And there's nothing to say you can't go "Next" and have it bring up the next page in its list, but it shouldn't require you to search through them manually like it does now.
Though you can also keep things the way they are now, with the common "skim over the first line it brings back" and then decide that way - but ultimately thats a process that a computer should be able to do anyways.
the unique challenges it poses to its contestants: the breadth of topics; the puns, metaphors, and slang in the questions; the speed it takes to buzz and answer.
Speech processing that can deal with the context heavy language of Jeopardy is a pretty big test and I think means we're just a little bit closer to a general purpose natural language speech recognition system.
But that's just it - maybe we THINK puns and metaphors and slang are more complex than they really are. Keep in mind its not having to worry about inflections in Alex's voice or anything complex with audio, its just reading the text.
With that in mind, how hard is it to apply Meta-tags to data with their relevance? For example, they use "Chicks Dig Me". It will likely check Chicks as prominantly baby chickens, and secondarily the female association, and so on and so forth. Then "Dig" will likely be the act of digging, then the act of liking something, etc etc. "Me" is almost a throw away word because it has no relevance, but regardless it obviously means one self, and has almost no other related speech, except for maybe Windows Millenium edition, which I doubt they would have a whole category on.
With that in mind, it goes through its database and organizes indexes based on Answers to do with Digging, Liking, Chickens, and Females. The puzzle comes up, "I did this" - it then cross references key words to the answers its indexed.
Like the poster above you said, it's just a fast search engine being able to work with keywords, like Google and it's search terms. We only THINK language is complex because we use it so. Jeopardy is funny in that it likes to pretend the puns have meaning, but they really don't. They are puns to keep the show slightly humourus. The questions always have more to do with their direct literal context than they do with the pun.
In that regard, I expect a human to be thrown off by a pun and a computer to do amazingly well.
Well, yes, that IS how it should be, despite you trying to sarcastically make it sound like its ruining the human condition.
If you are using a search engine, you are searching for something. You enter in what you are searching for. Naturally, if the engine is optimal, it will return exactly what you are looking for, and no more searching could be required. Bringing up a page of 20 things for you to sift through, is sometimes not as helpful as if it had just brought up the most relevant example.
If I look up "Good Italian Wedding Soup Recipe" it will no doubt show me a list of results with a bunch of soup recipes. But that's another step of searching I have to do to ensure that I don't come across some site that was optimized for "Italian" and "Wedding". The Searching needs to be more robust, to take off the decision required to determine which link to press.
Ideally, the best search engine ever would take you directly to the page you were looking for. Nothing more and nothing less.
When you have a question for your boss, like "Where is the supply cabinet?" he doesn't usually spout off 20 different locations, and if he does, he probably isn't a very good boss.
Rank is ENTIRELY relevant when it comes to access.
How you could possibly argue otherwise baffles me.
There'd be no need for any security if access was merely about performing a job. Let the government contractors work from home while RDPing in without a username or password because its just about letting them perform their duties!
I haven't kept up on the news recently, and while the name rang a bell I hadn't really looked into this story until now. Now looking at it quickly, and skimming the article...
I agree with you, though I think whatever they find needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Loughner is about the same age as me, and I'm not going to lie, guys our age like to still pretend we are in high school. We like the attention that comes with being a comedian and we'll use jokes that kind of go against the grain of society to stand out from the crowd. Sometimes things that are actually horrific, we find some comedic value in them. I personally read the Cyanide and Happiness comics, which for those who don't read is a childish comic written by 4 guys and they are 90% ridiculous puns that have to do with either violence, terminal illness, or suicide. Every year they have what they call "Depressing Comic Week" which is, quite literally, a week full of comics that have no punch-line, just incredibly sad situations. Yet somehow individuals such as I find them funny. Who knows, maybe laughing bad things off is just a coping mechanism that has somehow engrained itself into the "funny" section of the brain.
