Do you really have to attack people personally in each of your responses? My valid reasoning was "idiotic". The other commenter "had something very wrong" with him/her.
I just don't think we'll ever accept the idea of nested countries. You guys really need to solve your entity roll-up issues and not blame the rest of us for being confused by something that doesn't make much sense.
Get back to us with a revised ER diagram when you get a chance.
I think that using video of minors taken for non-obvious purposes and then publishing something edited to be sexually explicit is crossing a line.
Draw cartoons of children being sexual and sing about it all you want; but take video of my elementary daughter and talk about her sucking anything of yours and you're going to have a law suit on your hands.
It's one thing to express yourself. He has every right to do so.
It's quite another to pull innocent children into it and make them a part of your expression as though they were complicit.
Good for you for knowing enough of your rights to not allow a search of your computer.
Personally, I wouldn't have shown him my ID either. He has no right to anything but your name unless you're operating a motor vehicle in which case you need to show your license.
Blaming a woman for the way she dresses in a rape trial would be attacking her freedom of expression.
Blaming the government for spending millions of our tax dollars on a blatant scam would be attacking the government officials for being abjectly stupid.
The former is not okay. The latter is responsible and should be expected.
Even before 9/11, they were blowing money on thousand dollar toilet seats and quackery like divining rods to locate land mines.
They're children and need close supervision. As much as I hate taxes and government spending, we need to spend more money on oversight. They need to be watched like hawks.
Not true. Deep Blue was a later version of Deep Thought with heavy modifications in the nine years from when the first version lost to Kasparov in 1989.
10+% of IT "Pros" aren't really that professional if they're going back to their old accounts to see if they can get in.
The computers of companies where I used to work are beyond the event horizon. I would never even try to log into them without some kind of written request for my former employer.
Deep Thought lost to Kasparov. You're thinking of Deep Blue. Maybe Deep Blue was scrapped because once it was proven that it could be done there was no reason to continue working on the system?
Deep Blue had no easy-to-commercialize applications. It could only play chess.
Watson has innumerable real world applications with very little modification. The work that went into Watson will be re-used and extended, not scrapped. The business folks didn't give a shit about Deep Blue. They care about Watson. They see lots of $$$ from exploiting Watson's abilities and they will go after every $.
Yeah, so you give a "meh" response to the hard part - understanding complex natural language used in Jeopardy "answers" and giving a correct answer faster than the best players in the history of the game, and you get wrapped around the axle over stuff that is pretty commonplace like OCR or basic voice recognition.
So maybe if they added another server to quickly do the OCR or a rack of servers to do the voice input, you'd be impressed? Would you then be complaining that they used a font that was too easy to recognize and maybe if they had written the questions in cursive you'd be impressed?
I'm kind of stunned in this Slashdot thread how many "meh" responses I've seen.
As a hobbyist AI programmer, I'm astounded at the power of Watson. Watson is not meh. It's fucking amazing. Deep Blue was good at chess? I found it interesting, but who cares? When I live my life I don't play chess. It doesn't apply to anything in the world that isn't chess.
Watson, however, is the start of a kind of AI that will change the world of our children as much as the Internet and smart phones changed ours.
Being able to get a smart answer quickly and link those smart answers together to solve bigger and bigger problems will apply to every part of our lives.
We're all the real winners (until the machine apocalypse, that is).
We now know that computers can understand natural language to answer tricky questions. Just knowing that something like this is possible will spur a lot more research and attempts to commercialize the concepts. It will open the floodgates for investment dollars for companies looking to create advanced AI systems.
Slashdot may view Watson as an impressive but inevitable next step, but lay people are in two camps.
1. People like my wife didn't understand that computers couldn't do this kind of thing already. I had to explain why it was new and exciting. 2. Business people didn't think this was possible because their tech people haven't able to provide anything like it ever. They've never tapped into this field.
People in category 2 now have an example that this is a viable new market ripe for exploitation. They're the ones that control investment dollars. They're the ones that are going to start demanding Watson-like performance from their IT people.
I find your lack of understanding and vision disturbing.:)
Watson does much more than simply match words. It understands word play and natural language. Did you not see that demonstrated over and over? Sure, it misunderstood some things, but the correct answers it got were astounding. It's astounding to realize that we saw that performance in Watson 1.0.
Watson 1.0 answers questions. It answered Jeopardy questions far better and faster than the two best players EVER.
