This is mostly a fake story fabricated by the local anti-piracy organizations.
The judge has nothing to do with it - the guy was sentenced and released on parole, with no damages granted - the associations were referred to civil legal proceedings, and *one* of the associations made an out-of-court settlement offer to the guy. They'll make a viral video about him and the association will not sue.
The $373,000 are damages that would be claimed by the association, but these damages are typically grossly overestimated and only fractions of the claims are granted by Czech courts. The judges usually require detailed analysis of the damages to get convinced what to grant.
I think even Dr. Friedman wouldn't argue that his thesis necessarily stays valid after some combinations of multiple breakthroughs, be it in physics, AI / neurobiology, cheap energy, physiology... It's still useful to consider the situation without these breakthroughs because they are fairly unpredictable and planning them will probably.fail.
I said *quickly* gauge the paper. Of course I can read it, but there's a lot of papers and my time is limited. If it's published in a reputable venue, that's an endorsement that helps me order the papers preliminarily.
Of course, there are other sorting criteria like a number of citations, but they have their own issues - time lag, variability across (sub)fields, biases towards certain kinds of papers, etc.
Actually, peer review is done for free. People see it like their academic duty, chance to get to some new interesting results first, and like to see their name in a program committee list.
(At least this is how it works in Computer Science.)
The problem is reputation. *Where* was the paper published carries huge weight on both the repute of the paper and change in repute of the author, because noone figured out better ways to quickly judge a result than by the venue (which implies certain acceptance rate and level of peer review standards). If you move from the established institutions to elsewhere, you need to build up your repute from scratch and until you do...
Well, it just takes long time. That means decades when it's not a new emerging field. Many decades when the academics are particularly conservative.
A is right. The task is identifying pedestrians. Miss rate means that the algorithm fails to identify the pedestrian. Lower number is better.
Also, when the algorithm fails, it doesn't mean the car will just happily drive through the pedestrian!
First, most pedestrians are not at the road, and the ones at the road should be actually easier to identify as they won't blend that much (I guess). Second, there are probably already many components that already identify obstacles and try to avoid them. Identifying pedestrians specifically is helpful to predict their movement, choosing another obstacle if you are going to hit some obstacle anyway, etc.
No. As usual, the summary is confusing as it gives numbers for the *older* methods, but the current Google's method is: "The resulting approach achieves a 26.2% average miss rate on the Caltech Pedestrian detection benchmark, which is competitive with the very best reported results. "
So, there's 26.2% chance that on a single particular image, you miss the pedestrian (at the same time, it seems that in about 15-20% images it sees a pedestrian that is in fact a shrubbery or whatever). This is an academic dataset, and in reality you will have a video feed. AFAICS it's not clear how the precision translates when you have a sequence of many pictures of the pedestrian - whether you will have much higher chances to spot them at least on some of them, or if it's more of a systematic problem and khaki-clothed people just don't stand a chance.
The paper is a bit confusing at first, and the/. summary doesn't help. Basically, they developed a sorting criteria to reduce the amount of work for the editors. In an isolated comparison of two jokes, the funnier joke wins 64% of them on average; this is quite better than a coin!
To get a sorted list, they run a "comparison tournament" between the jokes. The 55.8% number means that the funniest joke is in the top 55.8% of the list on average; if we are willing to occasionally miss a brilliant joke, we can cut the list in a little more than half and still keep most of the great jokes.
Yeah, you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. Doesn't produce a lot of sympathy. Think again about how to make your software free but still want users to pay. What about keeping value-adding plugins or frontends closed and opening the core? If you open source but limit ability of people to make use of the core, what exactly do you expect to gain from such a "community"?
Still, take a look at the licence of qmail. This worked not so bad for them, and might be the right equilibrium. If you just want legalese for your scenario, take a look at Microsoft's Shared Source licences.
(I work in this area of research.) You are right, the paper is about just a sequence-to-sequence transformation model that learns good replies for inputs but is not actually "understanding" what is going on.
At the same time, we *are* making some headways in the "understanding" part as well, just not in this particular paper. Basically, we have ways to convert individual words to many-dimensional numerical vectors whose mathematical relations closely correspond to semantics of the words, and we are now working on building neural networks that build up such vectors even for larger pieces of text and use them for more advanced things. If anyone is interested, look up word2vec, "distributed representations" or "word embeddings" (or "compositional embeddings").
Right now they are talking about if the API is actually copyrighted. If it is, there is still a (good?) chance that fair use will allow you to reimplement it anyway; but that's going to be another court case, likely.
TL;DR: US executive shares the appeals court opinion that APIs are copyrightable, but that does not mean the copyright is enforceable - there will be another court case that will be about if it's fair use to re-implement the (copyrighted) API.
