"Computers don't generalize or extrapolate the known into the unknown worth a damn."
Fortunately, that's not all that google has to go on. Google has 8 billion webpages, in many different languages, most of which are written by non-speechwriters. Not only can they analyze words based on translated context, but they can analyze words based on intra-language context, to form associations between words and meanings.
The real trick is getting down two important linguistic concepts: "Sandhi Rules" (for instance, the use of "an" before a vowel and "a" before a consonant, which are totally regular but more complicated than a word-to-word matchup), and the "degree" or "quality" of words, which indicate the type of adjective most appropriate in any given context.
For instance, "erudite", "learned", "educated", "knowledgeable", "skilled", and "cunning" could all be related words, but many of them have positive or negative assocations which may only really be conveyed by understanding the meaning, irony, or sarcasm of a particular phrase.
For instance, "John has been skilled in writing beautiful code for most of his adult life" is quite different from "John has been educated in writing beautiful code for most of his adult life", or "John has been erudite...". The first one is probably right if John has had a natural inclination to doing it properly, the second if he has undergone some training (though we don't know the actual state of his ability), the third (though the word doesn't even really make sense here) if he has been arrogant about his ability, shouting RTFM! every time someone asked him a question.
"Contrary to popular opinion, music is not the property of the artist that made it. It's actually the collective property of all of us -- it's part of our culture."
That's called Socialism. America is *not* socialist. People who make things have the rights to them, not "the collective culture".
There are plenty of socialist cultures you could join. Visit an Israeli Kibbutz. But America isn't a socialist country. Copyright has been interpreted to provide people with the rights to market things that they create without competition from those who might produce duplicates of their product. Call it unfair, call it ideologically flawed, call it whatever you want, but America is a capitalist country, and that's how Copyright works in America today.
No, of course not. But the parent strongly implied that owning encryption software should somehow lead us to believe that the defendant is more guilty.
So, to take your example, supposing we too Joe Criminal and Joe Average. Both own a blanket. Joe Criminal uses his to cover up his gun when he throws it in the river. Joe Average uses his to cover up the unpatched area of his wall behind his sofa.
Both people are using the same widely distributed tool "a blanket", for the same use, "to cover things up". But Joe Average isn't committing a *crime*.
Owning a blanket or using it for it's purpose isn't criminal. It can be an accessory, but the mere presence of encryption should *not* be indicative of criminal activity. It shouldn't imply anything, other than "Hey, this person had things he didn't want people to see." Those things aren't neccessarily criminal things. Treating them that way is an absolutely false conclusion.
The issue is simple: If I'm a publisher, I sell my journal or book to 10,000 libraries. If Google indexes it for free access, none of those libraries need to buy my journal or book, because the people who need them have free access.
It isn't the reader who purchases from big publishing houses, it's the academic institution. Google undercuts this financial strategy.
What gives you the education to make decisions about scientific research? Or constitutional law?
The idea that everyone is the same and qualified to make judgements about everything is why American democracy is representative. But it isn't representative to have a non-scientific individual making judgements about scientific research he doesn't understand. That's lunacy.
Just for the record, I think you should gloss over NIH, NIMH, and NSF, to see how much scientific research is funded by the gov't.
Research universities are funded by the gov't. Labs are built with government money. Supplies are shipped courtesy of Uncle Sam.
"Private Funding" is BS in academia.
On that note, "there was no federal funding before Bush chose to allow this limited funding" is also crap. The issue became large during his term in office; it's an issue of research and medicine, it should have nothing to do with the President's Approval. Pointing to the fact that it happened during his term in office is a bogus coincidence. It would be like saying President Lincoln was a homophobe because he never addressed issues of Gay Marriage, or that Washington was totally insensitive to AIDS issues. Bush gave meager funding to something that should be totally outside of his authority.
We have panels of scientists that can decide whether or not to approve Grants for medicinal and scientific research, we don't need totally unscientific neoconservatives doing it for us, thank you very much.
The people who download are *series* viewers. These are very different from spontaneous viewers.