Imagine Watson 3.0 available to answer questions online in five years. Imagine Watson 5.0 on your desktop in 10 to 15 years, able to answer every question you pose. No more trying to think through possible matching key words to get Google results. Instead you ask a real question and get a really smart answer.
Imagine if your doctor fed your test results, genome, and medical history into a medical version of Watson 3.1. Suddenly you get a diagnosis and treatment plan better than the best doctor in the world could have previously given you.
Strike two... In your months of "debating", did you use that many fallacies so quickly? Let's see, you built a straw man through over generalization about me. You then tried to poison the well of discourse (an ad hominem) by accusing me of not being capable of reasoning (ironic, that).
After that little example of your debating skills, maybe you'll understand why I don't believe that you point-by-point deconstructed anything anyone said with strong evidence.
Strike three... Then these gems continue with your misrepresentation of what I said -- that the only entity removing wealth from people is the government. Not what I said.
I like discussing things with people on/., but throwing up a wave of fallacious reasoning just doesn't cut it. Sorry.
Sorry, but I wasn't referring to an economic stimulus. I was referring to the emotional stimulus provided by extremists like Beck or Moore. In this thread, Beck was accused of using tactics to cause fear. Someone pointed out an equivalency with Moore and Gore. You countered that it wasn't fear but justified anger.
It's just one of those subjective "my team vs your team" biases that I find really curious and destructive to our entire democracy.
It's actually nothing to do with the topic we were discussing, but since you mentioned it... I question how the rich were asking to be "given" a ton of money. Having less taxes isn't being "given" money. It's having less money "taken" from you. Big difference. Also, the only entity in the whole situation capable of "holding a knife" to anyone (using force and violence) is the government.
The is a delusion going on that the US government has a lot of waste. IN truth, it doesn't. In fct a large majority of govenrment programs are extremely efficient and costs are well contained.
What is that sentiment based upon? In my experience, you only know how (in)efficient a program or operation is based upon a comparison. It's kind of hard to compare government programs like military operations when we don't have data from other non-govts doing something similar.
My best experience is with comparing public education to private education at the elementary school level. My wife has worked in both environments over a period of 2 decades. There is no comparison. Public education is inefficient in the extreme. Public schools make dramatically more per head, teachers are paid more, facilities are always better -- but they almost always stink when compared to nearby private schools.
Public projects are almost always inefficient. There's no motivation for them to be efficient. They get their money whether or not they're useful or efficient since there's rarely any accountability like you have in the private sector. When a Public sector project fails, often times the government just throws more money at it.
If you run a public works project, you can almost always spin it so that it looks like success. What are you measuring the damned thing by? Who cares anyway since by the time the next election comes around, voters will have forgotten all about the lack of success.
Non monopolistic private sector entities are almost always accountable because it's easy to measure success: Are they making money and keeping their customers? When a private sector entity fails, they go out of business and are replaced by a company that does things better/more efficiently.
An influence is an influence, though. You can say that video games are fictional all you want, but there's some tail end of the bell curve for whom reality isn't that solid and who feels influenced by them. They immerse themselves in fps games all day killing animated people and think that they'd enjoy getting the rush of killing real people in a similar fashion. Columbine, anyone?
Likewise, most everyone who heard Sharon Angle ignored her speech as just speech. Harry Reid wasn't shot, if you'll recall so there's no evidence that what she had caused a problem. Further, investigations show that Loughner didn't even follow the whole political scene and was just a politically all over the map nut who lost it.
The question isn't really whether or not people are influenced to do bad things by politicians, commentators, comic books, or video games. Of course they are.
The question is who gets the blame? Where is the outrage for one source of influence vs another when one influence is/. beloved video games and the other influence is evil politicians or fox news or whatever?
Personally, I'm all about free speech and personal responsibility. I'm just looking for consistency is all.
Slashdot Mirror
It probably has more practical use than the knowledge that Green Bay won the Superbowl.
Yeah, I agree with that too. Less money with a larger percentage spent on oversight.
I'm glad we were able to solve this problem together. Please let Congress know our directive. Later.
Do you really have to attack people personally in each of your responses? My valid reasoning was "idiotic". The other commenter "had something very wrong" with him/her.
I just don't think we'll ever accept the idea of nested countries. You guys really need to solve your entity roll-up issues and not blame the rest of us for being confused by something that doesn't make much sense.
Get back to us with a revised ER diagram when you get a chance.
Thanks,
The Rest of the World
I think that using video of minors taken for non-obvious purposes and then publishing something edited to be sexually explicit is crossing a line.
