You're right that most websites look like crap (myspace anyone?). Presentations not so much, because there's the default templates. Biggest problem with slides is putting too much text on the slide, causing either erratic text sizes between slides, or destruction of margin, or just a big wall of text. However you completely missed the fact that the person doing the crappy design actually looks at his work and says, "Lookin' good!", and the majority of the audience doesn't notice that there's even a problem.
You're going to have to make a more coherent argument than a simple google search, especially one where the first hit actually explains how MacOSX is POSIX complient and based on FreeBSD and NeXTStep, both of which are bonified unicies. So unless your argument is "If it looks like a duck and quacks like duck, it must be rock," then try again.
What the hell are you talking about?
My hardware is supported. I've never seen hardware 100% supported under linux. Wireless drivers that don't support WPA. Graphics cards that don't support 3d acceleration. Kernels having to be patched for usb support. Hell, I had to actually patch (i.e. modify the source) to get linux to recognize my digital camera (a Sony DSC-F707) even though it was supported as a simple usb storage device. (The patch was incrementing a hex number in unusualdevs.h. Simple yes, but completely unacceptable.) Modules that refuse to insert automatically. The list goes on and on.
I am not a sysadmin. I do not enjoy sysadmining. I do not get my rocks off by recompiling kernels and configuring daemons that should be installed with reasonable defaults. Fuck that shit
I can't even turn off anti-aliasing on that big white bar.
And why would want to do that? Aliased fonts are jagged and hard to read. Why do you think that anti-aliasing was invented and such a common issue on how to turn on and get right in XFree86? Do you really want to make your interface look like something from 1989?
No reboots? Just install a quicktime update.
You're right. It does ask you to reboot after updates. A reboot makes sure that all running binaries are using the right version of the shared library. You can run in to weird problems when a shared library changes out from underneath a running binary.
The whole idea of trying to get the longest uptime is juvenile. It's indicative of avoiding kernel updates and other maintence. (Yes, plenty of things can be updated without a reboot, and strictly speaking you can avoid it for pretty much everything except the kernel, but a reboot does force a clean start and can avoid and/or detect errors.) Mean time between failures is a more legitimate metric for comparison.
Seamless integration with windows networks? Samba keeps breaking.
Never seen it.
Performs better? Windows and Linux seem faster to me for most things.
Without numbers to back it up, this is meaningless. Anyway, there's the whole total cost of operation that must be accounted for. Less time sysadmining is definately worth something.
Easy to setup? Maybe... if it worked...
Never had a problem. It does just work.
I remember the time using the Apache that came with the OS X CD... It could only send the first 13kb (I think it was 13kb) of a file, and that was it. Well known issue, took entire OS updates to fix.
Well gee. If you wre really that concerned, you could have simply just fixed the problem yourself, either through a reconfiging apache, or low and behold compiling apache yourself. But wait! MacOSX isn't unix, so of course that isn't a solution.
To bring this back to my kernel hacking to support my camera, I could also whine "It was a known issue and it took entire OS updates to fix it!" But no. You do what you have to fix the problem. Unix lets you do that.
Less hardware issues because it all comes from Apple? I've seen everything, wireless driver issues, graphic driver issues etc. some of which to this day haven't been even fixed.
Well you haven't actually made a comparison with this statement have you? Unless of course, you're comparing to zero, which isn't a very bold comparison now is it? Macs do have less hardware issues than windows and linux in particular.
I don't use Macs so often, guess why.
Because you like trying to promote a aura of being a hardcode hax0r who's too 1337 to use something that's least bit easy to use?
If you cant get a dual boot machine, or better yet a mac, get exceed (or failing that cygwin *bleh*) and just run it full screen. You'll never have to deal with windows then. (Except of course when windows crashes...)
Nah. Youre asking MS to give up a club. If the customer is heavily invested in.NET, then they're more likely to stay with MS when MS is the only game in town. If the customer wants to move away from.NET, and Mono doesn't work, MS gets to say "Fine. But realize that by moving away from.NET, you're going to also lose all this, and you don't want that,do you?"
