yes, what i'm saying that the "gay" part is pure muckraking. flamebait. the article would've been thin and unconvincing without that "speculation"/lie. if you let it influence your feelings, you are being manipulated.
consider that, if you had just bought the comic sight-unseen, your reaction would have been different.
it says "the creators haven't ruled out that he's gay." well, okay, i'm sure they haven't ruled out a lot of things, so we drop that obvious bit of sensationalism.
which leaves half-black/half-latino. i don't see why this counts as two instances of PCness. if he were quarter-asian, quarter-native american, quarter-black, quarter-white, would that count as three instances, or four? or maybe it grows exponentially, and it's eight?
seriously, he's just of non-white mixed race. that's it. big fucking deal.
whatever he calls it (i think the official term is ordoliberalism), it's basically what friedrich hayek and many austrians had in mind. i wouldn't dismiss it out of hand just because it's not romantic enough.
yeah, but it's not even very good for that since the groups "all men on twitter" and "all women on twitter" are not even homogeneous (that is, the samples are not identically distributed).
even worse: without any malice whatsoever, the situation described in the headline is potentially broken unless lesbians have roughly the same likely/unlikely words as women-as-a-whole.
judging from the wordlist, any single male graduate student who practices yoga and eats yogurt may well be misclassified.
it's not the same thing (mostly because the apple store trick has zero evidentiary value, whereas this tool has concerns of false positives), but it's worth saying that both are fine by me. actually, both are pretty nifty.
all this does is check against criminal records more efficiently. apart from possible false positives, what's wrong with that?
if you're referring to my posts (and even if you're not), i intentionally adopted a mostly-uncapitalized style to reflect my perception that online discussion is a (novel) compromise between formal writing and spoken language. i still usually capitalize proper names only out of respect for others.
apart from this, you may also note that the capitalization of i is anomalous among nominative pronouns. afaik, there is no universally-accepted explanation for this, but i find the explanations put forth* to be either obsolete or personally unacceptable.
yeah, i feel the same way about people who use the wrong "its".
but seriously, the "could care less" form is the more common version now, for good or ill. should it matter if each user doesn't think it through? assuming that the phrase came about first through sarcastic use and then normalized, the meaning is nonetheless obvious to all. i just don't see the problem.
the amount of NLP required for this task is almost nil. since the backend is doing massive combinatorial search anyway, all that the "reading" does is bias that search to look deeper at combinations of keywords which occur in the manual. it just so happens that game manuals are very simply written (since their point is not to be stand-alone literature).
for example, if i wrote a manual full of weird phrases like "it's pointless to consider strategies combining $foo and $bar", it would probably trip up this algo (until they patched it to look for negations) while a 5-year-old would not have a problem.
i dunno, it's cute i guess but i'd rather see, for example, an agent that learns from a blank slate to ascend in nethack. that would probably take linguistic AI deeply integrated with the game logic.
i have certain proven-heritable attributes which i appreciate about myself; above-average intelligence, non-schizophrenic, no congenital deformities, my physical features elicit reasonably few bias problems from society (although after 9/11 i was "randomly" selected a few too many times), and the list goes on. there are negative attributes too; foremost, i'm not as smart as i'd like to be and, by extension, i'd thus like my child to be smarter than i am. the point is that, perhaps unfortunately, the "squirting" carries a lot of information.
there's a sensible middle ground between "must pump my genes into women!" (as claimed by tsingi (870990) above), and "love is all you need," and science is informing our understanding of it every day, as unpleasant as some of the specifics are. i don't really care about my genes beyond my best informed estimate of their instrumental effect. perhaps this can be summed up by a quote from a very non-scientific person who nonetheless had a point: "love is the law, love under will."
if someone else could, voluntarily or for reasonable $$$, squirt a better child for me to raise, be it by adoption or by artificial insemination, i think that i'd be for it. it's a little bit gruesome, but i think it is rational...
you're more right than you know about grooveshark - you don't even need to sign on with them to get on their site!
their business model seems to be to distribute music without permission, and then offer a coercive licensing deal if you want a cut of their $.
a functional RIAA would exist exactly to fight things like grooveshark on behalf of its members. the fact that even grooveshark is arguably better for artists than riaa is a sign of how fucked everything is...
i can kind of see how "windows" would be generic for a windowing system but not generic for an operating system. sort of. it'd be like calling a car "Engine," or maybe "Turbo." rather sketchy but maybe doable; the kind of thing that would stimulate enthusiastic lawyers.
i guess microsoft's thinking was that "windows" would be even less generic if it referred to a package including the dead tree manuals?
either way i don't feel too bad for lindows; their intention was clearly to piggyback on the windows trademark which just happened to be questionable. if microsoft's os had instead been called, say, "wobegon," then lindows would probably have been called "lobegon."
it's an abusive invalid mark and that's how they were able to sue (and decimate) lindows (now linspire). microsoft then settled because they knew they would lose if the case were carried through.
why? it's a piece of useless trivia, notable only for being a "large" number (and it isn't that large, compared to some mathematically relevant numbers).
