They used an example quote "Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas" How did the elephant get in your pajamas?
I don't know if that would be so difficult. You can write an algorithm to diagram a sentence. The problem, in your example, is that there are multiple potential diagrams. (is it "last night, in my pajamas, I shot an elephant" or "last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas"???) Parenthetical elements, and other parts of speech, can be moved around to different parts of a sentence. I would think your algorithm would simply have to compute all possible sentence diagrams and then statistically determine which one is more likely. (for instance, have it use a database of sentence frequency to see which is most common) Then again, I don't really know enough about how they're doing this to know if this makes any sense.
I'm sure IBM had people working on this who have a very extensive language background, though.
Yeah I definitely agree with you that Theora is a waste of time. There are hardly any videos on the internet encoded with it (or at least that the average user will encounter). I guess I just thought you were being a bit harsh with the "job interview" thing.
That would be a cool augmented reality app (kindof like that camera-phone sudoku solver app that OCR'd the numbers and overlaid the missing numbers in their correct boxes)
You can't have it both ways. You can't complain when they do the wrong thing and then complain again when they do something right. Pick one. They're a corporation - not a charity. Also, you come across as ridiculously paranoid when you start spreading conspiracy theories about companies "paying off" websites for positive press. And what's with the "M$"? Yeah - all they care about is money. That's the point of a business... to make money.
It's about giving choices to users that better position you to capture as many more users as possible.
Giving "choices" yields more users? So a browser that supports 30 decent video formats is "strategically better positioned to capture customers" than a browser that supports 5 good ones? No. You pick video formats based on (a) what format is used by videos that users are most likely to encounter, (b) cost of licensing, and (c) efficacy of the format. I agree that Ogg Theora is a waste of time but your reasons are way off. Theora fails criteria (a) and (c). Also, the internet is not a job interview.
When [he was] asked if he is constantly laughing, his reply was, "Sure."
The "he was" could be understood. You used "was asked" and "reply was." Seems legit to me. (granted you could replace "he was" with "he is" and then you would've been wrong, but the way above is correct)
I could have said: "without the need for government intervention," but that's not what I was trying to say. Sometimes government intervention _is_ necessary. That's why we have the SEC and the legal system. It's all about balance. I would say, though, that "weasel words" is in fact "logically useless," or at least unnecessary to make your point.
A functioning society needs money to circulate. Earning more than you need and hording it is bad for everyone.
If people "hoard" money, demand decreases, and prices fall. As prices fall, the "hoarders", one-by-one, decide that a "deal" can be had, and buy. This slows the decline of prices until equilibrium is attained.
If you are arguing that growth slows if people don't buy, I'll somewhat agree, but I'll exchange a few points of growth for more meaningful growth, e.g. McDonalds toys, DVDs, cigarettes, thousand-dollar purses, etc. VS investment in efficient manufacturing techniques, sustainability, etc.
Suggesting that the economy must operate on deficit spending like the government and many households is irresponsible. China manages to pull off growth and a trade surplus.
This was somewhat disjointed, sorry. No time to edit; back to work.
This is the conservative argument and it's exactly right. The system will work itself out without the need for excessive government intervention.
The same thing that would happen if someone hacked your robotic washing machine, and set it to not stop pumping water. That's right, there are millions of robot clothes washers in the world. A good many of them are computer controlled.
Do they really have internet-ready washing machines??
Also, it makes sense. Sin(theta - Pi/2) is the same as Cos(theta). The derivative of Cos(theta) is Sin(theta). And substituting x=0 will give you zero for the problem. (I'm in O.D.E.'s right now so it's all rather fresh)
All captchas are practically useless. There is no need to crack them - for example decaptcher solves 1000 captchas for $2. Any captcha type works since they're solved by humans.
I bet this type of captcha would still work well on sites like mathoverflow or wolfram...
The answer is zero, btw. (which was a little anticlimactic, if you ask me)
Actually, the most naive implementation would just randomly fill the fields and then check whether it solves the puzzle, repeating until it found the solution.:-)
And that really could take six hours (or more) to compute.
He received a wire transfer of money under a fake name. Doesn't that count?
So if you win an ebay auction from 'legoseller331' and then paypal your payment to 'legoseller331@gmail.com'... and then legoseller331 sends you the lego set described in the auction... criminal wire fraud has taken place? Really?