You're right to say that MS could fix the problem, but there's little reason for them to. Mono is a flyspeck, so why waste resources on developing it? Complicating matters, MS would be helping a would-be competitor. Why the hell would MS want to do that?
None of this is surprising. This was done in the 60s as well. Then it was called COINTELPRO. Sure it targeted some groups that legitameately should have been watched (The KKK for one), but it also disproportionately targeted non-violent liberal organizations. (the civil rights and the anti-war movements for two.) The Church Committee found this was illegal. With the new war, COINTELPRO was dusted off by the Bush adminstration, only this time instead of rooting out "communists" it targeted "terrorists." Unsurprisingly, the threat was once again non-violent liberal groups that opposed the current administration's policies. For example, a non-violent, geriatric (and I mean that in the best possible way) anti-war movement was infiltrated by the police in Fresno, CA [ http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/mar2006/fres-m07 .shtml ]. Also not surprisingly, the police officer was the only one advocating "direct action" (i.e. violence). This pattern has been repeated all across the nation for years.
Strange how the threat is always perceived to come from the non-violent left, yet the most destructive domestic terrorist activities have come from radical right (e.g. the OKC bombings and the Atlanta bombings). I would suspect this is because there's an element of truth to the "liberal-pussies vs take-action-conservatives" meme, where the action is of a violent nature.
Seriously. What's the point? What are you trying to accomplish? You can't hear the difference at 256kps lossy versus lossless, so why waste you're life converting your already lossess music archive from CD form to harddrive form? It's not like you're going to be transcoding all that often, if at all. I encoded my entire CD collect 7 years ago as 320kbps constant MP3. I'm thinking about re-encoding it, because there's no point in having the files that big. 256kbps variable mp3 is would probably still be more than enough. And if you think that someday you can transcode to something higher than 320kbps, I doubt you'll be able to tell the difference if that ever happens, because your hearing naturally gets worse over time.
Futhermore, if you think Alcatel-Lucent v Microsoft is going to change anything, you're delusional. MP3 is going to stay. Just like how LZW patent did nothing to GIF. No one is going to abandon MP3, because the public isn't going to buy a device that can't play their MP3 collection. Nothing will change, and FLAC and Ogg will remain forever an asterisk.
I had a similar experience. I had a good job, but I didn't enjoy it. I left. I went to gradschool, and havent missed it yet. There's no reason to be miserable.
That said, you've kind of screwed yourself by telling people that you're looking to leave. You should have stayed a year. It looks a bit odd when you leave in less than a year, but whatever.
Re:GNOME, Ubuntu, and the colour green...
on
Gnome 2.18 Released
·
· Score: 1
Okay, to seriously answer you for a moment...
That's just a daft thing to say. BBC News has a similar colour scheme at the moment, getting away from the "everything blue" theme that was fashionable in 2000, and no-one complains about that.
Similar yet different in a key respect. The BBC is high contrast, and contains basically red, gold, white, and black. Ubunutu's default desktop color scheme, on the other hand, is muted low contrast gradiets. The colors look like -- and I suspect this is intentional, given Ubuntu's multiracial group-hug photo-logos -- skin tones. It looks like your screen is clad in the skin flayed from an interracial family. It looks like organs. It looks biological, and not in a good way.
People tend to prefer high contrast to low contrast. (Of course ulta-high contrast, can be equally as bad.) The borders of objects are too undefined. Everything flows together. It's basic graphic design.
"worst part of the spectrum"...what is that even supposed to mean?
It means that that color part of the spectrum is the least appealing. You can disagree, but you'd be wrong.:)
Re:GNOME, Ubuntu, and the colour green...
on
Gnome 2.18 Released
·
· Score: 1
Bah! What do the Brits know? They can't even spell the word "color.";)
Re:GNOME, Ubuntu, and the colour green...
on
Gnome 2.18 Released
·
· Score: 1
People often complain about the brown in Ubuntu being "ugly", and Ubuntu has stated that they don't want to be "just like Windows" by going for blue. Well, based on that screenshot, I think green would be a good choice.