Slashdot Mirror
unfortunately, yes.
yes, what i'm saying that the "gay" part is pure muckraking. flamebait. the article would've been thin and unconvincing without that "speculation"/lie. if you let it influence your feelings, you are being manipulated.
consider that, if you had just bought the comic sight-unseen, your reaction would have been different.
it says "the creators haven't ruled out that he's gay." well, okay, i'm sure they haven't ruled out a lot of things, so we drop that obvious bit of sensationalism.
which leaves half-black/half-latino. i don't see why this counts as two instances of PCness. if he were quarter-asian, quarter-native american, quarter-black, quarter-white, would that count as three instances, or four? or maybe it grows exponentially, and it's eight?
seriously, he's just of non-white mixed race. that's it. big fucking deal.
whatever he calls it (i think the official term is ordoliberalism), it's basically what friedrich hayek and many austrians had in mind. i wouldn't dismiss it out of hand just because it's not romantic enough.
yeah, but it's not even very good for that since the groups "all men on twitter" and "all women on twitter" are not even homogeneous (that is, the samples are not identically distributed).
why not have the researchers break windows for a living?
there is good natural language research. this, however, could be done (given the data) by one person in a few hours with prepack software: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/textcat/index.html
even worse: without any malice whatsoever, the situation described in the headline is potentially broken unless lesbians have roughly the same likely/unlikely words as women-as-a-whole.
judging from the wordlist, any single male graduate student who practices yoga and eats yogurt may well be misclassified.
if american english was good enough for jesus christ, it's good enough for me.
it's not the same thing (mostly because the apple store trick has zero evidentiary value, whereas this tool has concerns of false positives), but it's worth saying that both are fine by me. actually, both are pretty nifty.
all this does is check against criminal records more efficiently. apart from possible false positives, what's wrong with that?
if you're referring to my posts (and even if you're not), i intentionally adopted a mostly-uncapitalized style to reflect my perception that online discussion is a (novel) compromise between formal writing and spoken language. i still usually capitalize proper names only out of respect for others.
apart from this, you may also note that the capitalization of i is anomalous among nominative pronouns. afaik, there is no universally-accepted explanation for this, but i find the explanations put forth* to be either obsolete or personally unacceptable.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_(pronoun)
to be fair, we're talking about the scribe and not the founding fathers themselves.
and so, as for Jacob Shallus... well, he didn't have a backspace key but nevertheless, yes, i look back upon him disfavorably.
yeah, i feel the same way about people who use the wrong "its".
but seriously, the "could care less" form is the more common version now, for good or ill. should it matter if each user doesn't think it through? assuming that the phrase came about first through sarcastic use and then normalized, the meaning is nonetheless obvious to all. i just don't see the problem.
it's called sarcasm (or irony if you wish). do you have a problem with sarcasm in general? if not, then what's wrong with a sarcastic idiom?
it's called a mandoline. they're not particularly new.
the amount of NLP required for this task is almost nil. since the backend is doing massive combinatorial search anyway, all that the "reading" does is bias that search to look deeper at combinations of keywords which occur in the manual. it just so happens that game manuals are very simply written (since their point is not to be stand-alone literature).
for example, if i wrote a manual full of weird phrases like "it's pointless to consider strategies combining $foo and $bar", it would probably trip up this algo (until they patched it to look for negations) while a 5-year-old would not have a problem.
i dunno, it's cute i guess but i'd rather see, for example, an agent that learns from a blank slate to ascend in nethack. that would probably take linguistic AI deeply integrated with the game logic.
the hyphen is occasionally used in a way which can be interpreted as i did above.
rest assured, i understood the sentence as well as the original sentence in the post. the point was that hypercorrectivism is just a waste of time.
i think there is already photo evidence of tools, and how do you get photo evidence by using a fish anyway?
i have certain proven-heritable attributes which i appreciate about myself; above-average intelligence, non-schizophrenic, no congenital deformities, my physical features elicit reasonably few bias problems from society (although after 9/11 i was "randomly" selected a few too many times), and the list goes on. there are negative attributes too; foremost, i'm not as smart as i'd like to be and, by extension, i'd thus like my child to be smarter than i am. the point is that, perhaps unfortunately, the "squirting" carries a lot of information.
there's a sensible middle ground between "must pump my genes into women!" (as claimed by tsingi (870990) above), and "love is all you need," and science is informing our understanding of it every day, as unpleasant as some of the specifics are. i don't really care about my genes beyond my best informed estimate of their instrumental effect. perhaps this can be summed up by a quote from a very non-scientific person who nonetheless had a point: "love is the law, love under will."
if someone else could, voluntarily or for reasonable $$$, squirt a better child for me to raise, be it by adoption or by artificial insemination, i think that i'd be for it. it's a little bit gruesome, but i think it is rational...
you're more right than you know about grooveshark - you don't even need to sign on with them to get on their site!
their business model seems to be to distribute music without permission, and then offer a coercive licensing deal if you want a cut of their $.
a functional RIAA would exist exactly to fight things like grooveshark on behalf of its members. the fact that even grooveshark is arguably better for artists than riaa is a sign of how fucked everything is...
i can kind of see how "windows" would be generic for a windowing system but not generic for an operating system. sort of. it'd be like calling a car "Engine," or maybe "Turbo." rather sketchy but maybe doable; the kind of thing that would stimulate enthusiastic lawyers.
i guess microsoft's thinking was that "windows" would be even less generic if it referred to a package including the dead tree manuals?
either way i don't feel too bad for lindows; their intention was clearly to piggyback on the windows trademark which just happened to be questionable. if microsoft's os had instead been called, say, "wobegon," then lindows would probably have been called "lobegon."
wow, you actually managed to navigate the uspto site? i doff my hat to you.
unfortunately, your links are bound to your search session which has now expired.
gee, it's almost as if the government doesn't want trademarks to be publicly accessible...
first, there is no "X11 Windows"; it is the "X Window System (version 11)".
also all citations i can find indicate that you're wrong about the trademark. for one, look to the devil itself http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/Usage/Windows.aspx: "Windows is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and other countries."
it's an abusive invalid mark and that's how they were able to sue (and decimate) lindows (now linspire). microsoft then settled because they knew they would lose if the case were carried through.
just because the right to vote is worth less than $16 to someone, should we rescind it?
you didn't think of googol+1? ;-)
why? it's a piece of useless trivia, notable only for being a "large" number (and it isn't that large, compared to some mathematically relevant numbers).