Firstly, wire transfer != paypal... Wire transfer systems take identities very seriously.
Secondly, it's a bad metaphor. The lego set in the EMC scenario was stolen and fenced under a fake name (to avoid getting caught). The fake name part (as part of the wire transfer) is a whole separate crime. IANAL, though, so this is only my understanding of the situation.
Yeah I guess I didn't really make it clear that I meant it in only the one direction.
I don't think it would bother me for any of the "-balls" or other examples to be capitalized. I, personally, would refrain from doing so but I don't think I would have a problem with someone else doing it. It's certainly an interesting question. I think I may start a question on english.stackexchange.com and see if I can find something more definitive. I think the problem here is the loose definition of a proper noun.
Plenty of proper names are used with "the": The Czech Republic. The People's Republic of China. The New York Times. The Lord of the Rings.
What we have here is a perfect example of the inverse fallacy. I said p -> q (read: p implies q) and the quote above tries to suggest I'm wrong because q -/> P (read: q doesn't imply p).
I stated that the absence of "the" implies that the noun that follows is a proper noun. I didn't say that a proper noun implies the absence of a preceding "the."
Now granted, I still may be wrong in my original statement (as I'm not an English major), but the proof above is faulty.
... I've been playing that skin thing for years. Now, in High School, I played trumpet. But no-one seemed to be able to find sexual innuendos for that instrument. Does anyone have some bassoon jokes?
And the folks at the Classic concert might not be amused with whit the, um results.
idk any trumpet jokes, but "trombone players do it in seven positions"... (actually trumpets also have seven common fingerings but it's more of a trombone joke)
Slashdot Mirror
I was going to go with a Beverly Hills Cop reference (for the whole "tiny town" thing) but this works too...
It's "Glenn Beck" - not "Glen Beck." You lose a bit of credibility when you don't bother to even spell his name right.
They used an example quote "Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas"
How did the elephant get in your pajamas?
I don't know if that would be so difficult. You can write an algorithm to diagram a sentence. The problem, in your example, is that there are multiple potential diagrams. (is it "last night, in my pajamas, I shot an elephant" or "last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas"???) Parenthetical elements, and other parts of speech, can be moved around to different parts of a sentence. I would think your algorithm would simply have to compute all possible sentence diagrams and then statistically determine which one is more likely. (for instance, have it use a database of sentence frequency to see which is most common) Then again, I don't really know enough about how they're doing this to know if this makes any sense.
I'm sure IBM had people working on this who have a very extensive language background, though.
Cultural homogeneity leads to a peaceful society.
Hitler would agree with you.
Yeah I definitely agree with you that Theora is a waste of time. There are hardly any videos on the internet encoded with it (or at least that the average user will encounter). I guess I just thought you were being a bit harsh with the "job interview" thing.
That would be a cool augmented reality app (kindof like that camera-phone sudoku solver app that OCR'd the numbers and overlaid the missing numbers in their correct boxes)
You can't have it both ways. You can't complain when they do the wrong thing and then complain again when they do something right. Pick one. They're a corporation - not a charity. Also, you come across as ridiculously paranoid when you start spreading conspiracy theories about companies "paying off" websites for positive press. And what's with the "M$"? Yeah - all they care about is money. That's the point of a business... to make money.
It's about giving choices to users that better position you to capture as many more users as possible.
Giving "choices" yields more users? So a browser that supports 30 decent video formats is "strategically better positioned to capture customers" than a browser that supports 5 good ones? No. You pick video formats based on (a) what format is used by videos that users are most likely to encounter, (b) cost of licensing, and (c) efficacy of the format. I agree that Ogg Theora is a waste of time but your reasons are way off. Theora fails criteria (a) and (c). Also, the internet is not a job interview.
The quote above is perfectly correct. A colon would also work.
Although I do think
is a comma splice.
The "he was" could be understood. You used "was asked" and "reply was." Seems legit to me. (granted you could replace "he was" with "he is" and then you would've been wrong, but the way above is correct)
I suppose. I would prefer, though, to word it as "there exists a correct amount of government intervention such that less is more."
I'm not following you.