Ubuntu is ugly because they've gone with browns, oranges, and reds -- the worst part of the spectrum.
What I noticed in the screenshot is that background is almost identical to MacOSX's default background. The only difference is that it's green, and MacOSX's is -- wait for it -- blue. If they went with blue, they wouldn't be emulating windows, but rather the mac.
Again, FOSS copies what doesn't need to be copied. There are plenty of orginal backgrounds. Bowie Poag was the go-to guy back in the day. I'm sure you could either dust those off (assuming you can find them) or find someone else with something that isn't direct copy of another's style.
Also, if you're an American, I'd like to suggest the Diesel Sweeties' "We're not ALL jerks" t-shirt. Whether you like it or not, you represent the country and culture you're from. Represent it well. You might be one of the few people someone might meet from wherever you're from.
Pack cheap. You might lose something very valuable.
A laptop is heavy and requires a lot of extra peripherials. Namely annd AC adapter and power adapters. Cameras are good to bring.
Bring a camera. You'll want it. Chemical requires film you'll have to drag along, but requires almost nothing you can't pickup wherever you are. I guess you could always mail exposed film home or something. Digital is cool because all you have to do is upload your photos, but uploading gigs of photos maybe problematic. Also digital requires AC adapters and power adapters, so keep that in mind.
You WILL want to document your trip. Use online tools you can access from any netcafe. Supplement or replace this with just a simple notebook and a pen. Moleskines have so much cachet, they yearn for something like this.
2. You act like atheism is somehow different from not believing in anyother thing that doesn't have any evidence to support it. Like it's some sort of "leap of faith" if you will. Do you believe in unicorns? Fairies? Dragons? Gnomes? Easter Bunny? Santa Claus? There's no evidence to support the existing of any of these things, yet are we supposed to pretend that these things exist, or at least seriously consider the implications of the existance of the Easter Bunny? No.
You are aware that Kennedy and Kerry are the senators for Massachusetts and that there's a lot more in Massachusetts than just Boston, right?
You're right. There's Newton. Personally, I like how my friend Don, described Massachusetts. "Three towns away would be the length of those truly tiny New England states. But, the large commonwealth of Massachusetts can accomodate a full six or seven towns long, I'd imagine."
Yeah the press has been negative. There's been a long line of talking heads saying how the led signs were "outragous" in this "post-September-11-world," and how Boston's city officials "did the right thing." The press is talking about "panic in Boston." My friend in Boston said most people were concerned about how they were going to get home because of all the closed roads, instead of "Oh my god! We're all going to die!"
The press really should be trying to figure out why Boston's officials were the only officials to respond the way they did. Ask them about why they are incapable of assessing a threat. But no. The press would rather continue to describe the light brites, as Boston's government does, as "hoax devices," which they can't be by definition, because there wasn't ever any hoax.
I seriously doubt that would work. Musical tastes are heavily influenced by your cultural surroundings. If everyone around you listens to x, you're very likely to listen to x. Sure selection is going on. It's not like music is like religion. (Almost no one on the planet picks their religion. Their PARENTS picked it for them. Even if they say they "chose," they mostly picked the same religion as their parents. i.e. They picked the one they were raised in and "choosing" is little more than a rite of passage.) But your friends and your cultural identity figure very large in that equation.
You're premise is based on stereotypes. It's no different than the old stereotype that smart people listen to classical music. A whole buiness of ripping people off is based on this stereotype. Want your plants to grow big? Play classical music.
I know lots of very smart people, from all around the world. I don't know anyone that listens to classical music. Annoying chinese pop-ballads? Check. Deathmetal? Check. Country? Check. Electronica? Check. Indie? Check. Rock? Check. I've never seen a correlation between intellegence and classical music.
Anyway, you're experiment already fails since there's way more than 16 genres of music.
then they might be failing because they are more math degrees than what I would consider "computer science". That is why I changed my major to web development here.
