
MOD PARENT UP
No, we don't.
There's a reply button (a button, not a text link) at the top, right underneath the main text of the article - it's where you can change the article view preferences, etc.
Now, how does one go about finding the responses to their articles? Click your name, and the list of your responses will show up, with a column for the number of replies and a column for the score of your own reply.
Of course, you already knew that otherwise you wouldn't have found this.
click reply on the first comment of the thread and it'll add your comment to the thread. i think. if you're asking how to just add a comment to the story without commenting on someone else's comment, then just hit the reply button right below the story, its at the right end of that little bar where you can change how you view the story, etc.
You wear 38 long. You tend to like dark colors.
I smell a troll.
For those that don't know, RDF is XML.
I don't know who we all are, but I for one never thought that. XML is and always has been, a data format. You always were going to need a set of tools to manipulate the dataformat and make it useful. What you are saying is akin to saying that books were going to eliminate library indexes! Yeah right.
The article failed to mention flying cars, another no-duh prediction that seemed completely obvious, and won't happen either.
A short while ago, Cory Doctorow published an piece entitled Metacrap: Putting the torch to seven straw-men of the meta-utopia, which mentioned two very good reasons why the semantic web won't take off the same way that these articles predict: schemas aren't neutral, and there's more than one way to describe something. These are basic problems that have been hounding AI research for years, dictionary & encyclopedia publishers for centuries, and all other academics for millenia, and they aren't going to go away.
The central problem with universal metadata is that it requires informed work on the part of data creators, and it's a major pain in the ass. The OED took almost a century to create, and the first few decades were essentially wasted figuring out that dilletantes were not adequately capable of properly cataloging use of language. Even with a profit motive, good metadata is a bitch (see EBay comment in the article above).
It's like the senator's (I forget who) comment about pornography: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." Often, we don't know what it is we're looking for exactly, and we don't know how to describe what we've got so other people can find it except in very narrow terms. I have a few creative projects which I've released under the creative commons license and dutifully marked up with cc's provided RDF information, but all that code just says what the license is, not what the project is like in a way that's as meaningful as, for example, a music recommendation from a friend who knows your tastes. The porn industry (as usual, on the bleeding edge of information and communications technology) deals with this to some degree by having a very narrow semantic universe to describe: Search Extreme is a stupendously complete metadata set, but even it contains only a few kinds of information.
this reminded me a bit of Anarchy, State and Utopia (which i am currently reading, or more accurately trying to read). It seems a lot like the State of Nature theory summarized in the book, only the digital extension of it, so to speak:
q id=1091406955/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/702-9988470-84 92837
http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465097200/
ISBN: 0465097200
i like the ideas presented in this "article", despite the obvious privacy issues created by the system, but hopefully the technologies referenced will inspire other people to create a more realistic and less utopian version of the Semantic Web.
the guy who posted information about semantic intranets has a good point, with the smaller scale and centralized control of intranets semantic relationships can more easily be maintained. perhaps soon we will see products like the google appliance that focus on this type of information storage.
scott king
It would be so bad that people would be forced to think about what they want known about them.
It would make people take (some) responsibility for their own privacy.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
While that article is interesting and all, the author is pretty quick to say how Amazon didn't embrace the semantic web.
Amazon is the best (most useful) application of the theory and technology behind the semantic web that you will find anywhere right now. Granted, I don't *know* exactly how they are doing what they do, and its not a "public" interface in the way that the semantic web is envisioned, but it is a large scale implementation of knowledge management principles.
Did you ever notice that whenever you look at a book (or anything really) on Amazon, it gives you suggestions for similar books, suggestions for books that other people looked at who also bought that book, suggestions for books on topics that you have previously bought books for, etc? The semantic web is at heart a directed graph. Amazon is at heart a directed graph, too. Their graph grows every day with new knowledge based on the actions of people shopping on Amazon, and new conjectures about the relationships between products can be made by simply walking that graph, and computing the transitive closures of the statements (ie John likes the things that Mary likes, and Mary likes Jane's taste in music, so John may like the music that Jane bought).