Now I'm not going to go and say I'm a perfectly sound and healthy person, I think most people who think they are perfectly healthy mentally probably have some problem that they wouldn't consider part of a mental illness. Whether that be insecurities or arrogance or whatever, they will all plague you in one way or another, and I think finding horrific situations funny is probably one that would affect you the least. After all, you don't come across a gruesome scene every single day, but you might be overly concerned about your weight every single day. Very rarely would I let my mental deficiency affect my day to day life.
Back to Loughner, the article had this quote
On April 24, for instance, Mr. Loughner titled an online thread: "Would you hit a Handy Cap Child/Adult?" He wrote: "This is a very interesting question."
Now I'm not trying to defend Loughner, but this is typical of anyone who has ever visitted/b/ on 4chan. I don't think ANYONE in/b/ is of sound mental state either, but I don't necessarily write them all off as criminals, murderers, or rapists waiting to happen. Often its just a place to vent, let it all out. I think the reason why someone might avidly visit a site like this is because it lets them know that they are not alone. Its like a support group without the holistic stigma or guilty feelings. There isn't any study one could realisticly pull off to prove that a site like this reduces crime, but when you look at the statistics of the real world environment, the internet and the propogation of this nasty stuff has shown a drop in the rate these crimes occur per population. Whether Loughner meant to pose this question as an intellectual thought discussion, something to start a flame war, or something to prop up some laughs, is entirely unknown. Did they ask him? I'd be curious to know why he did it from his point of view.
I guess what I'm getting at, the TL;DR is this: Whatever they find, be it gruesome, disturbing, or all around disgusting, it shouldn't be considered conclusive evidence that something was wrong - after all there are hundreds of people who make the same kinds of comments who don't go around killing people. Just something to think about.
over Firefox or Chrome. I personally don't like Firefox because of the bloat, and like the OP, I get a little wary of Google gaining full vertical control of my web browsing. First a search engine, then a Web Browser, next an OS, and they're starting their own ISP. Its a little scary.
For a while, I maintained that I would switch back to Firefox once it matched the speed and minimalist interface that Chrome had, as I didn't like using a browser from Google.
Over-hyped? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Sony because of their antics w/ rootkits, removing other OS, and a handful of other stupid PR stunts - but the things you are trying to refute make no sense.
PS2 over hyped? It's STILL selling games! More than the other consoles of that generation. the PS3 was released Late 2006. It's already gone through 4 years and its still selling.
And in your final statement, you are comparing a brand new mobile device to a console created 2 years ago. Take a look at high end mobile phones today and mid grade PC's 2 years ago, they are pretty close in terms of power. The reason they don't adjust the PS3 everytime new hardware comes out is that it costs more money to alter the factories than the increase in amount of units they expect to sell by simply making things smaller. The Slim and the new Xbox360 were made to address customer concerns with size and noise created by the original models.
Obviously they didn't take the classified government information seriously if a private had access to it, and managed to steal it by pretending he was listening to Lady Gaga.
There is a reason for that rule that the videogame level designer proposed. If you made it through each door the first time, you're one of the lucky 20% of players who did not have to revert to an older save to retry that section. And the major part you fail to realize is that about 20% of players will not make that first door, not realize what that means, and is trapped, looking for a way out, can't, and gets frustrated.
The arguement that you think it makes it a better game for reason x is moot because if it were such an incredibly good game mechanic, you'd see a lot more of it. Valve has spent a lot of time researching how players enjoy their games - and the scenario you described is one every level designer tends to avoid for the very reasons I described: the same amount of players who enjoy it will roughly equal the amount of players who will HATE it. If players are already having fun, omitting that section of the game doesn't hurt, because you won't be frustrating a portion of your audience to please another.
I guarantee more people would enjoy a blast door sequence if the blast doors could be re-opened through a relatively punishing mechanic (like heading back to the utility room to reset the sequence) - but not one that literally forces you to stop where you are and restart from an earlier section of the game.
You think a monorail makes a game feel unrealistic? Try reloading from a save point. How does THAT feel real?
What about those people who aren't required to be in touch 24 hours a day, but perhaps the 8 working hours they do each day, are they going to have to use their personal cell phone? Are you going to cover those minutes? Would it be cheaper? The phones are already paid for if they were in use by the employees. You couldn't have just put in an order to NOT get new cell phones?
