> I think they are the only translation tool that even tries to do chess notation.
It's all the more impressive considering it must be wholly automatic - no way they are adding exceptions for chess notation. Similar impressive results: the name "John" is not translated, but in the context "The gospel according to John" it usually is. This is correct, biblical names are traditionally translated. If you say "I'll travel by airplane", airplane stays airplane. But if you say "I'll watch 'Airplane' (awful 80's comedy)", you will get the proper, non-literal translation of that title, at least into Norwegian.
You don't get it. It's not jokes, it's Google Translate's attempts at figuring out the meaning of "partial" words. Google has seen "movie", "movies", "moving", and concludes that the word "movi" must have some sort of meaning in the same cluster.
It's similar to how my sister thought convenience stores were called "rønst", because our local store was called "Rønstad" after the man who owned it. The d is silent, so she heard "rønsta". "-a" is the definitive article ending for feminine nouns in Norwegian. So if the particular is "rønsta", the general must be "rønst", right? Not quite, but it was a reasonable inference. Thinking "movi" is an English word meaning "part of movie" is less grammatical, but nonetheless a plausible inference - it shows how the translator "thinks".
But "ais krihm" is even more shocking, in my opinion. It actually translates a (probably accidental) misspelling of ice cream into a deliberate misspelling of ice cream.
Google Translate has become impressively baby-like lately. If you enter "I'm watching a movie", you get out "Jeg ser en film" in Norwegian, nice and correct. But if you enter the incorrect phrase "I'm watching a movi", you get out the creative response "Jeg ser på en filmdel" - I'm looking at part of a movie!
Another: Ice cream in spanish is "Helado", and is translated correctly. But what do you get if you forget the H, and enter "elado"?
Google can accrue billions of documents that are reasonably good translations, but it can't accrue their context.
What makes you say that? I'm pretty sure Google Translate "remembers" whether its training data came from a newspaper article, a UN document or a Gutenberg book. Otherwise it would hardly be able to make as good translations as it in fact does. One problem they have is that some forms of texts (like UN documents) are heavily overrepresented in their corpus, while others (like informal dialogue) are almost non-existent. People are not likely to paste in a legal document, people are more likely to paste in what they are talking about at their Korean friend's Facebook wall. Yet it works OK.
Google Translate does not aim to replace professionals, and if you're a professional it's pretty sad you aren't aware of that. Google translate is to help you understand a text in a language you don't know. If you need to do a translation for someone else, then Google's offering is not the translator, but the translator toolkit.
Remember that the niche Google Translate is currently trying to fill is not doing your translation jobs for you, but letting you know the rough content of a text in a language you don't speak. For many languages and contexts (example: French newspaper articles) it is very, very good at this. For others (Ukrainian IRC logs) it is only slightly better than useless.
There is a big difference between hunt and peck and the kind of skill the submitter has acquired. I know, that submitter could have been me. What I have picked up is far from correct touch typing, but I use all fingers, and judging from chat and such, I type faster than average - though probably not faster than people who have learned touch typing and actually used it a lot. I don't think much about how I type, but when paying attention now, I seem to use my right hand way more than is proper. "T" is occasionally entered with long finger on right hand - for instance in the word "right" in that sentence.
His name (Tom Vasel) appears to be consistently translated "oh come on now". What, don't they believe that's his name? He comes with surprising revelations such as "I'll be your next president" and wonderful nonsense like "but it is a ten-year period deduction gay".
Not inconsistent with what he says, see quote above. Video game violence matters (according to this big meta-study), but he denies that it's an important factor in how violent we are.
I don't know, but I'll say this for German Wikipedia: It's a much better piece of work in my opinion. You can find huge articles with lots of great information on obscure topics, but which are written by "true fans" in a slightly unorthodox style - stuff that would be deleted in a heartbeat on English wikipedia. I don't know what they are doing, but they appear to be much more successful at accepting casual contributions.