Series viewers are those who will pay to watch their favorite shows each week, and rarely (but sometimes) watch something at random. Usually anything they've watched at 'random' is actually something they've heard about beforehand, through advertising, friends, or downloading.
Here's the thing. While the TV model accomodates spontaneous viewing very well, it's very difficult for series viewers to catch each episode, especially since many of them don't show more than once a week. The Survivor community online (www.realiiity.com, etc) is a great example of this type of viewer. A friend and I exchanged video-cassettes to catch up on shows that we would miss but for which could schedule recordings.
The problem is, the series viewer is the one that suits the current format of show production. Unless you see each episode, the show isn't nearly as entertaining. Missing Week 5 of a 13 week program is simply *bad*.
There needs to be an alternative distribution system. Bit-Torrent farms provided this. In large majority, these are fans who will buy the DVDs for the commentary and bonus features *anyway*. Downloading isn't bad for series TV. It's good.
On your second point, I think that Microsoft ought to have an option for screens to go black on errors.
Microsoft Operating Systems are used daily in environments where it really isn't useful to display large blue screens with technical error information. Printing that information to a file crit_error.dat and displaying a black screen will be much less obtrusive and obvious in what you call "high traffic areas", and probably wont add much tech time.
Just a thought I had upon reading your post. It doesn't really *solve* the problem, it just makes it more "friendly" to these sorts of microsoft displays.
If by detailed, you mean "fanboy", then yes, you are quite correct.
5. New interface sounds. Now when you drop something into a folder you hear a cool new sound! Ding!
I can not think of any reason not to buy Tiger for the $129 it costs. You should just make sure that all the Mac OS X applications you rely on are Tiger compatible.
There's nothing at ALL wrong with it? Nothing he would improve? No reason at all not to buy?
Man. I really wish we could get critical reviews.
Probably the other way.
on
Google TrustRank
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
No, probably the other way round.
If you're linked by a trusted page, then your rank goes up, but there's no negative for being linked by untrusted pages - your pagerank stays the same.
Here's my question. How are you evaluating those people in their ability to program?
Because if it's by evaluating them through looking at their past performance, often, their past performance will be colored by the fact that they faced discrimination in the workplace that hindered their ability to work on things like group projects and technical collaborations.
That's why you shouldn't be neutral. You should recognize that those people faced problems in succeeding that other people didn't have to face on account of their minority status. This recognition should lend you to give extra weight to their application, not consider everyone part of an equal and fair meritocracy.
It isn't an equal and fair meritocracy. That's why people fail on account of their minority status.
You're right - modern scholarly copies of them are hard to find. But so too are ancient scholarly copies.
Most of our classical work today survives in manuscripts from the middle ages and slightly before. Texts that you buy in the store are not of the form that they were found; they're pieced together from extant copies, changes are made where scribes made mistakes, etc.
I've no idea how much classical studies you've done, but if you read latin or greek, look to the bottom of a scholarly text [e.g., OCT] and look down to the App. Crit., which is a good place to find exactly which manuscripts were used to compile the text.
Most of the issues in finding classical work today isn't that there weren't very many writers, but there were very few copies made of things that were written. Our entire corups of catullus, for example, comes from one - *one* - single manuscript. This was, for all we know, quite a popular libellum, but we're stuck with one copy because of the way it was viewed during the 2000 or so years of history between then and now.
The issue is in the copying, not the writing itself.
Instead of neurologically blinding yourself, a more... reversible?... suggestion might be taking your glasses and pushing them down your noise a bit. Voila! Can't see top field of vision anymore.
Doctors. Always trying to overcomplicate everything.
btw dude, there are plenty enough people with visual defects that will pay you to be a neurologist someday. =)
The only way to find a cure is to pay researchers and fund experiments to do so.
People need your help. Here's a link to donate in honor of a friend who's affected. The Cancer Walk at Tufts University is a major fundraiser for Cancer Research.
There are specialized circuits in the brain for dealing with particular problems by late adulthood, and they cannot simply be solved by putting the information "back in memory".