I could have said: "without the need for government intervention," but that's not what I was trying to say. Sometimes government intervention _is_ necessary. That's why we have the SEC and the legal system. It's all about balance. I would say, though, that "weasel words" is in fact "logically useless," or at least unnecessary to make your point.
A functioning society needs money to circulate. Earning more than you need and hording it is bad for everyone.
If people "hoard" money, demand decreases, and prices fall. As prices fall, the "hoarders", one-by-one, decide that a "deal" can be had, and buy. This slows the decline of prices until equilibrium is attained.
If you are arguing that growth slows if people don't buy, I'll somewhat agree, but I'll exchange a few points of growth for more meaningful growth, e.g. McDonalds toys, DVDs, cigarettes, thousand-dollar purses, etc. VS investment in efficient manufacturing techniques, sustainability, etc.
Suggesting that the economy must operate on deficit spending like the government and many households is irresponsible. China manages to pull off growth and a trade surplus.
This was somewhat disjointed, sorry. No time to edit; back to work.
This is the conservative argument and it's exactly right. The system will work itself out without the need for excessive government intervention.
Thank you - very helpful.
The same thing that would happen if someone hacked your robotic washing machine, and set it to not stop pumping water. That's right, there are millions of robot clothes washers in the world. A good many of them are computer controlled.
Do they really have internet-ready washing machines??
here's my work: (without cheating this time)
d/dx[4*sin(7x - x/2)]
= d/dx[4*cos(7x)]
= 4*7*sin(7x)
= 28*sin(7x)
(sub. x=0)
= 28*sin(0)
= 0
I'm pretty sure the answer is 28... but my calculus is a bit rusty. One of use just failed that captcha (and basic math)!
I cheated
Also, it makes sense. Sin(theta - Pi/2) is the same as Cos(theta). The derivative of Cos(theta) is Sin(theta). And substituting x=0 will give you zero for the problem. (I'm in O.D.E.'s right now so it's all rather fresh)
All captchas are practically useless. There is no need to crack them - for example decaptcher solves 1000 captchas for $2. Any captcha type works since they're solved by humans.
I bet this type of captcha would still work well on sites like mathoverflow or wolfram...
The answer is zero, btw. (which was a little anticlimactic, if you ask me)
Actually, the most naive implementation would just randomly fill the fields and then check whether it solves the puzzle, repeating until it found the solution. :-)
And that really could take six hours (or more) to compute.
He received a wire transfer of money under a fake name. Doesn't that count?
So if you win an ebay auction from 'legoseller331' and then paypal your payment to 'legoseller331@gmail.com'... and then legoseller331 sends you the lego set described in the auction... criminal wire fraud has taken place? Really?
Firstly, wire transfer != paypal... Wire transfer systems take identities very seriously.
Secondly, it's a bad metaphor. The lego set in the EMC scenario was stolen and fenced under a fake name (to avoid getting caught). The fake name part (as part of the wire transfer) is a whole separate crime. IANAL, though, so this is only my understanding of the situation.
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/8126/is-the-game-go-a-proper-noun-what-about-checkers-or-chess
Yeah I guess I didn't really make it clear that I meant it in only the one direction.
I don't think it would bother me for any of the "-balls" or other examples to be capitalized. I, personally, would refrain from doing so but I don't think I would have a problem with someone else doing it. It's certainly an interesting question. I think I may start a question on english.stackexchange.com and see if I can find something more definitive. I think the problem here is the loose definition of a proper noun.
Plenty of proper names are used with "the": The Czech Republic. The People's Republic of China. The New York Times. The Lord of the Rings.
What we have here is a perfect example of the inverse fallacy. I said p -> q (read: p implies q) and the quote above tries to suggest I'm wrong because q -/> P (read: q doesn't imply p).
I stated that the absence of "the" implies that the noun that follows is a proper noun. I didn't say that a proper noun implies the absence of a preceding "the."
Now granted, I still may be wrong in my original statement (as I'm not an English major), but the proof above is faulty.
... I've been playing that skin thing for years. Now, in High School, I played trumpet. But no-one seemed to be able to find sexual innuendos for that instrument. Does anyone have some bassoon jokes?
And the folks at the Classic concert might not be amused with whit the, um results.
idk any trumpet jokes, but "trombone players do it in seven positions"... (actually trumpets also have seven common fingerings but it's more of a trombone joke)