Now now. Al Gore has been a vocal advocate on the environement for almost 30 years now. He's led government investigations and authored legislation. And oh yeah. He wrote two fucking highly regarded (by the relevant SCIENCE community no less) and researched books on the subject.
Crichton on the other hand has written a very enjoyable, and equally fanciful, books about cloning dinosaurs, among other things. His book, State of Fear, was roundly criticised by the scientific community of being full of half-truths, and deliberate misrepresentations of both intents and facts. Lest we forget. After receiving these condemnations. Crichton was invited by the White House to discuss his views with the president.
So, yeah. You have someone that has spent a significant portion of his adult life on one side dealing with the leading experts in the world one side, and on the other you have some dude with a laptop whoe won't let the facts get in the way of his political agenda on the other. This can only lead you to one inescapable conclusion.
You have no idea what you're talking about. If you did, you wouldn't be trying to conflate a data corpus and an algorithm. Also, if you had done the least bit of research into AI, and in this case information retrieval, you'd know just how simple real AI really is. I hate to tell you this. But AI is pretty much just simple search and table lookups. There's no magic dude. None what so ever. So I guess in that sense, it is like magic. It looks cool and amazing when you don't know how it's done, but when you know how it works, you're left thinking, "That's all there is?"
Perhaps you would like to actually read about reinforcement learning. Because as it stands, you have all the arogance and knowledge of the sophmore cs major that you are.
That's not how wikipedia is being used. It's being used a reservoir for semantic information. You want to know if these two consecutive tokens are a name? Check wikipedia. Biographies are clearly labeled. Want to know if this token is a country? Check wikipedia. Want to know terms associated with a War of 1812? Check wikipedia. It's a data corpus made up of human anotated terms, and that's why it's valuable.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right that most websites look like crap (myspace anyone?). Presentations not so much, because there's the default templates. Biggest problem with slides is putting too much text on the slide, causing either erratic text sizes between slides, or destruction of margin, or just a big wall of text.
However you completely missed the fact that the person doing the crappy design actually looks at his work and says, "Lookin' good!", and the majority of the audience doesn't notice that there's even a problem.
Where is "Brazil"?
;D
South America.
Where is "12 Monkeys"?
Brazil.
OS X is not UNIX
You're going to have to make a more coherent argument than a simple google search, especially one where the first hit actually explains how MacOSX is POSIX complient and based on FreeBSD and NeXTStep, both of which are bonified unicies. So unless your argument is "If it looks like a duck and quacks like duck, it must be rock," then try again.
What the hell are you talking about?
My hardware is supported. I've never seen hardware 100% supported under linux. Wireless drivers that don't support WPA. Graphics cards that don't support 3d acceleration. Kernels having to be patched for usb support. Hell, I had to actually patch (i.e. modify the source) to get linux to recognize my digital camera (a Sony DSC-F707) even though it was supported as a simple usb storage device. (The patch was incrementing a hex number in unusualdevs.h. Simple yes, but completely unacceptable.) Modules that refuse to insert automatically.
The list goes on and on.
I am not a sysadmin. I do not enjoy sysadmining. I do not get my rocks off by recompiling kernels and configuring daemons that should be installed with reasonable defaults. Fuck that shit
I can't even turn off anti-aliasing on that big white bar.
And why would want to do that? Aliased fonts are jagged and hard to read. Why do you think that anti-aliasing was invented and such a common issue on how to turn on and get right in XFree86? Do you really want to make your interface look like something from 1989?
No reboots? Just install a quicktime update.
You're right. It does ask you to reboot after updates. A reboot makes sure that all running binaries are using the right version of the shared library. You can run in to weird problems when a shared library changes out from underneath a running binary.
The whole idea of trying to get the longest uptime is juvenile. It's indicative of avoiding kernel updates and other maintence. (Yes, plenty of things can be updated without a reboot, and strictly speaking you can avoid it for pretty much everything except the kernel, but a reboot does force a clean start and can avoid and/or detect errors.) Mean time between failures is a more legitimate metric for comparison.