Hardware problems are a much more correct assessment of the types of damage that can be caused by stroke. For instance, once your Broca's or Wernicke's Area is sufficiently damaged, there's little chance of language recovery even under the most intensive courses. Likewise, no matter how much information you put into a hard-drive, nothing will fix your mechanically broken Video Card besides replacing it [which simply isn't possible with a stroke victim].
And, he can have an understanding and a set of possible answers. I'm not sure why providing an understanding should be wrong, in that case.
There's a difference. Recovery from a stroke isn't like anything you've ever experienced in your adult life. It's not like learning a new skill, in many cases, it can be learning a skill without the placticity of a younger brain, the ability to generalize from other skills you know, or the ability to re-learn that skill at all.
A stroke is essentially the functional equivalent of someone taking a chainsaw to your computer's internals, or writing a script that deleted random files and core functions, then repartitioned various sectors and screwed with your wiring. Suppose someone had posted a question on Slashdot saying, "My computer is broken and I'd like to purchase products to fix it?" Wouldn't the first questions be: "What's wrong, what are the symptoms, what is the prognosis?"
I think it's far more important that he understands the quality and etiology of his mother's injury so that he can properly administer care and so that he can understand the Doctor when he gets information. Playing computer games is one thing - understanding exactly what happened will be far more beneficial in the long term.
Damage from a stroke is due to a lack of Oxygen to a particular part of the brain. Essentially, because of a lack of oxygen, those cells die, and all the connections they have made throughout your life become useless.
Helping someone recover from a stroke depends wholly on where the damage occured. Asking your question is a bit like asking, "I hurt my body, how can I fix it?" One would want to know what kind of injury you suffered, exactly how severe it is, and what types of resulting actions you are unable to perform.
A common side-effect / symptom of strokes is "aphasia", which is a lack of speech processing ability. It's a bit like if you went blind by injury to your brain, and not to your eyes (you could also lose speech by injury to your jaw or tongue). Other stroke defects include motor problems and other issues. Memory capacity is particularly unlikely to be affected, but it seriously depends on where the damage occured. If they think she might be able to make a full recovery, it's unlikely that she has permenant damage to any areas of her cortex involved with creating or storing new long or short-term memory.
But seriously, I would rephrase your questions much more specifically, because a stroke is a serious problem, and cannot be addressed by simply one software tool. I would look into exactly what types of damage have occured, and what types of therapy typically work. A computer can be useful for that therapy, because it can provide lots of trials and none of the embarassment associated with poor performance on a task which might result from being "good" at a task before a stroke and having difficulty performing it after the stroke occurs.
It's "Deus Ex Machina", and since the term refers to a device used in Greek Tragic theater not developed for at least 200 years after the Iliad, you're wrong.
People certainly *do* make choices in the Iliad. Have you read it?
Achilles sits around for 9 books, while Diomedes (not even IN the movie) and Ajax (killed in the FIRST battle) and Menelaos (same) beat the crap out of people.
Most of the action is dominated by the Gods, not the mortals.
Achilles DIES before he gets to Troy, but that *isn't* in the Iliad.
The Trojan horse bit is really written down in Vergil, but he was *never credited*.
When Achilles and Hector fight, Hector *runs* first. The reason they fight is because Hector is trapped outside the city walls, not because he comes down to fight Achilles. Gods interfere with the fight.
Aeneas isn't some random guy in the end, but he is a rather minor trojan prince who's the best fighter outside of Hector on the Trojan side. Read the Aeneid for more info.
The movie Troy was a huge cinematic blunder ruining one of the greatest stories of all time.
It's also amazing how much of the general knowledge of the world we *can't* access, because it's unconnected or unpublished.
Just think about how vast and extensive Google's search is, and then think about how little of the World's knowledge and creative achievement it actually can access.
The quantity and breadth of human knowledge is breathtaking, no?
Slashdot Mirror
"Computers don't generalize or extrapolate the known into the unknown worth a damn."
Fortunately, that's not all that google has to go on. Google has 8 billion webpages, in many different languages, most of which are written by non-speechwriters. Not only can they analyze words based on translated context, but they can analyze words based on intra-language context, to form associations between words and meanings.
