This is so misleading. No program can do anything outside what it is explicitly programmed to do.
You are the misleading one.
Machine learning and Optimization are the science of getting programs to do things they are not explicitly programmed to do.
Evidence:
The Merk molecular activity challenge was won by data scientists who did not have themselves the capacity to perform the task. http://blog.kaggle.com/2012/10...
As described on wikipedia: "Machine learning is a subfield of computer science (CS) and artificial intelligence (AI) that deals with the construction and study of systems that can learn from data, rather than follow only explicitly programmed instructions". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
The whole point of machine learning is to program learning rules, not the explicit final program. The behaviour of the program is then determined by the data used to train it.
No ! It just means the guy who wrote the white paper, and the guy who comments on it, are both incompetent.
A large number of these will eventually fail. I assume the failure rate of an "at risk" project is between 50% and 80%. For this analysis, I'll use the average: 65%.
Using the same kind of bullshit reasoning here is what I found: A large number of human beings will eventually die. I assume that human beings live between 0 and 100 years. For this analysis, I'll use the average: 50 years. Except that the average life expectancy is not 50 years but actually much higher. Taking the mean of the minimum and the maximum is not at all the same as taking an average, you may as well be pulling the numbers right out of your ass.
To find the predicted cost of annual IT failure, we then multiply these numbers together:.0275 (fraction of GDP on IT) X.66 (fraction of IT at risk) X.65 (failure rate of at risk projects) X 7.5 (indirect costs) =.089. To predict the cost of IT failure on any country, multiply its GDP by.089.
You're trying to introduce a global economic indicator using only 1st grade calculus, that's certainly an interesting approach. So the basic reasoning is that 65% of all IT projects fail, and when they fail, not only do we lose everything that was invested in this particular project, but because of the indirect costs, we are actually going to lose 7.5 times more money ! There is so much bullshit in this sentence I don't even know where to start ! First of all, is the project a failure because it was delivered late, because it is not completely satisfactory, because there are bugs ? In any case, there is almost no chance that the project is such a failure that we can't get anything out of it. What's more there is no way it is going to cost 7.5 times more money than that, which leads me to all the stupid assumptions.
explicit assumption: 66% of all Federal IT dollars are invested in projects that are "at risk". I assume this number is representative of the rest of the world => It's not. The US is not even remotely representative of the rest of the world
explicit assumption: I assume the failure rate of an "at risk" project is between 50% and 80%. => Maybe you could have looked up the real number included in the definition of an "at risk" project. For all we know it could be 10% of 90%, assuming you know the number when you actually don't doesn't make it right.
implicit assumption: I assume that the average of the minimum and the maximum is the same thing as the average over all projects. => It's not, come back when you understand basic statistics.
explicit assumption: I will assume that the ratio of indirect to direct costs is between 5:1 and 10:1. For this analysis, I'll take the average: 7.5:1 => Same thing as above, you don't actually know the number, it could be anything. Plus you make an average on minimum and maximum values which makes no sense at all.
Now the worst part is that Michael Krigsman seems to find the study interesting:
Although not precise, the numbers demonstrate the seriousness of IT failure around the world.
No, they don't ! We don't have a clue how precise they are, which means we don't have a clue how far they are from the truth. All the assumptions are completely wrong, and not just a little.
Michael Krigsman is CEO of Asuret, Inc., a software and consulting company dedicated to reducing software implementation failures.
I propose we make a study on how much money is lost to software and consulting companies dedicated to reducing software implementation failures. Assuming one fifth are incompetent frauds like Krigsman, and the number of projects involving consulting companies is between 20% and 70% (we take the "average" 45%), and making the same du
Does it mean I have to be logged in to read the story now ? Could it be one of these lame ass strategies from the marketing department to keep us logged in ?
It all began when Google enabled us to find relevant data in a few seconds.
They should have known that being confronted to this see of data (especially all those lies) everyday, we would come to see them as what they are : yet another advertising company.
__
just passing through
George Orwell was a very good writer but honestly the whole "real time" idea feels weak.
Reading the story one paragraph a day for four years doesn't make it more interesting...or does it ?
__
just passing through
With everything AOL has done in the past to drive out it's customers, no one in his right mind is ever going to suscribe to them now.
Their only option is to get more money from people who have already demonstrated that they are too lazy, too stupid, or too obnoxious to find an other ISP : their customers.
__
Just passing by
You are completely right about Slashdotters focusing a bit too much on the rhetorical part of the problem. However, the example of fire seems very inappropriate.
If you do indeed rub sticks for month in order to obtain fire, then sharing it with your neighbor so that he doesn't die needlessly during the night doesn't seem so wrong to me. However, you are right in the sense that it is your fire and you have the right to keep people away from it : You are talking about physical property !
A example involving intellectual property would be to patent fire. In this case, you would of course have the right not to share your fire with others and let them die (sick bastard !), but you would also prevent anyone from making his own fire thus ensuring total extinction of the human species (or the clubbing to death thing).
You also speak of common sense which is a good start but it is not enough when millions of people have to agree to follow the same rules.