Here is maybe the most important paragraph (italics mine):
Despite the inherently functional character of all computer code, the Copyright Act makes clear that such code can be copyrightable. Nothing about the declaring code(API declarations) at issue here materially distinguishes it from other computer code... . Although petitioner has raised important concerns about the effects that enforcing respondent's copyright could have on software development, those concerns are better addressed through petitioner's fair-use defense, which will be considered on remand.
The brief is quite well readable (modulo the awful scribus ui), try it!
I do use the memory, thank you very much. I just use the computer for something else than web browsing too. I do realize it's getting uncommon (and don't actually even get *that* grumpy about it, just have my different set of preferences).
When you see a guy in sibling comment complaining "In addition, I hate the extremely long time for startup and new tab creation, which is accompanied by constant disk grinding." - well, that's exactly the memory problem, which now translates to bad user experience. As you suggested: The OS swapped it out as another app needed it.
Oh and also the fact that middle click inside website does not load URL from clipboard. It works on a favicon - except in case of verified identity SSL servers, there's no favicon.
About the tabs, frankly, for me (but clearly not just me) a more flexible paradigm which blends seamlessly the concept of tabs and bookmarks (and ideally full-text search over my "bookmarked tabs") would be awesome. I'm a pack-rat and would like to archive whole tab trees for later, see them among the other pages, but not take memory+CPU now. I think there's an actual and large market gap here.
First, the situation is more complicated outside of math/physics/cs. E.g. in biology, getting papers is much more complicated, which has connections to computer literacy of authors, conventions in the field, and maybe also conditions of the journals.
Second, if you are an institutional researcher, there are good chances that your institution has subscription to the major places relevant for your research.
I hope it's a problem solved over time largely by natural selection. I'm much less likely to cite papers that I can't read easily.
AFAIK Elsevier's pricing structure and conditions on things like arxiv uploads is much stricter than Springer's. Not sure though.
Ok, that makes sense. I use vim only on Linux, so I wouldn't know. Ctrl-v in normal mode is what always does this for me in terminal vim, but I guess it might interfere with clipboard shortcuts on other platforms.
(Then again, the argument sounds as that vim loses because vim has this different across platforms, while, Notepad++ wins because, well, it is not available on some platforms. In Linux desktop environments, alt+drag typically drags the window and is not passed to the application.)
No, my point is that it's often easiest to *understand* things from a couple of examples, especially when your programming fundamentals are solid.
But even what *you* are saying is nothing bad to do, when you just need to do a quick hack - quickly. (The real burden is on deciding when a quick hack will or will not do.)
In the end, it's about whether what you create works. SO helps that happen.
Exactly. When the concepts are already well sorted out in your head but you need to quickly get something going with an unfamiliar API, it's typically way more time-efficient to just peek at a few code snippets over ten seconds rather than plodding through a confusing API docs written by a graphomaniac with ADHD. StackOverflow is a god-send that made me immensely more productive, especially in unfamiliar programming environments.
Really, you start with "Those days are long gone", then talk about "letter-sized printouts at 10 characters per inch"?
To me, 8 is just perfect when viewing on a computer screen, it has the perfect balance of clarity and horizontal space management. But if someone thinks it's too much, that's fine - because I'm using tabs, so they can reconfigure. This is where all the anti-tab arguers shoot themselves in the foot. There are some good arguments against tabs that make the spaces vs. tabs choice non-obvious, but seems like noone on this thread has a clue about these.
(Of course, in Python I just follow PEP and:set et, tw=4, sw=4. A whole-ecosystem convention trumps personal preferences, and Python especially (with its semantic indenting) has good reasons to abolish tabs.)
You do know about vim's visual block mode, right? Care to explain in what ways is Notepad++ superior to vim in this or other regards, or link somewhere?
I really wondered while reading the wild stories behind the talk system why a "good enough" solution wasn't first created quickly and deployed.
IMO the 20% effort (or much less) that would fix the 80% (or much more) of UI issues would be simply automating the mediawiki markup editing on talk pages! Just add “add new topic” button to the page, “reply” link after each ~~~~ that’ll show up a textarea for your comment and upon submission simply edit the wiki source automatically, adding your comment. New users don’t have to learn all the syntax rules and discussion can proceed quickly and with much smaller amount of editing races. Power users can still just edit the page when it’s needed in the very long tail of uncommon cases.
This could all take days to develop, weeks to push through live beta to full deployment. What am I missing? I guess part of it is that TFA never properly defined what problems are being solved here, so maybe my assumptions about that (UX while adding comments) are wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
This is mostly a fake story fabricated by the local anti-piracy organizations.
The judge has nothing to do with it - the guy was sentenced and released on parole, with no damages granted - the associations were referred to civil legal proceedings, and *one* of the associations made an out-of-court settlement offer to the guy. They'll make a viral video about him and the association will not sue.