The real trick is getting down two important linguistic concepts: "Sandhi Rules" (for instance, the use of "an" before a vowel and "a" before a consonant, which are totally regular but more complicated than a word-to-word matchup), and the "degree" or "quality" of words, which indicate the type of adjective most appropriate in any given context.
For instance, "erudite", "learned", "educated", "knowledgeable", "skilled", and "cunning" could all be related words, but many of them have positive or negative assocations which may only really be conveyed by understanding the meaning, irony, or sarcasm of a particular phrase.
For instance, "John has been skilled in writing beautiful code for most of his adult life" is quite different from "John has been educated in writing beautiful code for most of his adult life", or "John has been erudite...". The first one is probably right if John has had a natural inclination to doing it properly, the second if he has undergone some training (though we don't know the actual state of his ability), the third (though the word doesn't even really make sense here) if he has been arrogant about his ability, shouting RTFM! every time someone asked him a question.
They'd also need a very popular rock star to be in colorful commercials singing "One... Two... Three... Fourteen!"
Marketing success, here they come!
"Contrary to popular opinion, music is not the property of the artist that made it. It's actually the collective property of all of us -- it's part of our culture."
That's called Socialism. America is *not* socialist. People who make things have the rights to them, not "the collective culture".
There are plenty of socialist cultures you could join. Visit an Israeli Kibbutz. But America isn't a socialist country. Copyright has been interpreted to provide people with the rights to market things that they create without competition from those who might produce duplicates of their product. Call it unfair, call it ideologically flawed, call it whatever you want, but America is a capitalist country, and that's how Copyright works in America today.
No, of course not. But the parent strongly implied that owning encryption software should somehow lead us to believe that the defendant is more guilty.
This simply isn't reasonable.
So, to take your example, supposing we too Joe Criminal and Joe Average. Both own a blanket. Joe Criminal uses his to cover up his gun when he throws it in the river. Joe Average uses his to cover up the unpatched area of his wall behind his sofa.
Both people are using the same widely distributed tool "a blanket", for the same use, "to cover things up". But Joe Average isn't committing a *crime*.
Owning a blanket or using it for it's purpose isn't criminal. It can be an accessory, but the mere presence of encryption should *not* be indicative of criminal activity. It shouldn't imply anything, other than "Hey, this person had things he didn't want people to see." Those things aren't neccessarily criminal things. Treating them that way is an absolutely false conclusion.
The issue is simple: If I'm a publisher, I sell my journal or book to 10,000 libraries. If Google indexes it for free access, none of those libraries need to buy my journal or book, because the people who need them have free access.
It isn't the reader who purchases from big publishing houses, it's the academic institution. Google undercuts this financial strategy.
Surely you're joking.
What gives you the education to make decisions about scientific research? Or constitutional law?
The idea that everyone is the same and qualified to make judgements about everything is why American democracy is representative. But it isn't representative to have a non-scientific individual making judgements about scientific research he doesn't understand. That's lunacy.
Just for the record, I think you should gloss over NIH, NIMH, and NSF, to see how much scientific research is funded by the gov't.
Research universities are funded by the gov't. Labs are built with government money. Supplies are shipped courtesy of Uncle Sam.
"Private Funding" is BS in academia.
On that note, "there was no federal funding before Bush chose to allow this limited funding" is also crap. The issue became large during his term in office; it's an issue of research and medicine, it should have nothing to do with the President's Approval. Pointing to the fact that it happened during his term in office is a bogus coincidence. It would be like saying President Lincoln was a homophobe because he never addressed issues of Gay Marriage, or that Washington was totally insensitive to AIDS issues. Bush gave meager funding to something that should be totally outside of his authority.
We have panels of scientists that can decide whether or not to approve Grants for medicinal and scientific research, we don't need totally unscientific neoconservatives doing it for us, thank you very much.
The people who download are *series* viewers. These are very different from spontaneous viewers.
Series viewers are those who will pay to watch their favorite shows each week, and rarely (but sometimes) watch something at random. Usually anything they've watched at 'random' is actually something they've heard about beforehand, through advertising, friends, or downloading.