And working in IT, I know the costs of support from your IT team will go up if you want them to support a smorgasborg of client phones, each with their own OS and needing to sync their contacts with their email addresses, being able to have the support they would have had on a standard company phone. Standardization is so unbelievably helpful, you have no idea.
I get it if you want to cut back people's work phone plans, and you want to stem the problem from inflating, but simply taking the phones back has got to be one of the silliest things I've heard of.
It's never black and white, there's a reason for the grey area. I do a crime, I do some time. Am I safe for society? Who knows. I'll spout whatever your lawyer says to get you on parole.
How do I know you aren't a danger to society right now? How do I know you won't commit murder tomorrow? Should I lock you up as a danger to society? Or how about being Jailed for a decade - can I assume you've learned your lesson? The whole idea of the grey area is to be both fair and perceptive. Either you are suggesting that those who are safe for society spend longer in prison than necessary and over compensating for the crime they've comitted, or you are being naive that people won't act out again.
I don't agree with the GPS tracking or anything like that, I think it violates a part of your freedom you should have, after all, you aren't wearing a GPS in prison, are you? But to put everything in black and white like that is just silly.
Slashdot Mirror
None of them have had as profound an effect as human beings.
Just like Master Chief is the answer to all the Floods.
Not gonna lie, I think this post was the hilight of my day. Let that speak for both how funny it was and how pathetic my day has been.
And there's nothing to say you can't go "Next" and have it bring up the next page in its list, but it shouldn't require you to search through them manually like it does now.
Though you can also keep things the way they are now, with the common "skim over the first line it brings back" and then decide that way - but ultimately thats a process that a computer should be able to do anyways.
Search engines do have a way to evaluate good. Based on user reviews, recommendations, etc etc, even page hits can be considered some value.
Granted, these aren't perfect, but they are better than nothing.
maybe you should RTFA.
the unique challenges it poses to its contestants: the breadth of topics; the puns, metaphors, and slang in the questions; the speed it takes to buzz and answer.
Speech processing that can deal with the context heavy language of Jeopardy is a pretty big test and I think means we're just a little bit closer to a general purpose natural language speech recognition system.
But that's just it - maybe we THINK puns and metaphors and slang are more complex than they really are. Keep in mind its not having to worry about inflections in Alex's voice or anything complex with audio, its just reading the text.
With that in mind, how hard is it to apply Meta-tags to data with their relevance? For example, they use "Chicks Dig Me". It will likely check Chicks as prominantly baby chickens, and secondarily the female association, and so on and so forth. Then "Dig" will likely be the act of digging, then the act of liking something, etc etc. "Me" is almost a throw away word because it has no relevance, but regardless it obviously means one self, and has almost no other related speech, except for maybe Windows Millenium edition, which I doubt they would have a whole category on.
With that in mind, it goes through its database and organizes indexes based on Answers to do with Digging, Liking, Chickens, and Females. The puzzle comes up, "I did this" - it then cross references key words to the answers its indexed.
Like the poster above you said, it's just a fast search engine being able to work with keywords, like Google and it's search terms. We only THINK language is complex because we use it so. Jeopardy is funny in that it likes to pretend the puns have meaning, but they really don't. They are puns to keep the show slightly humourus. The questions always have more to do with their direct literal context than they do with the pun.
In that regard, I expect a human to be thrown off by a pun and a computer to do amazingly well.
Well, yes, that IS how it should be, despite you trying to sarcastically make it sound like its ruining the human condition.
If you are using a search engine, you are searching for something. You enter in what you are searching for. Naturally, if the engine is optimal, it will return exactly what you are looking for, and no more searching could be required. Bringing up a page of 20 things for you to sift through, is sometimes not as helpful as if it had just brought up the most relevant example.
If I look up "Good Italian Wedding Soup Recipe" it will no doubt show me a list of results with a bunch of soup recipes. But that's another step of searching I have to do to ensure that I don't come across some site that was optimized for "Italian" and "Wedding". The Searching needs to be more robust, to take off the decision required to determine which link to press.