Seamless integration with windows networks? Samba keeps breaking.
Never seen it.
Performs better? Windows and Linux seem faster to me for most things.
Without numbers to back it up, this is meaningless. Anyway, there's the whole total cost of operation that must be accounted for. Less time sysadmining is definately worth something.
Easy to setup? Maybe... if it worked...
Never had a problem. It does just work.
I remember the time using the Apache that came with the OS X CD... It could only send the first 13kb (I think it was 13kb) of a file, and that was it. Well known issue, took entire OS updates to fix.
Well gee. If you wre really that concerned, you could have simply just fixed the problem yourself, either through a reconfiging apache, or low and behold compiling apache yourself. But wait! MacOSX isn't unix, so of course that isn't a solution.
To bring this back to my kernel hacking to support my camera, I could also whine "It was a known issue and it took entire OS updates to fix it!" But no. You do what you have to fix the problem. Unix lets you do that.
Less hardware issues because it all comes from Apple? I've seen everything, wireless driver issues, graphic driver issues etc. some of which to this day haven't been even fixed.
Well you haven't actually made a comparison with this statement have you? Unless of course, you're comparing to zero, which isn't a very bold comparison now is it? Macs do have less hardware issues than windows and linux in particular.
I don't use Macs so often, guess why.
Because you like trying to promote a aura of being a hardcode hax0r who's too 1337 to use something that's least bit easy to use?
It's unix, without the bullshit. After 12 years of linux, I switched to the mac. I'll never go back.
If you cant get a dual boot machine, or better yet a mac, get exceed (or failing that cygwin *bleh*) and just run it full screen. You'll never have to deal with windows then. (Except of course when windows crashes...)
Nah. Youre asking MS to give up a club. If the customer is heavily invested in .NET, then they're more likely to stay with MS when MS is the only game in town. If the customer wants to move away from .NET, and Mono doesn't work, MS gets to say "Fine. But realize that by moving away from .NET, you're going to also lose all this, and you don't want that ,do you?"
You're right to say that MS could fix the problem, but there's little reason for them to. Mono is a flyspeck, so why waste resources on developing it? Complicating matters, MS would be helping a would-be competitor. Why the hell would MS want to do that?
If I was MS, be acting the same way.
None of this is surprising. This was done in the 60s as well. Then it was called COINTELPRO. Sure it targeted some groups that legitameately should have been watched (The KKK for one), but it also disproportionately targeted non-violent liberal organizations. (the civil rights and the anti-war movements for two.) The Church Committee found this was illegal. With the new war, COINTELPRO was dusted off by the Bush adminstration, only this time instead of rooting out "communists" it targeted "terrorists." Unsurprisingly, the threat was once again non-violent liberal groups that opposed the current administration's policies. For example, a non-violent, geriatric (and I mean that in the best possible way) anti-war movement was infiltrated by the police in Fresno, CA [ http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/mar2006/fres-m07 .shtml ]. Also not surprisingly, the police officer was the only one advocating "direct action" (i.e. violence). This pattern has been repeated all across the nation for years.
Strange how the threat is always perceived to come from the non-violent left, yet the most destructive domestic terrorist activities have come from radical right (e.g. the OKC bombings and the Atlanta bombings). I would suspect this is because there's an element of truth to the "liberal-pussies vs take-action-conservatives" meme, where the action is of a violent nature.
Given that we are currently living under a president who was never elected by the people, I think that's a pretty specious argument.
Sadly, he was elected in 2004.
Seriously. What's the point? What are you trying to accomplish? You can't hear the difference at 256kps lossy versus lossless, so why waste you're life converting your already lossess music archive from CD form to harddrive form? It's not like you're going to be transcoding all that often, if at all. I encoded my entire CD collect 7 years ago as 320kbps constant MP3. I'm thinking about re-encoding it, because there's no point in having the files that big. 256kbps variable mp3 is would probably still be more than enough. And if you think that someday you can transcode to something higher than 320kbps, I doubt you'll be able to tell the difference if that ever happens, because your hearing naturally gets worse over time.