Regarding Copyright, it is clear that the IP system in it's current state is not fit for a world where technology makes it so easy to copy a song. Laws have to be just, but they also have to be practical. When so many are violating IP laws, it becomes impractical to enforce them.
The only reasonable solution I see to the copyright problem is a global license. People argue that splitting the cake between intellectual proprietors would be impossible but it is already being done in many countries. Bars, restaurants and all kinds of shops pay a fee to be allowed to play music and the money is given back to support artists. It is just like a global license, but different enough so that people don't see the resemblance right away.
The fact that we have all been raised with copyright makes it difficult to imagine a different IP system.
Concerning the patent problem well... It's just a U.S. problem for now. You just have to be reasonable when giving away patents. It's working everywhere else, there is no reason why it shouldn't work in the U.S.
You people have really lost it. We are not talking about the USA remember ? We are talking about EU !
In EU we don't really have to find a way to get around the law. We just don't make it in the first place or we force the government to change it later. If they don't comply we cut everybody's head off and do the right thing ourselves. Why live by a stupid law when you can just kill everyone you hate and start over ?
Most of the time we don't even have to get the guillotine out of the basement and do the dirty job. Going in the streets by the thousands is scary enough. And why would anyone lose valuable time trying to establish a prior act when it's often not enough ? Seriously we don't go around laws on a daily basis here it's just not the european style...
Get the laws changed. (So that a very mature 17 year old can coerce his very immature 16 year old friend to pose nude) Problems, problems.
You are suggesting that we keep the law based on :
- An unlikely and fictional example.
- The assumption that were the law changed, the said 17 year old person would not be guilty of anything.
- One of the most dangerous thought process I have ever seen.
You forget that :
- Coercing someone to pose nude, be it a child or an adult is illegal anyway.
- Keeping this law because in some instances it may be used to incriminate a real sex offender as a side effect is idiotic.
- People are not stupid and saying such nonsense will only make them angry(er).
Why are the child porn types writing software that magically puts child porn on random people's computers? I'm really not clear about what they're accomplishing there, other than potentially hurting their business by bringing child pornography into the spotlight.
Knowing a thing or two about networks, I would say that protecting yourself could be a strong incentive to install child porn on someone else's computer.
Imagine you were somehow distributing child porn. Would you give your ip or the adresse of your website to your "customers" ?
I don't think so. You would probably try not to have any child porn on your pc, given the rotten and dangerous nature of what you are doing. You would probably try to do something like installing the stuff on some oblivious guy's pc and give HIS adress to download the files.
In my opinion the investigators (if any) fell for it and didn't realize that if the guy had child porn on his pc, that's not because he is a pervert, be because the real pervert is skilled with computers and uses zombies to hide his trail.
It's a long shot but I think it's at least a possibility.
Slashdot Mirror
This is so misleading. No program can do anything outside what it is explicitly programmed to do.
You are the misleading one.
Machine learning and Optimization are the science of getting programs to do things they are not explicitly programmed to do.
Evidence:
http://blog.kaggle.com/2012/10...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
The whole point of machine learning is to program learning rules, not the explicit final program. The behaviour of the program is then determined by the data used to train it.
That would be the median person, of course.
IQ follows a normal distribution, and therefore the average is the median.
And that's why nerds are arrogant. For the pleasure of it.
A large number of these will eventually fail. I assume the failure rate of an "at risk" project is between 50% and 80%. For this analysis, I'll use the average: 65%.
Using the same kind of bullshit reasoning here is what I found: A large number of human beings will eventually die. I assume that human beings live between 0 and 100 years. For this analysis, I'll use the average: 50 years. Except that the average life expectancy is not 50 years but actually much higher. Taking the mean of the minimum and the maximum is not at all the same as taking an average, you may as well be pulling the numbers right out of your ass.
To find the predicted cost of annual IT failure, we then multiply these numbers together: .0275 (fraction of GDP on IT) X .66 (fraction of IT at risk) X .65 (failure rate of at risk projects) X 7.5 (indirect costs) = .089. To predict the cost of IT failure on any country, multiply its GDP by .089.
You're trying to introduce a global economic indicator using only 1st grade calculus, that's certainly an interesting approach. So the basic reasoning is that 65% of all IT projects fail, and when they fail, not only do we lose everything that was invested in this particular project, but because of the indirect costs, we are actually going to lose 7.5 times more money ! There is so much bullshit in this sentence I don't even know where to start ! First of all, is the project a failure because it was delivered late, because it is not completely satisfactory, because there are bugs ? In any case, there is almost no chance that the project is such a failure that we can't get anything out of it. What's more there is no way it is going to cost 7.5 times more money than that, which leads me to all the stupid assumptions.
=> It's not. The US is not even remotely representative of the rest of the world
=> Maybe you could have looked up the real number included in the definition of an "at risk" project. For all we know it could be 10% of 90%, assuming you know the number when you actually don't doesn't make it right.
=> It's not, come back when you understand basic statistics.
=> Same thing as above, you don't actually know the number, it could be anything. Plus you make an average on minimum and maximum values which makes no sense at all.
Now the worst part is that Michael Krigsman seems to find the study interesting:
Although not precise, the numbers demonstrate the seriousness of IT failure around the world.