Draw cartoons of children being sexual and sing about it all you want; but take video of my elementary daughter and talk about her sucking anything of yours and you're going to have a law suit on your hands.
It's one thing to express yourself. He has every right to do so.
It's quite another to pull innocent children into it and make them a part of your expression as though they were complicit.
Good for you for knowing enough of your rights to not allow a search of your computer.
Personally, I wouldn't have shown him my ID either. He has no right to anything but your name unless you're operating a motor vehicle in which case you need to show your license.
Blaming a woman for the way she dresses in a rape trial would be attacking her freedom of expression.
Blaming the government for spending millions of our tax dollars on a blatant scam would be attacking the government officials for being abjectly stupid.
The former is not okay. The latter is responsible and should be expected.
Even before 9/11, they were blowing money on thousand dollar toilet seats and quackery like divining rods to locate land mines.
They're children and need close supervision. As much as I hate taxes and government spending, we need to spend more money on oversight. They need to be watched like hawks.
Look, man, if you have an opinion just express it. Don't keep these things all bottled up inside where they can fester.
Tell us what you really think about the guy and you'll feel better.
All this sugar coating to avoid hurting his feelings isn't doing either of you any favors.
Yeah, they should revise the algorithm to not answer in the form of the question. That would be annoying.
I'll file a bug. Anyone have an address to their Jira server?
Not true. Deep Blue was a later version of Deep Thought with heavy modifications in the nine years from when the first version lost to Kasparov in 1989.
But I haven't tried. And I'm not going to. And I wouldn't even with a written request (screw them).
Well, the request has to be written in the memo field of a check paying me for my time.
10+% of IT "Pros" aren't really that professional if they're going back to their old accounts to see if they can get in.
The computers of companies where I used to work are beyond the event horizon. I would never even try to log into them without some kind of written request for my former employer.
Deep Thought lost to Kasparov. You're thinking of Deep Blue. Maybe Deep Blue was scrapped because once it was proven that it could be done there was no reason to continue working on the system?
Deep Blue had no easy-to-commercialize applications. It could only play chess.
Watson has innumerable real world applications with very little modification. The work that went into Watson will be re-used and extended, not scrapped. The business folks didn't give a shit about Deep Blue. They care about Watson. They see lots of $$$ from exploiting Watson's abilities and they will go after every $.
Yeah, so you give a "meh" response to the hard part - understanding complex natural language used in Jeopardy "answers" and giving a correct answer faster than the best players in the history of the game, and you get wrapped around the axle over stuff that is pretty commonplace like OCR or basic voice recognition.
So maybe if they added another server to quickly do the OCR or a rack of servers to do the voice input, you'd be impressed? Would you then be complaining that they used a font that was too easy to recognize and maybe if they had written the questions in cursive you'd be impressed?
Exactly.
I'm kind of stunned in this Slashdot thread how many "meh" responses I've seen.
As a hobbyist AI programmer, I'm astounded at the power of Watson. Watson is not meh. It's fucking amazing. Deep Blue was good at chess? I found it interesting, but who cares? When I live my life I don't play chess. It doesn't apply to anything in the world that isn't chess.
Watson, however, is the start of a kind of AI that will change the world of our children as much as the Internet and smart phones changed ours.
Being able to get a smart answer quickly and link those smart answers together to solve bigger and bigger problems will apply to every part of our lives.
We're all the real winners (until the machine apocalypse, that is).
We now know that computers can understand natural language to answer tricky questions. Just knowing that something like this is possible will spur a lot more research and attempts to commercialize the concepts. It will open the floodgates for investment dollars for companies looking to create advanced AI systems.
Slashdot may view Watson as an impressive but inevitable next step, but lay people are in two camps.
1. People like my wife didn't understand that computers couldn't do this kind of thing already. I had to explain why it was new and exciting.
2. Business people didn't think this was possible because their tech people haven't able to provide anything like it ever. They've never tapped into this field.
People in category 2 now have an example that this is a viable new market ripe for exploitation. They're the ones that control investment dollars. They're the ones that are going to start demanding Watson-like performance from their IT people.
I find your lack of understanding and vision disturbing. :)
Watson does much more than simply match words. It understands word play and natural language. Did you not see that demonstrated over and over? Sure, it misunderstood some things, but the correct answers it got were astounding. It's astounding to realize that we saw that performance in Watson 1.0.