Ideally, the best search engine ever would take you directly to the page you were looking for. Nothing more and nothing less.
When you have a question for your boss, like "Where is the supply cabinet?" he doesn't usually spout off 20 different locations, and if he does, he probably isn't a very good boss.
Because there IS no comparison to AltaVista. Good or Bad!
Rank is ENTIRELY relevant when it comes to access.
How you could possibly argue otherwise baffles me.
There'd be no need for any security if access was merely about performing a job. Let the government contractors work from home while RDPing in without a username or password because its just about letting them perform their duties!
Sounds great, doesn't it?
I haven't kept up on the news recently, and while the name rang a bell I hadn't really looked into this story until now. Now looking at it quickly, and skimming the article...
I agree with you, though I think whatever they find needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Loughner is about the same age as me, and I'm not going to lie, guys our age like to still pretend we are in high school. We like the attention that comes with being a comedian and we'll use jokes that kind of go against the grain of society to stand out from the crowd. Sometimes things that are actually horrific, we find some comedic value in them. I personally read the Cyanide and Happiness comics, which for those who don't read is a childish comic written by 4 guys and they are 90% ridiculous puns that have to do with either violence, terminal illness, or suicide. Every year they have what they call "Depressing Comic Week" which is, quite literally, a week full of comics that have no punch-line, just incredibly sad situations. Yet somehow individuals such as I find them funny. Who knows, maybe laughing bad things off is just a coping mechanism that has somehow engrained itself into the "funny" section of the brain.
Now I'm not going to go and say I'm a perfectly sound and healthy person, I think most people who think they are perfectly healthy mentally probably have some problem that they wouldn't consider part of a mental illness. Whether that be insecurities or arrogance or whatever, they will all plague you in one way or another, and I think finding horrific situations funny is probably one that would affect you the least. After all, you don't come across a gruesome scene every single day, but you might be overly concerned about your weight every single day. Very rarely would I let my mental deficiency affect my day to day life.
Back to Loughner, the article had this quote
On April 24, for instance, Mr. Loughner titled an online thread: "Would you hit a Handy Cap Child/Adult?" He wrote: "This is a very interesting question."
Now I'm not trying to defend Loughner, but this is typical of anyone who has ever visitted /b/ on 4chan. I don't think ANYONE in /b/ is of sound mental state either, but I don't necessarily write them all off as criminals, murderers, or rapists waiting to happen. Often its just a place to vent, let it all out. I think the reason why someone might avidly visit a site like this is because it lets them know that they are not alone. Its like a support group without the holistic stigma or guilty feelings. There isn't any study one could realisticly pull off to prove that a site like this reduces crime, but when you look at the statistics of the real world environment, the internet and the propogation of this nasty stuff has shown a drop in the rate these crimes occur per population. Whether Loughner meant to pose this question as an intellectual thought discussion, something to start a flame war, or something to prop up some laughs, is entirely unknown. Did they ask him? I'd be curious to know why he did it from his point of view.
I guess what I'm getting at, the TL;DR is this:
Whatever they find, be it gruesome, disturbing, or all around disgusting, it shouldn't be considered conclusive evidence that something was wrong - after all there are hundreds of people who make the same kinds of comments who don't go around killing people. Just something to think about.
No, but if thats your only qualification, I might point you towards
http://code.google.com/p/arora/
or
http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/
over Firefox or Chrome. I personally don't like Firefox because of the bloat, and like the OP, I get a little wary of Google gaining full vertical control of my web browsing. First a search engine, then a Web Browser, next an OS, and they're starting their own ISP. Its a little scary.
Anyways, maybe check those guys out.
So you consider Assange more of a reporter than you do consider him a Commentator or CEO of Wikileaks?
By that logic, he has no responsibility for what Wikileaks has done.
For a while, I maintained that I would switch back to Firefox once it matched the speed and minimalist interface that Chrome had, as I didn't like using a browser from Google.
You know there ARE more than 2 choices, right?
Did you consider Opera?