No, they don't ! We don't have a clue how precise they are, which means we don't have a clue how far they are from the truth. All the assumptions are completely wrong, and not just a little.
Michael Krigsman is CEO of Asuret, Inc., a software and consulting company dedicated to reducing software implementation failures.
I propose we make a study on how much money is lost to software and consulting companies dedicated to reducing software implementation failures. Assuming one fifth are incompetent frauds like Krigsman, and the number of projects involving consulting companies is between 20% and 70% (we take the "average" 45%), and making the same du
It's true ! Releasing this information would allow hackers to target these state offices in person.
Dear Slashdot,
You messed up the main page again !
Does it mean I have to be logged in to read the story now ? Could it be one of these lame ass strategies from the marketing department to keep us logged in ?
I expect you apologetic answer soon.
Regards,
__
Just Passing through
It all began when Google enabled us to find relevant data in a few seconds.
They should have known that being confronted to this see of data (especially all those lies) everyday, we would come to see them as what they are : yet another advertising company. __ just passing through
George Orwell was a very good writer but honestly the whole "real time" idea feels weak.
Reading the story one paragraph a day for four years doesn't make it more interesting...or does it ?
__
just passing through
With everything AOL has done in the past to drive out it's customers, no one in his right mind is ever going to suscribe to them now.
Their only option is to get more money from people who have already demonstrated that they are too lazy, too stupid, or too obnoxious to find an other ISP : their customers.
__
Just passing by
Or maybe you could flip the coin 6 times. It's more time consuming but it saves some precious space in your pockets.
You are completely right about Slashdotters focusing a bit too much on the rhetorical part of the problem. However, the example of fire seems very inappropriate.
If you do indeed rub sticks for month in order to obtain fire, then sharing it with your neighbor so that he doesn't die needlessly during the night doesn't seem so wrong to me. However, you are right in the sense that it is your fire and you have the right to keep people away from it : You are talking about physical property !
A example involving intellectual property would be to patent fire. In this case, you would of course have the right not to share your fire with others and let them die (sick bastard !), but you would also prevent anyone from making his own fire thus ensuring total extinction of the human species (or the clubbing to death thing).
You also speak of common sense which is a good start but it is not enough when millions of people have to agree to follow the same rules.
Regarding Copyright, it is clear that the IP system in it's current state is not fit for a world where technology makes it so easy to copy a song. Laws have to be just, but they also have to be practical. When so many are violating IP laws, it becomes impractical to enforce them.
The only reasonable solution I see to the copyright problem is a global license. People argue that splitting the cake between intellectual proprietors would be impossible but it is already being done in many countries. Bars, restaurants and all kinds of shops pay a fee to be allowed to play music and the money is given back to support artists. It is just like a global license, but different enough so that people don't see the resemblance right away.
The fact that we have all been raised with copyright makes it difficult to imagine a different IP system.
Concerning the patent problem well... It's just a U.S. problem for now. You just have to be reasonable when giving away patents. It's working everywhere else, there is no reason why it shouldn't work in the U.S.
Nobody ever thought of cheating the patent office in this way!
__
A Lost Frenchman
You people have really lost it. We are not talking about the USA remember ? We are talking about EU ! In EU we don't really have to find a way to get around the law. We just don't make it in the first place or we force the government to change it later. If they don't comply we cut everybody's head off and do the right thing ourselves. Why live by a stupid law when you can just kill everyone you hate and start over ? Most of the time we don't even have to get the guillotine out of the basement and do the dirty job. Going in the streets by the thousands is scary enough. And why would anyone lose valuable time trying to establish a prior act when it's often not enough ? Seriously we don't go around laws on a daily basis here it's just not the european style...
You might want to see the photo of Europa rising from the original website : http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/gallery/missionPhotos/imag es/HighRes/050107/050107_01.jpg
( Especially after seeing the huge title across the first picture )
If only we didn't have to darken the sky to protect ourself from global warming !
Get the laws changed. (So that a very mature 17 year old can coerce his very immature 16 year old friend to pose nude) Problems, problems.
You are suggesting that we keep the law based on :
- An unlikely and fictional example.
- The assumption that were the law changed, the said 17 year old person would not be guilty of anything.
- One of the most dangerous thought process I have ever seen.
You forget that :
- Coercing someone to pose nude, be it a child or an adult is illegal anyway.
- Keeping this law because in some instances it may be used to incriminate a real sex offender as a side effect is idiotic.
- People are not stupid and saying such nonsense will only make them angry(er).
Knowing a thing or two about networks, I would say that protecting yourself could be a strong incentive to install child porn on someone else's computer.
Imagine you were somehow distributing child porn. Would you give your ip or the adresse of your website to your "customers" ?
I don't think so. You would probably try not to have any child porn on your pc, given the rotten and dangerous nature of what you are doing. You would probably try to do something like installing the stuff on some oblivious guy's pc and give HIS adress to download the files.
In my opinion the investigators (if any) fell for it and didn't realize that if the guy had child porn on his pc, that's not because he is a pervert, be because the real pervert is skilled with computers and uses zombies to hide his trail.
It's a long shot but I think it's at least a possibility.