The $373,000 are damages that would be claimed by the association, but these damages are typically grossly overestimated and only fractions of the claims are granted by Czech courts. The judges usually require detailed analysis of the damages to get convinced what to grant.
Skilled news spinning, in short.
Riiight... ever heard about Mongolfier brothers?
I think even Dr. Friedman wouldn't argue that his thesis necessarily stays valid after some combinations of multiple breakthroughs, be it in physics, AI / neurobiology, cheap energy, physiology... It's still useful to consider the situation without these breakthroughs because they are fairly unpredictable and planning them will probably.fail.
I said *quickly* gauge the paper. Of course I can read it, but there's a lot of papers and my time is limited. If it's published in a reputable venue, that's an endorsement that helps me order the papers preliminarily.
Of course, there are other sorting criteria like a number of citations, but they have their own issues - time lag, variability across (sub)fields, biases towards certain kinds of papers, etc.
Actually, peer review is done for free. People see it like their academic duty, chance to get to some new interesting results first, and like to see their name in a program committee list.
(At least this is how it works in Computer Science.)
Of course, people are trying to explore other options - e.g. http://www.iclr.cc/doku.php?id...
The problem is reputation. *Where* was the paper published carries huge weight on both the repute of the paper and change in repute of the author, because noone figured out better ways to quickly judge a result than by the venue (which implies certain acceptance rate and level of peer review standards). If you move from the established institutions to elsewhere, you need to build up your repute from scratch and until you do...
Well, it just takes long time. That means decades when it's not a new emerging field. Many decades when the academics are particularly conservative.
A is right. The task is identifying pedestrians. Miss rate means that the algorithm fails to identify the pedestrian. Lower number is better.
Also, when the algorithm fails, it doesn't mean the car will just happily drive through the pedestrian!
First, most pedestrians are not at the road, and the ones at the road should be actually easier to identify as they won't blend that much (I guess). Second, there are probably already many components that already identify obstacles and try to avoid them. Identifying pedestrians specifically is helpful to predict their movement, choosing another obstacle if you are going to hit some obstacle anyway, etc.
No. As usual, the summary is confusing as it gives numbers for the *older* methods, but the current Google's method is: "The resulting approach achieves a 26.2% average miss rate on the Caltech Pedestrian detection benchmark, which is competitive with the very best reported results. "
So, there's 26.2% chance that on a single particular image, you miss the pedestrian (at the same time, it seems that in about 15-20% images it sees a pedestrian that is in fact a shrubbery or whatever). This is an academic dataset, and in reality you will have a video feed. AFAICS it's not clear how the precision translates when you have a sequence of many pictures of the pedestrian - whether you will have much higher chances to spot them at least on some of them, or if it's more of a systematic problem and khaki-clothed people just don't stand a chance.
The paper is a bit confusing at first, and the /. summary doesn't help. Basically, they developed a sorting criteria to reduce the amount of work for the editors. In an isolated comparison of two jokes, the funnier joke wins 64% of them on average; this is quite better than a coin!
To get a sorted list, they run a "comparison tournament" between the jokes. The 55.8% number means that the funniest joke is in the top 55.8% of the list on average; if we are willing to occasionally miss a brilliant joke, we can cut the list in a little more than half and still keep most of the great jokes.
The full paper is http://research.microsoft.com/...
Interesting, some great examples in these followups, thanks! But why not mention the concrete products?
Yeah, you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. Doesn't produce a lot of sympathy. Think again about how to make your software free but still want users to pay. What about keeping value-adding plugins or frontends closed and opening the core? If you open source but limit ability of people to make use of the core, what exactly do you expect to gain from such a "community"?
Still, take a look at the licence of qmail. This worked not so bad for them, and might be the right equilibrium. If you just want legalese for your scenario, take a look at Microsoft's Shared Source licences.
(I work in this area of research.) You are right, the paper is about just a sequence-to-sequence transformation model that learns good replies for inputs but is not actually "understanding" what is going on.
At the same time, we *are* making some headways in the "understanding" part as well, just not in this particular paper. Basically, we have ways to convert individual words to many-dimensional numerical vectors whose mathematical relations closely correspond to semantics of the words, and we are now working on building neural networks that build up such vectors even for larger pieces of text and use them for more advanced things. If anyone is interested, look up word2vec, "distributed representations" or "word embeddings" (or "compositional embeddings").
If you already know what word2vec is, take a look at http://emnlp2014.org/tutorials...
Right now they are talking about if the API is actually copyrighted. If it is, there is still a (good?) chance that fair use will allow you to reimplement it anyway; but that's going to be another court case, likely.
TL;DR: US executive shares the appeals court opinion that APIs are copyrightable, but that does not mean the copyright is enforceable - there will be another court case that will be about if it's fair use to re-implement the (copyrighted) API.