LOMBORG: Out of Europe's 731000000 inhabitants, 14000000 die of cold-related causes every year, so warming is obviously a good thing! (cite: WHO documents so and so) FRIEL: I checked those WHO documents. They say no such thing as 14 million dying of cold related causes every year, you lying scumbag. LOMBORG: Hey, I only meant to cite the WHO for the population of Europe part! What is this, some kind of witch hunt? I'm being persecuted!!1!
Technically correct, they show a feedback from CO2, not a forcing, which is what you would expect. There were no things at the end of the ice ages to release CO2 in large amounts, except higher temperatures themselves (which in turn was caused by Milankovitch cycles). As the earth warmed, CO2 was released from oceans and frozen vegetation, causing further warming.
Without the feedback from CO2, the Milankovitch cycles would only cause a very modest change in temperature - not nearly sufficient to cause the ice age/interglacial cycles we know.
Before humans, temperature was driving the change, and CO2 caused the feedback.
Now, CO2 is driving the change (cause we have coal power plants now), and temperature causes the feedback (because warming up the oceans still reduces their capacity to hold CO2)
You deserve upmods. It seemingly cannot be stated enough, because the "skeptics" don't get it: of COURSE temperature leads CO2 levels. What would a sudden, pre-temperature rise of CO2 levels come from? There wasn't much coal burned in the ice ages.
When no CO2 is added to the system, it merely works as a feedback for temperature changes, magnifying them. Oceans get warmer, reducing their capacity to dissolve gases, releasing more CO2. Rotting vegetation trapped in ice melts, releases methane and CO2. Fortunately, the additional CO2 released from warming is not enough to cause more warming than what released it, so it doesn't run away, it stabilizes at a new, higher temperature.
But when CO2 is added to the system from outside (fossil fuels trapped in the earth for ages), it's not just a feedback. It's a forcing, something that drives temperature change.
So, that CO2 followed temperature rises during the end of the ice ages is not evidence against global warming. It's what you would expect to happen when there are no humans around to burn gigatons of coal, if current theories of carbon feedback are correct.
Do you really get that much of a discount buying commodities like these in bulk? Many (most?) places where this thing is intended to be used has a well-developed delivery system for natural gas.
I'd love to, but I'm sorry, I can't do that. If you weren't a seven-digit n00b, you might have understood how the slashdot moderation system worked:) You're not on Digg anymore, kid.
"It's quite natural to have less rights as a young man" - sure, whatever you say. But "young man" can mean man under 65 too - should the ones over the proposed limit always get to decide which limit is proper? That is no straw man. Fact is there's nothing natural about 18, or 22, or any other age the presently enfranchised settle on. We should stop pretending.
So, you think teachers would work better if they lived under perpetual threat of being fired based on accusations from students/parents, or their students performing worse than expected on standardized tests?
Hey, I've met bad teachers, too. Also ones that stuck out for each other when they IMO shouldn't. But unions didn't have much to do with it - they didn't have the same politics, and they weren't even in the same union AFAIK. The real problem was that they had a huge siege mentality.
But you're not going to make that go away by going to full frontal assault on the few things they feel they have to defend themselves. That smells more of an eagerness to punish to me.
Unless you were thinking along these lines already, you should not consider moving to a country very different from the US, and Canada is as close as it gets (both geographically and culturally). Sure, Norway, Sweden, Germany etc. may sound nice and exotic, but immigrants always find differences they dislike - unless they were very motivated to start with, probably more things than they like. Then there's also the question of language. I estimate I spent around 1900 hours in school learning your language, and most of my classmates would not be comfortable posting to a public forum in English, even those who got an A (that means top 6% here). Language learning times are underestimated, because those who do fail don't want to talk about it, and those who succeed talk it down, either to appear smart or because they ARE smart (less likely:-P ) .
Ok, that was offtopic rant. I repeat: Canada, Canada, Canada. It's not a bad idea at all, I think.
It didn't lead to women being banned from hotels. Realistically, if it was just one case the hotel owner could claim ignorance, so police did not go for these. It's when prostitution starts to make up a significant part of the hotel's coverage that they need to think about taking actions. Agents and bodyguards would be way more vulnerable to the anti-pimping laws.