Watson 1.0 answers questions. It answered Jeopardy questions far better and faster than the two best players EVER.
Imagine Watson 3.0 available to answer questions online in five years. Imagine Watson 5.0 on your desktop in 10 to 15 years, able to answer every question you pose. No more trying to think through possible matching key words to get Google results. Instead you ask a real question and get a really smart answer.
Imagine if your doctor fed your test results, genome, and medical history into a medical version of Watson 3.1. Suddenly you get a diagnosis and treatment plan better than the best doctor in the world could have previously given you.
Strike one, not an anarchist.
Strike two... In your months of "debating", did you use that many fallacies so quickly? Let's see, you built a straw man through over generalization about me. You then tried to poison the well of discourse (an ad hominem) by accusing me of not being capable of reasoning (ironic, that).
After that little example of your debating skills, maybe you'll understand why I don't believe that you point-by-point deconstructed anything anyone said with strong evidence.
Strike three... Then these gems continue with your misrepresentation of what I said -- that the only entity removing wealth from people is the government. Not what I said.
I like discussing things with people on /., but throwing up a wave of fallacious reasoning just doesn't cut it. Sorry.
Sorry, but I wasn't referring to an economic stimulus. I was referring to the emotional stimulus provided by extremists like Beck or Moore. In this thread, Beck was accused of using tactics to cause fear. Someone pointed out an equivalency with Moore and Gore. You countered that it wasn't fear but justified anger.
It's just one of those subjective "my team vs your team" biases that I find really curious and destructive to our entire democracy.
It's actually nothing to do with the topic we were discussing, but since you mentioned it... I question how the rich were asking to be "given" a ton of money. Having less taxes isn't being "given" money. It's having less money "taken" from you. Big difference. Also, the only entity in the whole situation capable of "holding a knife" to anyone (using force and violence) is the government.
I jumped into this thread just to make sure that someone was properly trashing experts-exchange.
They are teh suck.
I HATE accidentally clicking on one of the search result links for them.
I will be downloading this chrome extension solely for the purpose of dinging experts-exchange as the opportunities arise.
Stackoverflow is brilliant in concept and execution.
I can't say enough good things about it.
Yes, when the other side reacts strongly to a stimulus, it's animalistic and ignorant "fear".
When your side reacts strongly to a stimulus, it's justified "anger and outrage".
Fascinating.
The is a delusion going on that the US government has a lot of waste. IN truth, it doesn't. In fct a large majority of govenrment programs are extremely efficient and costs are well contained.
What is that sentiment based upon? In my experience, you only know how (in)efficient a program or operation is based upon a comparison. It's kind of hard to compare government programs like military operations when we don't have data from other non-govts doing something similar.
My best experience is with comparing public education to private education at the elementary school level. My wife has worked in both environments over a period of 2 decades. There is no comparison. Public education is inefficient in the extreme. Public schools make dramatically more per head, teachers are paid more, facilities are always better -- but they almost always stink when compared to nearby private schools.
Public projects are almost always inefficient. There's no motivation for them to be efficient. They get their money whether or not they're useful or efficient since there's rarely any accountability like you have in the private sector. When a Public sector project fails, often times the government just throws more money at it.
If you run a public works project, you can almost always spin it so that it looks like success. What are you measuring the damned thing by? Who cares anyway since by the time the next election comes around, voters will have forgotten all about the lack of success.
Non monopolistic private sector entities are almost always accountable because it's easy to measure success: Are they making money and keeping their customers? When a private sector entity fails, they go out of business and are replaced by a company that does things better/more efficiently.
An influence is an influence, though. You can say that video games are fictional all you want, but there's some tail end of the bell curve for whom reality isn't that solid and who feels influenced by them. They immerse themselves in fps games all day killing animated people and think that they'd enjoy getting the rush of killing real people in a similar fashion. Columbine, anyone?
Likewise, most everyone who heard Sharon Angle ignored her speech as just speech. Harry Reid wasn't shot, if you'll recall so there's no evidence that what she had caused a problem. Further, investigations show that Loughner didn't even follow the whole political scene and was just a politically all over the map nut who lost it.
The question isn't really whether or not people are influenced to do bad things by politicians, commentators, comic books, or video games. Of course they are.
The question is who gets the blame? Where is the outrage for one source of influence vs another when one influence is /. beloved video games and the other influence is evil politicians or fox news or whatever?
Personally, I'm all about free speech and personal responsibility. I'm just looking for consistency is all.