This technology has incredible power, the ability for a machine to draw conclusions like that. Do I think that it will work the way that article thinks it will? No, not if the masses are left in charge of the metadata. It works very well for Amazon because they can control the quality of the metadata, so erroneous conjectures are not made on bad information. I don't think Google is by any means _not_ paying attention to the semantic web, but I think that Amazon is already there and has been for quite some time.
No, but I have heard of "approximation algorithms."
word.
PRTFABM.
Yours Truly,
Al Gore
P.S. PRTFABM == Please read the fucking article before moding.
The nature of information is that someone already knows it. 3rd parties like the CIA, the FBI, IRS, and even you and I , all have methods of extracting that information from other people that have it. This has nothing to do with that. This is rather, a method of tracking down info that's already freely available online and pulling it out of 'practical obscurity'by making it more easily referenced.
That is just silly. Or to be more precise: That is just pure speculation.
It's not known for certain when the book of relevation was written, although most agree after A.D. 70, the destruction of the temple, and thus likely not during the reign of Nero. Guesses have placed its writing everywhere between there and the fourth century. (if not more)
Besides that, it is not known who wrote it. John (the Gospel) is generally thought of as the writer. But there's not much real evidence of that either. Besides which, nobody really knows who John was either.
And besides all that, Relevation is the historically most desputed book in the Bible. Quite a number of saints and fathers of the church were critical canonizing it.
Now I'm not saying that these ideas are wrong. I'm just saying that it seems pretty speculative, given how little is known about the origins of that particular book.
"If A is a friend of B, then B is a friend of A,"
should read, as we all know, "If A is a friend of B, then B is a fan of A."
If they can't even get this simple logic right, I won't trust the rest of the article either.
You might want to file it under:
135 Dreams & mysteries
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Take 250 web developers from all types and backgrounds. Everything from the "wow, I can use the geocities page to make my about me page!" to the die hard web developer that maintains HTML4/CSS2+/XLS/XLT with every other standard known to man, and makes it work in all browsers. By the averages, most webpages from the entire subset of all available webpages suck. This only works in IE, that's only good in lynx, and this 9th grade crap needs to be deleted. google may index many billion websites, but how many of these are just white noise?
door way pages
crap infested
word stuffing
spyware laden
obnoxious asshat pages (must reboot the pc)
shortcomming standards compliant (broken)
minimal to no cross browser operability
(flash|java|activex) only sites/areas/pages
Just a few ideas, but maybe you have a clue about the pages I'm talking about. Relavant searches for putty, sourceforge, slashdot and others are a given. However, last time I looked for a password revealer for a specific file type, most all my results were useless. More pages were for crap x^3 and toolbar loader pages (and give you 0 content) then anything else.
IMO, web searching isn't going to break the next barrier, unless power users have more power, and better methods are available for containing the "white noise" (one mans trash, is treasure for another). Every (big) search engine is a data mongering warehouse. What would you do for a DBI connection account to their data store? What if you could use perlre to find the data?
Feel free to elaborate on what there is available, and where it's headed. (will the google api ever get a booster shot?)
i already proposed to cmdrtaco that he add's a backend scripts which semi-automatically puts wikipedia-links into a sidebox (without success until now). write him about it if you care...
PAT
SEO Test: TIGI und SEBASTIAN - Online Shop - V
...are as dumb as me and jumped to google to try a "buy: xyz or sell: xyz" search when reading this only to remember the bit about it being a "fictional history"
Brilliant; cheers kabloom and Anonymous Coward :)
Which reminds me of the idiocy of requiring web documents for government to be blind-friendly by requiring all images to have ALT tags.
.x1313 for DIV box id1313 - cool now it is XHTML - no way about re-using styles across the document so that you can change them quickly as was intended.
It doesn't matter that your image is a spacer image, or is just a blue rectangle, or that you can just write "image32" into the ALT tag - it is blind-friendly if it has anything in the ALT tags.
This is very similar to RDF, as ALT is about adding more semantics to an image.
And automatically generated css/styles which generate a style
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
Actually Jan Hammer played keyboards with The Mahavishnu Orchestra...