I think the anti-pimping laws were pretty effective, I don't recall there being many complaints from prostitutes - which there has been this turn around, now that buying sex is entirely criminalised (selling it is still legal).
...and you choose neither of that. That you'll get so-and-so rights when you get older is a lame excuse; how would you like it if voting was restricted to 65+?
So things are the way they are because they are Right and Proper? I'm not sure I buy into that, LoudMusic.
You know adolescent humans, like many, many mammals, have it in their nature to challenge adults for status. But do you think adult mammals have it any less in their nature to feel threatened, abhor such challenges and fight back all they can? Tell you what, we adults have hormones too, and our powers of self-justifying rationalizations get greater the older we get.
Think about that the next time you look at a group of teenagers, and feel they are too noisy, or shallow, or whatever.
I wonder what the US teachers have done that makes their organizations deserve this ridiculous level of hatred. FWIW, banning unions, and in particular banning any one union, would interfere with the right to assembly in most sane jurisdictions.
> If you wanted to hang the, "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" poster on your bedroom wall, it would be none of the schools damn business.
You'd like to think so, wouldn't you? But remember this: since being appointed to the US supreme court, John G. Roberts has always sided with authority. In all major cases, he's supported the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. What's your bet that he couldn't come up with some flimsy (but by definition weighty, since it's him) argument to put you in your rightful, humble place?
People have this ridiculous idea that the supreme court isn't political. That you can trust the legal system to give justice. The least accountable branch of government - but the one that gets to cloak itself in ritual and tradition the most - enjoys the highest approval numbers. It reminds me most of all of the old Russian saying that the boyars are bad, the czar just has bad advisors.
Slashdot Mirror
> I think they are the only translation tool that even tries to do chess notation.
It's all the more impressive considering it must be wholly automatic - no way they are adding exceptions for chess notation.
Similar impressive results: the name "John" is not translated, but in the context "The gospel according to John" it usually is. This is correct, biblical names are traditionally translated.
If you say "I'll travel by airplane", airplane stays airplane. But if you say "I'll watch 'Airplane' (awful 80's comedy)", you will get the proper, non-literal translation of that title, at least into Norwegian.
You don't get it. It's not jokes, it's Google Translate's attempts at figuring out the meaning of "partial" words. Google has seen "movie", "movies", "moving", and concludes that the word "movi" must have some sort of meaning in the same cluster.
It's similar to how my sister thought convenience stores were called "rønst", because our local store was called "Rønstad" after the man who owned it. The d is silent, so she heard "rønsta". "-a" is the definitive article ending for feminine nouns in Norwegian. So if the particular is "rønsta", the general must be "rønst", right? Not quite, but it was a reasonable inference. Thinking "movi" is an English word meaning "part of movie" is less grammatical, but nonetheless a plausible inference - it shows how the translator "thinks".
But "ais krihm" is even more shocking, in my opinion. It actually translates a (probably accidental) misspelling of ice cream into a deliberate misspelling of ice cream.
Google Translate has become impressively baby-like lately. If you enter "I'm watching a movie", you get out "Jeg ser en film" in Norwegian, nice and correct. But if you enter the incorrect phrase "I'm watching a movi", you get out the creative response "Jeg ser på en filmdel" - I'm looking at part of a movie!
Another: Ice cream in spanish is "Helado", and is translated correctly. But what do you get if you forget the H, and enter "elado"?
"ais krihm"!! See for yourself :-)
What makes you say that? I'm pretty sure Google Translate "remembers" whether its training data came from a newspaper article, a UN document or a Gutenberg book. Otherwise it would hardly be able to make as good translations as it in fact does. One problem they have is that some forms of texts (like UN documents) are heavily overrepresented in their corpus, while others (like informal dialogue) are almost non-existent. People are not likely to paste in a legal document, people are more likely to paste in what they are talking about at their Korean friend's Facebook wall. Yet it works OK.