Here's the thing. While the TV model accomodates spontaneous viewing very well, it's very difficult for series viewers to catch each episode, especially since many of them don't show more than once a week. The Survivor community online (www.realiiity.com, etc) is a great example of this type of viewer. A friend and I exchanged video-cassettes to catch up on shows that we would miss but for which could schedule recordings.
The problem is, the series viewer is the one that suits the current format of show production. Unless you see each episode, the show isn't nearly as entertaining. Missing Week 5 of a 13 week program is simply *bad*.
There needs to be an alternative distribution system. Bit-Torrent farms provided this. In large majority, these are fans who will buy the DVDs for the commentary and bonus features *anyway*. Downloading isn't bad for series TV. It's good.
On your second point, I think that Microsoft ought to have an option for screens to go black on errors.
Microsoft Operating Systems are used daily in environments where it really isn't useful to display large blue screens with technical error information. Printing that information to a file crit_error.dat and displaying a black screen will be much less obtrusive and obvious in what you call "high traffic areas", and probably wont add much tech time.
Just a thought I had upon reading your post. It doesn't really *solve* the problem, it just makes it more "friendly" to these sorts of microsoft displays.
If by detailed, you mean "fanboy", then yes, you are quite correct.
5. New interface sounds. Now when you drop something into a folder you hear a cool new sound! Ding!
I can not think of any reason not to buy Tiger for the $129 it costs. You should just make sure that all the Mac OS X applications you rely on are Tiger compatible.
There's nothing at ALL wrong with it? Nothing he would improve? No reason at all not to buy?
Man. I really wish we could get critical reviews.
No, probably the other way round.
If you're linked by a trusted page, then your rank goes up, but there's no negative for being linked by untrusted pages - your pagerank stays the same.
No, but a good number of birds are mimics or partial mimics.
No idea if you were being serious. The family Mimidae (Mockingbirds, Thrasher, etc.) and others copy wild song into their own songs.
Here's my question. How are you evaluating those people in their ability to program?
Because if it's by evaluating them through looking at their past performance, often, their past performance will be colored by the fact that they faced discrimination in the workplace that hindered their ability to work on things like group projects and technical collaborations.
That's why you shouldn't be neutral. You should recognize that those people faced problems in succeeding that other people didn't have to face on account of their minority status. This recognition should lend you to give extra weight to their application, not consider everyone part of an equal and fair meritocracy.
It isn't an equal and fair meritocracy. That's why people fail on account of their minority status.
You're right - modern scholarly copies of them are hard to find. But so too are ancient scholarly copies.
Most of our classical work today survives in manuscripts from the middle ages and slightly before. Texts that you buy in the store are not of the form that they were found; they're pieced together from extant copies, changes are made where scribes made mistakes, etc.
I've no idea how much classical studies you've done, but if you read latin or greek, look to the bottom of a scholarly text [e.g., OCT] and look down to the App. Crit., which is a good place to find exactly which manuscripts were used to compile the text.
Most of the issues in finding classical work today isn't that there weren't very many writers, but there were very few copies made of things that were written. Our entire corups of catullus, for example, comes from one - *one* - single manuscript. This was, for all we know, quite a popular libellum, but we're stuck with one copy because of the way it was viewed during the 2000 or so years of history between then and now.
The issue is in the copying, not the writing itself.
Instead of neurologically blinding yourself, a more... reversible?... suggestion might be taking your glasses and pushing them down your noise a bit. Voila! Can't see top field of vision anymore.
Doctors. Always trying to overcomplicate everything.
btw dude, there are plenty enough people with visual defects that will pay you to be a neurologist someday. =)
As per your instructions, we've launched the probe.
Good luck sir, and Godspeed!
The only way to find a cure is to pay researchers and fund experiments to do so.
People need your help. Here's a link to donate in honor of a friend who's affected. The Cancer Walk at Tufts University is a major fundraiser for Cancer Research.
Hope this gets modded up.
In this case, you happen to be wrong.
There are specialized circuits in the brain for dealing with particular problems by late adulthood, and they cannot simply be solved by putting the information "back in memory".