Futhermore, if you think Alcatel-Lucent v Microsoft is going to change anything, you're delusional. MP3 is going to stay. Just like how LZW patent did nothing to GIF. No one is going to abandon MP3, because the public isn't going to buy a device that can't play their MP3 collection. Nothing will change, and FLAC and Ogg will remain forever an asterisk.
I had a similar experience. I had a good job, but I didn't enjoy it. I left. I went to gradschool, and havent missed it yet. There's no reason to be miserable.
That said, you've kind of screwed yourself by telling people that you're looking to leave. You should have stayed a year. It looks a bit odd when you leave in less than a year, but whatever.
Okay, to seriously answer you for a moment...
:)
That's just a daft thing to say. BBC News has a similar colour scheme at the moment, getting away from the "everything blue" theme that was fashionable in 2000, and no-one complains about that.
Similar yet different in a key respect. The BBC is high contrast, and contains basically red, gold, white, and black. Ubunutu's default desktop color scheme, on the other hand, is muted low contrast gradiets. The colors look like -- and I suspect this is intentional, given Ubuntu's multiracial group-hug photo-logos -- skin tones. It looks like your screen is clad in the skin flayed from an interracial family. It looks like organs. It looks biological, and not in a good way.
People tend to prefer high contrast to low contrast. (Of course ulta-high contrast, can be equally as bad.) The borders of objects are too undefined. Everything flows together. It's basic graphic design.
"worst part of the spectrum"...what is that even supposed to mean?
It means that that color part of the spectrum is the least appealing. You can disagree, but you'd be wrong.
Bah! What do the Brits know? They can't even spell the word "color." ;)
People often complain about the brown in Ubuntu being "ugly", and Ubuntu has stated that they don't want to be "just like Windows" by going for blue. Well, based on that screenshot, I think green would be a good choice.
Ubuntu is ugly because they've gone with browns, oranges, and reds -- the worst part of the spectrum.
What I noticed in the screenshot is that background is almost identical to MacOSX's default background. The only difference is that it's green, and MacOSX's is -- wait for it -- blue. If they went with blue, they wouldn't be emulating windows, but rather the mac.
Again, FOSS copies what doesn't need to be copied. There are plenty of orginal backgrounds. Bowie Poag was the go-to guy back in the day. I'm sure you could either dust those off (assuming you can find them) or find someone else with something that isn't direct copy of another's style.
Also, if you're an American, I'd like to suggest the Diesel Sweeties' "We're not ALL jerks" t-shirt. Whether you like it or not, you represent the country and culture you're from. Represent it well. You might be one of the few people someone might meet from wherever you're from.
Pack light.
Pack cheap. You might lose something very valuable.
A laptop is heavy and requires a lot of extra peripherials. Namely annd AC adapter and power adapters. Cameras are good to bring.
Bring a camera. You'll want it. Chemical requires film you'll have to drag along, but requires almost nothing you can't pickup wherever you are. I guess you could always mail exposed film home or something. Digital is cool because all you have to do is upload your photos, but uploading gigs of photos maybe problematic. Also digital requires AC adapters and power adapters,
so keep that in mind.
You WILL want to document your trip. Use online tools you can access from any netcafe. Supplement or replace this with just a simple notebook and a pen. Moleskines have so much cachet, they yearn for something like this.
Bring a phrase book. You'll need it.
Clean dry socks. You'll mother would be proud.
That's not our fault now is it?
The world doesn't owe it to you to hide itself from you. Stop being such a whiny bitch.
One more thing. Hamlet dies.
1. The you can't prove a negative.
2. You act like atheism is somehow different from not believing in anyother thing that doesn't have any evidence to support it. Like it's some sort of "leap of faith" if you will. Do you believe in unicorns? Fairies? Dragons? Gnomes? Easter Bunny? Santa Claus? There's no evidence to support the existing of any of these things, yet are we supposed to pretend that these things exist, or at least seriously consider the implications of the existance of the Easter Bunny? No.