Google Translate does not aim to replace professionals, and if you're a professional it's pretty sad you aren't aware of that. Google translate is to help you understand a text in a language you don't know. If you need to do a translation for someone else, then Google's offering is not the translator, but the translator toolkit.
Remember that the niche Google Translate is currently trying to fill is not doing your translation jobs for you, but letting you know the rough content of a text in a language you don't speak. For many languages and contexts (example: French newspaper articles) it is very, very good at this. For others (Ukrainian IRC logs) it is only slightly better than useless.
There is a big difference between hunt and peck and the kind of skill the submitter has acquired. I know, that submitter could have been me. What I have picked up is far from correct touch typing, but I use all fingers, and judging from chat and such, I type faster than average - though probably not faster than people who have learned touch typing and actually used it a lot.
I don't think much about how I type, but when paying attention now, I seem to use my right hand way more than is proper. "T" is occasionally entered with long finger on right hand - for instance in the word "right" in that sentence.
And sometimes a caterpillar sitting on a giant mushroom smoking a hookah is just a caterpillar sitting on a giant mushroom smoking a hookah.
Take a look at this board game review:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv6pIFgfa0U
His name (Tom Vasel) appears to be consistently translated "oh come on now". What, don't they believe that's his name? He comes with surprising revelations such as "I'll be your next president" and wonderful nonsense like "but it is a ten-year period deduction gay".
Not inconsistent with what he says, see quote above. Video game violence matters (according to this big meta-study), but he denies that it's an important factor in how violent we are.
Are you searching with Google by any chance?
I don't know, but I'll say this for German Wikipedia: It's a much better piece of work in my opinion. You can find huge articles with lots of great information on obscure topics, but which are written by "true fans" in a slightly unorthodox style - stuff that would be deleted in a heartbeat on English wikipedia. I don't know what they are doing, but they appear to be much more successful at accepting casual contributions.
LOMBORG: Out of Europe's 731000000 inhabitants, 14000000 die of cold-related causes every year, so warming is obviously a good thing! (cite: WHO documents so and so)
FRIEL: I checked those WHO documents. They say no such thing as 14 million dying of cold related causes every year, you lying scumbag.
LOMBORG: Hey, I only meant to cite the WHO for the population of Europe part! What is this, some kind of witch hunt? I'm being persecuted!!1!
(freely paraphrased from the Newsweek review of Friel's book)
Technically correct, they show a feedback from CO2, not a forcing, which is what you would expect. There were no things at the end of the ice ages to release CO2 in large amounts, except higher temperatures themselves (which in turn was caused by Milankovitch cycles). As the earth warmed, CO2 was released from oceans and frozen vegetation, causing further warming.
Without the feedback from CO2, the Milankovitch cycles would only cause a very modest change in temperature - not nearly sufficient to cause the ice age/interglacial cycles we know.
Before humans, temperature was driving the change, and CO2 caused the feedback.
Now, CO2 is driving the change (cause we have coal power plants now), and temperature causes the feedback (because warming up the oceans still reduces their capacity to hold CO2)
You deserve upmods. It seemingly cannot be stated enough, because the "skeptics" don't get it: of COURSE temperature leads CO2 levels. What would a sudden, pre-temperature rise of CO2 levels come from? There wasn't much coal burned in the ice ages.
When no CO2 is added to the system, it merely works as a feedback for temperature changes, magnifying them. Oceans get warmer, reducing their capacity to dissolve gases, releasing more CO2. Rotting vegetation trapped in ice melts, releases methane and CO2. Fortunately, the additional CO2 released from warming is not enough to cause more warming than what released it, so it doesn't run away, it stabilizes at a new, higher temperature.
But when CO2 is added to the system from outside (fossil fuels trapped in the earth for ages), it's not just a feedback. It's a forcing, something that drives temperature change.
So, that CO2 followed temperature rises during the end of the ice ages is not evidence against global warming. It's what you would expect to happen when there are no humans around to burn gigatons of coal, if current theories of carbon feedback are correct.