Hardware problems are a much more correct assessment of the types of damage that can be caused by stroke. For instance, once your Broca's or Wernicke's Area is sufficiently damaged, there's little chance of language recovery even under the most intensive courses. Likewise, no matter how much information you put into a hard-drive, nothing will fix your mechanically broken Video Card besides replacing it [which simply isn't possible with a stroke victim].
And, he can have an understanding and a set of possible answers. I'm not sure why providing an understanding should be wrong, in that case.
I wasn't criticizing. I was informing.
There's a difference. Recovery from a stroke isn't like anything you've ever experienced in your adult life. It's not like learning a new skill, in many cases, it can be learning a skill without the placticity of a younger brain, the ability to generalize from other skills you know, or the ability to re-learn that skill at all.
A stroke is essentially the functional equivalent of someone taking a chainsaw to your computer's internals, or writing a script that deleted random files and core functions, then repartitioned various sectors and screwed with your wiring. Suppose someone had posted a question on Slashdot saying, "My computer is broken and I'd like to purchase products to fix it?" Wouldn't the first questions be: "What's wrong, what are the symptoms, what is the prognosis?"
I think it's far more important that he understands the quality and etiology of his mother's injury so that he can properly administer care and so that he can understand the Doctor when he gets information. Playing computer games is one thing - understanding exactly what happened will be far more beneficial in the long term.
Damage from a stroke is due to a lack of Oxygen to a particular part of the brain. Essentially, because of a lack of oxygen, those cells die, and all the connections they have made throughout your life become useless.
Helping someone recover from a stroke depends wholly on where the damage occured. Asking your question is a bit like asking, "I hurt my body, how can I fix it?" One would want to know what kind of injury you suffered, exactly how severe it is, and what types of resulting actions you are unable to perform.
A common side-effect / symptom of strokes is "aphasia", which is a lack of speech processing ability. It's a bit like if you went blind by injury to your brain, and not to your eyes (you could also lose speech by injury to your jaw or tongue). Other stroke defects include motor problems and other issues. Memory capacity is particularly unlikely to be affected, but it seriously depends on where the damage occured. If they think she might be able to make a full recovery, it's unlikely that she has permenant damage to any areas of her cortex involved with creating or storing new long or short-term memory.
But seriously, I would rephrase your questions much more specifically, because a stroke is a serious problem, and cannot be addressed by simply one software tool. I would look into exactly what types of damage have occured, and what types of therapy typically work. A computer can be useful for that therapy, because it can provide lots of trials and none of the embarassment associated with poor performance on a task which might result from being "good" at a task before a stroke and having difficulty performing it after the stroke occurs.
It's "Deus Ex Machina", and since the term refers to a device used in Greek Tragic theater not developed for at least 200 years after the Iliad, you're wrong.
People certainly *do* make choices in the Iliad. Have you read it?
Read the fucking Iliad.
Achilles sits around for 9 books, while Diomedes (not even IN the movie) and Ajax (killed in the FIRST battle) and Menelaos (same) beat the crap out of people.
Most of the action is dominated by the Gods, not the mortals.
Achilles DIES before he gets to Troy, but that *isn't* in the Iliad.
The Trojan horse bit is really written down in Vergil, but he was *never credited*.
When Achilles and Hector fight, Hector *runs* first. The reason they fight is because Hector is trapped outside the city walls, not because he comes down to fight Achilles. Gods interfere with the fight.
Aeneas isn't some random guy in the end, but he is a rather minor trojan prince who's the best fighter outside of Hector on the Trojan side. Read the Aeneid for more info.
The movie Troy was a huge cinematic blunder ruining one of the greatest stories of all time.
There is a google section.
Go to preferences. Click it away if you don't want to see it. Just like everything else, and just like you've done with BSD, because BSD is dead.
That is all.
It's also amazing how much of the general knowledge of the world we *can't* access, because it's unconnected or unpublished.
Just think about how vast and extensive Google's search is, and then think about how little of the World's knowledge and creative achievement it actually can access.
The quantity and breadth of human knowledge is breathtaking, no?