You are aware that Kennedy and Kerry are the senators for Massachusetts and that there's a lot more in Massachusetts than just Boston, right?
You're right. There's Newton. Personally, I like how my friend Don, described Massachusetts. "Three towns away would be the length of those truly tiny New England states. But, the large commonwealth of Massachusetts can accomodate a full six or seven towns long, I'd imagine."
Yeah the press has been negative. There's been a long line of talking heads saying how the led signs were "outragous" in this "post-September-11-world," and how Boston's city officials "did the right thing." The press is talking about "panic in Boston." My friend in Boston said most people were concerned about how they were going to get home because of all the closed roads, instead of "Oh my god! We're all going to die!"
The press really should be trying to figure out why Boston's officials were the only officials to respond the way they did. Ask them about why they are incapable of assessing a threat. But no. The press would rather continue to describe the light brites, as Boston's government does, as "hoax devices," which they can't be by definition, because there wasn't ever any hoax.
I seriously doubt that would work. Musical tastes are heavily influenced by your cultural surroundings. If everyone around you listens to x, you're very likely to listen to x. Sure selection is going on. It's not like music is like religion. (Almost no one on the planet picks their religion. Their PARENTS picked it for them. Even if they say they "chose," they mostly picked the same religion as their parents. i.e. They picked the one they were raised in and "choosing" is little more than a rite of passage.) But your friends and your cultural identity figure very large in that equation.
You're premise is based on stereotypes. It's no different than the old stereotype that smart people listen to classical music. A whole buiness of ripping people off is based on this stereotype. Want your plants to grow big? Play classical music.
I know lots of very smart people, from all around the world. I don't know anyone that listens to classical music. Annoying chinese pop-ballads? Check. Deathmetal? Check. Country? Check. Electronica? Check. Indie? Check. Rock? Check. I've never seen a correlation between intellegence and classical music.
Anyway, you're experiment already fails since there's way more than 16 genres of music.
then they might be failing because they are more math degrees than what I would consider "computer science". That is why I changed my major to web development here.
Obviously you don't know what computer science is.
I didn't want a math degree and that is exactly what I was getting.
No. You didn't want computer science. You wanted a trade school that would teach you how to use an application.
Now now. Al Gore has been a vocal advocate on the environement for almost 30 years now. He's led government investigations and authored legislation. And oh yeah. He wrote two fucking highly regarded (by the relevant SCIENCE community no less) and researched books on the subject.
Crichton on the other hand has written a very enjoyable, and equally fanciful, books about cloning dinosaurs, among other things. His book, State of Fear, was roundly criticised by the scientific community of being full of half-truths, and deliberate misrepresentations of both intents and facts. Lest we forget. After receiving these condemnations. Crichton was invited by the White House to discuss his views with the president.
So, yeah. You have someone that has spent a significant portion of his adult life on one side dealing with the leading experts in the world one side, and on the other you have some dude with a laptop whoe won't let the facts get in the way of his political agenda on the other. This can only lead you to one inescapable conclusion.
The facts have a liberal bias.
You have no idea what you're talking about. If you did, you wouldn't be trying to conflate a data corpus and an algorithm. Also, if you had done the least bit of research into AI, and in this case information retrieval, you'd know just how simple real AI really is. I hate to tell you this. But AI is pretty much just simple search and table lookups. There's no magic dude. None what so ever. So I guess in that sense, it is like magic. It looks cool and amazing when you don't know how it's done, but when you know how it works, you're left thinking, "That's all there is?"
Perhaps you would like to actually read about reinforcement learning. Because as it stands, you have all the arogance and knowledge of the sophmore cs major that you are.
That's not how wikipedia is being used. It's being used a reservoir for semantic information. You want to know if these two consecutive tokens are a name? Check wikipedia. Biographies are clearly labeled. Want to know if this token is a country? Check wikipedia. Want to know terms associated with a War of 1812? Check wikipedia. It's a data corpus made up of human anotated terms, and that's why it's valuable.