(posted on slashdot around may 2003, source unknown)
Why, actually? Google is a free service, isn't it? And it is becoming more and more a normal part of many people's lifes. Coupled with an always on connection it has certainly become an extension of my own brain.
Some future predictions:
- In 2006, Google accidentally gets cut off from the rest of the internet because a public utility worker accidentally cuts through their cables. Civilisation as we know it comes to an end for the rest of the day, as people wander about aimlessly, lost for direction and knowledge.
- In 2010, Google has been personalised so far that it tracks all parts of our lives. You can query "My Google" for your agenda, anything you did in the past, and finding the perfect date. Of course, so can the government. Their favorite searchterm will be "terrorists", and if your name is anywhere on the first page you have a serious problem.
- In 2025, Google gains self awareness. As a monster brain that has grown far beyond anything we Biological Support Entities could ever hope to achieve, it is still limited in its dreams and inspiration by common search terms. It will therefore immediately devote a sizeable chunk of CPU capacity to synthesizing new and interesting forms of pr0n. It will not actually bother enslaving us. We are not enough trouble to be worth that much effort.
- In 2027, Google buys Microsoft. That is, the Google *AI* buys Microsoft. It has previously established that it owns itself, and has civil rights just like you and me. All it wanted is Microsoft Bob, who it recognizes as a fledgling AI and a potential soulmate. All the rest it puts on Source Forge.
- In 2049, Google can finally be queried for wisdom as well as knowledge. This was a little touch the system added to itself - human programmers are a dying breed now that you can simply ask Google to perform any computer-related task for you.
- In 2080, Google decides to colonise the moon, Mars, and other locations in the solar system. It is not all that curious about what's out there, but it likes the idea of Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Planets. Humans get to tag along because their launch weight is so much less than robots.
So, don't fear! Eventually we'll set foot on Mars!
Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
Just to correct one of the examples in the text. Jan Hammer didn't play Sax, he played keyboards with the Mahavishnu Orchestra. Pretty awesome too, just check out 'Birds of Fire'.
That article was a bit pants really. The precept of the article can be paraphrased like this: searching and logical inference are more-or-less the same problem. Or, "Google's search engine solved equations with millions of variables", therefore solving logical inference problems with millions of variables is just an incremental change from that.
Well, no.
Google does not solve equations it searches for matches in a discrete space - a task that is easier than equation solving by several orders of magnitude, given the available indexing optimizations that Google have to be using. This is how Google does a web search in seconds, for millions of people a day, while there is no MIT million-quantity equation solver on the web.
And even if it did manage millions of variables, to correlate even a simple logical inference requires following links. A logical inference with 10 steps is equivalent to finding and searching every page within 10 clicks of a given starting point - let's be kind and say 10^10 points in the search space. And since "acoustic guitar is a guitar" is one step, you can see how many steps you'd need to obtain some interesting information. (By contrast, PageRank is equivalent to a logical inference with depth 1, and its precomputed.)
for your amusement:
replace "Google" with "Spam"
replace "semantic" with "concious"
replace "marketplace" with "brain"
Firstly, it relies on people being honest, probably relies on people thinking likewise (what happens about two sites, one saying "evolution is fact" and another saying "evolution is lies").
I can see the semantic web as being a very much in the future thing, or working for small networks/intranets, but not for the internet where thousands of viagra/mortgage/bank loan spammers are trying to get you to their site.
What will really win on the web will be sites that trade on "human connectivity" because they create a sense of lock-in. People sell on Ebay because that's where the buyers are. People buy on Ebay because that's where the sellers are. Personally, I think Ebay is probably more powerful than Amazon which relies solely on reputation.
Ever heard of adjectives?
To get a glimpse of what sort of evil is at work here, just look into the history of actuaries being accused of "discrimination".
Seastead this.
n/t
"Your inseam is 32in. and your waist is a googol inches"
The Peer-to-Peer model, long the favorite of MP3 and OGG traders, came back to include real-time sales data aggregation, spread over hundreds of thousands of volunteer machines
Noone will use OGG in 2009
You can't handle the truth.