Do you really get that much of a discount buying commodities like these in bulk? Many (most?) places where this thing is intended to be used has a well-developed delivery system for natural gas.
Very cool. Maybe you give an estimate of the maintenance requirements / life time of this sort of thing?
I'd love to, but I'm sorry, I can't do that. If you weren't a seven-digit n00b, you might have understood how the slashdot moderation system worked :) You're not on Digg anymore, kid.
"It's quite natural to have less rights as a young man" - sure, whatever you say. But "young man" can mean man under 65 too - should the ones over the proposed limit always get to decide which limit is proper? That is no straw man. Fact is there's nothing natural about 18, or 22, or any other age the presently enfranchised settle on. We should stop pretending.
So, you think teachers would work better if they lived under perpetual threat of being fired based on accusations from students/parents, or their students performing worse than expected on standardized tests?
Hey, I've met bad teachers, too. Also ones that stuck out for each other when they IMO shouldn't. But unions didn't have much to do with it - they didn't have the same politics, and they weren't even in the same union AFAIK. The real problem was that they had a huge siege mentality.
But you're not going to make that go away by going to full frontal assault on the few things they feel they have to defend themselves. That smells more of an eagerness to punish to me.
Seriously?
Canada, Canada, Canada.
Unless you were thinking along these lines already, you should not consider moving to a country very different from the US, and Canada is as close as it gets (both geographically and culturally). :-P ) .
Sure, Norway, Sweden, Germany etc. may sound nice and exotic, but immigrants always find differences they dislike - unless they were very motivated to start with, probably more things than they like. Then there's also the question of language. I estimate I spent around 1900 hours in school learning your language, and most of my classmates would not be comfortable posting to a public forum in English, even those who got an A (that means top 6% here). Language learning times are underestimated, because those who do fail don't want to talk about it, and those who succeed talk it down, either to appear smart or because they ARE smart (less likely
Ok, that was offtopic rant. I repeat: Canada, Canada, Canada. It's not a bad idea at all, I think.
There is also the problem of language (but that doesn't include Canada and UK, which both have excellent public solutions).
It didn't lead to women being banned from hotels. Realistically, if it was just one case the hotel owner could claim ignorance, so police did not go for these. It's when prostitution starts to make up a significant part of the hotel's coverage that they need to think about taking actions. Agents and bodyguards would be way more vulnerable to the anti-pimping laws.
I think the anti-pimping laws were pretty effective, I don't recall there being many complaints from prostitutes - which there has been this turn around, now that buying sex is entirely criminalised (selling it is still legal).
...and you choose neither of that. That you'll get so-and-so rights when you get older is a lame excuse; how would you like it if voting was restricted to 65+?
So things are the way they are because they are Right and Proper? I'm not sure I buy into that, LoudMusic.
You know adolescent humans, like many, many mammals, have it in their nature to challenge adults for status. But do you think adult mammals have it any less in their nature to feel threatened, abhor such challenges and fight back all they can? Tell you what, we adults have hormones too, and our powers of self-justifying rationalizations get greater the older we get.
Think about that the next time you look at a group of teenagers, and feel they are too noisy, or shallow, or whatever.
I wonder what the US teachers have done that makes their organizations deserve this ridiculous level of hatred. FWIW, banning unions, and in particular banning any one union, would interfere with the right to assembly in most sane jurisdictions.
> If you wanted to hang the, "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" poster on your bedroom wall, it would be none of the schools damn business.
You'd like to think so, wouldn't you? But remember this: since being appointed to the US supreme court, John G. Roberts has always sided with authority. In all major cases, he's supported the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. What's your bet that he couldn't come up with some flimsy (but by definition weighty, since it's him) argument to put you in your rightful, humble place?
People have this ridiculous idea that the supreme court isn't political. That you can trust the legal system to give justice. The least accountable branch of government - but the one that gets to cloak itself in ritual and tradition the most - enjoys the highest approval numbers. It reminds me most of all of the old Russian saying that the boyars are bad, the czar just has bad advisors.