So you did not tell me why a private first class needed access to everything he released.
In the banking industry, not everyone is given keys to the vault.
Over-hyped? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Sony because of their antics w/ rootkits, removing other OS, and a handful of other stupid PR stunts - but the things you are trying to refute make no sense.
PS2 over hyped? It's STILL selling games! More than the other consoles of that generation. the PS3 was released Late 2006. It's already gone through 4 years and its still selling.
And in your final statement, you are comparing a brand new mobile device to a console created 2 years ago. Take a look at high end mobile phones today and mid grade PC's 2 years ago, they are pretty close in terms of power. The reason they don't adjust the PS3 everytime new hardware comes out is that it costs more money to alter the factories than the increase in amount of units they expect to sell by simply making things smaller. The Slim and the new Xbox360 were made to address customer concerns with size and noise created by the original models.
Obviously they didn't take the classified government information seriously if a private had access to it, and managed to steal it by pretending he was listening to Lady Gaga.
Because Fox news have never donated to the Republican Governers Association.
Now that they are giving him money for legal defense, a good lawyer can say that it shows that they were in fact working together. IANAL btw
And an even better lawyer can say that it shows they merely stand for the same values.
He should be suing his parents for coddling him and not raising him as a flesh eating abomination who kills and devours without any fear or remorse.
There is a reason for that rule that the videogame level designer proposed. If you made it through each door the first time, you're one of the lucky 20% of players who did not have to revert to an older save to retry that section. And the major part you fail to realize is that about 20% of players will not make that first door, not realize what that means, and is trapped, looking for a way out, can't, and gets frustrated.
The arguement that you think it makes it a better game for reason x is moot because if it were such an incredibly good game mechanic, you'd see a lot more of it. Valve has spent a lot of time researching how players enjoy their games - and the scenario you described is one every level designer tends to avoid for the very reasons I described: the same amount of players who enjoy it will roughly equal the amount of players who will HATE it. If players are already having fun, omitting that section of the game doesn't hurt, because you won't be frustrating a portion of your audience to please another.
I guarantee more people would enjoy a blast door sequence if the blast doors could be re-opened through a relatively punishing mechanic (like heading back to the utility room to reset the sequence) - but not one that literally forces you to stop where you are and restart from an earlier section of the game.
You think a monorail makes a game feel unrealistic? Try reloading from a save point. How does THAT feel real?
I notice you failed to mention some too.
No, its not mainstream. It's the popular alternative, like that Radio station that plays a lot of Nirvana and Foo Fighters.
I'm impressed you managed to cover both topics on one trifold without confusing anybody.
What about those people who aren't required to be in touch 24 hours a day, but perhaps the 8 working hours they do each day, are they going to have to use their personal cell phone? Are you going to cover those minutes? Would it be cheaper? The phones are already paid for if they were in use by the employees. You couldn't have just put in an order to NOT get new cell phones?
And working in IT, I know the costs of support from your IT team will go up if you want them to support a smorgasborg of client phones, each with their own OS and needing to sync their contacts with their email addresses, being able to have the support they would have had on a standard company phone. Standardization is so unbelievably helpful, you have no idea.
I get it if you want to cut back people's work phone plans, and you want to stem the problem from inflating, but simply taking the phones back has got to be one of the silliest things I've heard of.
How do you gauge something like that though?
It's never black and white, there's a reason for the grey area. I do a crime, I do some time. Am I safe for society? Who knows. I'll spout whatever your lawyer says to get you on parole.
How do I know you aren't a danger to society right now? How do I know you won't commit murder tomorrow? Should I lock you up as a danger to society? Or how about being Jailed for a decade - can I assume you've learned your lesson? The whole idea of the grey area is to be both fair and perceptive. Either you are suggesting that those who are safe for society spend longer in prison than necessary and over compensating for the crime they've comitted, or you are being naive that people won't act out again.
I don't agree with the GPS tracking or anything like that, I think it violates a part of your freedom you should have, after all, you aren't wearing a GPS in prison, are you?
But to put everything in black and white like that is just silly.