Here is maybe the most important paragraph (italics mine):
The brief is quite well readable (modulo the awful scribus ui), try it!
I'm running java-based UIMA pipelines with large NLP models loaded in memory, plus some pandas datasets loaded in ipynotebooks occassionally.
I don't run 128gb because that's tricky to stuff in a laptop and I have better uses for my money at this point than buying overpriced SO-DIMMs too.
I do use the memory, thank you very much. I just use the computer for something else than web browsing too. I do realize it's getting uncommon (and don't actually even get *that* grumpy about it, just have my different set of preferences).
When you see a guy in sibling comment complaining "In addition, I hate the extremely long time for startup and new tab creation, which is accompanied by constant disk grinding." - well, that's exactly the memory problem, which now translates to bad user experience. As you suggested: The OS swapped it out as another app needed it.
Oh and also the fact that middle click inside website does not load URL from clipboard. It works on a favicon - except in case of verified identity SSL servers, there's no favicon.
About the tabs, frankly, for me (but clearly not just me) a more flexible paradigm which blends seamlessly the concept of tabs and bookmarks (and ideally full-text search over my "bookmarked tabs") would be awesome. I'm a pack-rat and would like to archive whole tab trees for later, see them among the other pages, but not take memory+CPU now. I think there's an actual and large market gap here.
No vertical tabs 10 years after widescreen displays started spreading widely?
Also (not so much about UI), if you have many open tabs, chrome eats much less CPU on the background, but is much more memory hungry.
Maybe you have never owned a notebook or a cellphone, so let me note: batteries deteriorate.
First, the situation is more complicated outside of math/physics/cs. E.g. in biology, getting papers is much more complicated, which has connections to computer literacy of authors, conventions in the field, and maybe also conditions of the journals.
Second, if you are an institutional researcher, there are good chances that your institution has subscription to the major places relevant for your research.
I hope it's a problem solved over time largely by natural selection. I'm much less likely to cite papers that I can't read easily.
AFAIK Elsevier's pricing structure and conditions on things like arxiv uploads is much stricter than Springer's. Not sure though.
Ok, that makes sense. I use vim only on Linux, so I wouldn't know. Ctrl-v in normal mode is what always does this for me in terminal vim, but I guess it might interfere with clipboard shortcuts on other platforms.
(Then again, the argument sounds as that vim loses because vim has this different across platforms, while, Notepad++ wins because, well, it is not available on some platforms. In Linux desktop environments, alt+drag typically drags the window and is not passed to the application.)
No, my point is that it's often easiest to *understand* things from a couple of examples, especially when your programming fundamentals are solid.
But even what *you* are saying is nothing bad to do, when you just need to do a quick hack - quickly. (The real burden is on deciding when a quick hack will or will not do.)
In the end, it's about whether what you create works. SO helps that happen.
Exactly. When the concepts are already well sorted out in your head but you need to quickly get something going with an unfamiliar API, it's typically way more time-efficient to just peek at a few code snippets over ten seconds rather than plodding through a confusing API docs written by a graphomaniac with ADHD. StackOverflow is a god-send that made me immensely more productive, especially in unfamiliar programming environments.
Really, you start with "Those days are long gone", then talk about "letter-sized printouts at 10 characters per inch"?
To me, 8 is just perfect when viewing on a computer screen, it has the perfect balance of clarity and horizontal space management. But if someone thinks it's too much, that's fine - because I'm using tabs, so they can reconfigure. This is where all the anti-tab arguers shoot themselves in the foot. There are some good arguments against tabs that make the spaces vs. tabs choice non-obvious, but seems like noone on this thread has a clue about these.
(Of course, in Python I just follow PEP and :set et, tw=4, sw=4. A whole-ecosystem convention trumps personal preferences, and Python especially (with its semantic indenting) has good reasons to abolish tabs.)
You do know about vim's visual block mode, right? Care to explain in what ways is Notepad++ superior to vim in this or other regards, or link somewhere?
I really wondered while reading the wild stories behind the talk system why a "good enough" solution wasn't first created quickly and deployed.
IMO the 20% effort (or much less) that would fix the 80% (or much more) of UI issues would be simply automating the mediawiki markup editing on talk pages! Just add “add new topic” button to the page, “reply” link after each ~~~~ that’ll show up a textarea for your comment and upon submission simply edit the wiki source automatically, adding your comment. New users don’t have to learn all the syntax rules and discussion can proceed quickly and with much smaller amount of editing races. Power users can still just edit the page when it’s needed in the very long tail of uncommon cases.
This could all take days to develop, weeks to push through live beta to full deployment. What am I missing? I guess part of it is that TFA never properly defined what problems are being solved here, so maybe my assumptions about that (UX while adding comments) are wrong.