Or you could break out War and Peace and "culture" the kid upside the head with it.
I know it was joke, but War and Peace is actually a pretty quick read, particularly once the war gets started; probably not adolescent material though. And if you're ever learning Russian, its prose is pretty simple.
Actually, a lot of human languages look like they could be parsed by a machine that's strictly less powerful than a Turing machine - finite state automata turn out to be pretty pretty good for a significant portion of natural language parsing. Unfortunately, there's some problem areas - some languages have crossing dependencies, etc. which make simpler automata unsuitable.
The problems are a bit bigger than the type of machine you use, though. We don't have a complete grammar of any human language, for example. There's a lot of ambiguity in the input, too - assuming you're working with "perfect" text (no misspellings, etc) and didn't have to worry about disambiguating homophones (to, too, two) or alternate spellings, you've got problems like the fact that the word "gray" could be an adjective, a verb (to gray out a disabled control), or a noun (one commonly reported type of space aliens are called grays). And that's not even getting to what are called structural ambiguities - where you place an item in the parse dramatically affects the ultimate interpretation, and you can't always tell from the text what the intended placement is.
For what it's worth, a lot of people do machine translation statistically - I think google translate does, among others.
My original post? It was a joke. I know what the scare quotes mean - I was playing dumb and giving an interpretation that was deliberately obtuse. Why did I make the joke? Part of it is a reaction to scare quotes - they're dumb, I think. Also, I'm kind of tired of the general complaining posts about the Slashdot anti-MS bias. It's like bitching about everyone's always sweating in Burma - it's just the way things are there. Most of my jokes are primarily to entertain me, though, so they sometimes don't translate well to others.
Flickr isn't a public place. It's a private place they let other people use. You agree to their terms when you use the site. They can remove content they don't find appropriate.
It's private property. Your rights to do what you want have always been limited on private property. If you want to have free speech online, get your own damn website or find a site that's willing to tolerate whatever you have to say.
No, it doesn't. Parsing is syntax; interpretation is semantics. See below.
But there's more to the grammar than what they teach you in grade school.
Yes, I know; I speak 5 languages and work in human language research. I've actually put a lot of time and effort into studying human language and grammar - it's kind of my thing.
"Proper" English grammar is just the template for that bizarre concoction that we, the west and most of europe, use.
Actually, "proper English grammar" is one dialect among many that comprise the larger language of English.
Judging by the bulk of your post, you didn't understand what I was saying. Syntax is structural. You could consider it as a collection of rules for governing the generation of strings in a language, or as a logical model for a system that analyzes strings ostensibly belong to a given language and yielding parses therefrom. It isn't a body of rules about sticking prepositions at the end of sentences or splitting infinitives, both of which are perfectly acceptable and common features of English grammar that have been in wide use for centuries. Syntax are the rules that make the sentences "John loves Mary" and "Mary, John loves" have the same interpretation (the second should be read kind of in a frame like "There's a big difference between Susan and Mary. John hates Susan. Mary, John loves.") and "Mary loves John" have a related but different one.
If you've ever taken logic, the difference might be clearer if you look at an example from predicate logic. Assuming that for this example, "A" is the universal quantifier:
A(x)(man(x) -> mortal(x))
Which is a translation of "all men are mortal." However the truth values of the predicates man and moral map onto the universe of discourse, there are rules that make assertions formally valid for interpretation. You could not say:
A(x)(man(x) mortal(x) -> )
not for any reason related to the interpretation of the predicates, but purely because of the syntactic constraints on the expression - it's just not well formed.
Well, language doesn't parse logically; parsing is a syntactic operation. Logic occurs at the semantic level, and a string that has a valid parse doesn't have to yield a valid semantic interpretation. Such phenomena are quite common in natural language: to take a somewhat famous example, the sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously," is syntactically valid though semantically aberrant.
Yeah, but you don't see the dark side of what that regulation gets you - universal healthcare, decent public transportation (compared to most of the US), lots of vacation time. Your wealthy people probably don't get anything like the tax cuts ours do. Practically the third world, that.
They're arguing that YouTube gets more viewership from copyrighted materials than non-copyrighted stuff, and they want the viewer logs to prove that. Then they'll go after Google and others for more money because they're profiting more from it.
I'm not saying that I agree with decision (I don't), but it's not like it's entirely unmotiviated.
On the other hand, I think people really need to start showing up outside the homes of the various lawyers, judges, and corporate executives involved and protest this kind of bullshit. They need to be followed into public places and shouted at about their behavior.
Just a hunch. Looks like Google acted like dicks here and released a free, competing product for something they'd previously partnered with LimitNone to promote (according to the article).
On the other hand, Google could pay them off easily, and if there's a contract between the companies that doesn't stipulate non-competition, well then they can eat a dick. And theft of trade secrets? For a tool that uploads Exchange stuff to gmail? Horseshit.
Slashdot Mirror
I know it was joke, but War and Peace is actually a pretty quick read, particularly once the war gets started; probably not adolescent material though. And if you're ever learning Russian, its prose is pretty simple.
What's wrong with books that aren't sci-fi or fantasy?
You do know there are other genres of books, some of which have even been around for centuries? They might even get "cultured" or something.
So, film is better? Cause, basically, if you want lots of detail, film is better, and if you don't need lots of detail, then digital is good enough?
Seriously, common carrier status. Yes, please, for ISPs, backbone carriers, etc.
Actually, a lot of human languages look like they could be parsed by a machine that's strictly less powerful than a Turing machine - finite state automata turn out to be pretty pretty good for a significant portion of natural language parsing. Unfortunately, there's some problem areas - some languages have crossing dependencies, etc. which make simpler automata unsuitable.
The problems are a bit bigger than the type of machine you use, though. We don't have a complete grammar of any human language, for example. There's a lot of ambiguity in the input, too - assuming you're working with "perfect" text (no misspellings, etc) and didn't have to worry about disambiguating homophones (to, too, two) or alternate spellings, you've got problems like the fact that the word "gray" could be an adjective, a verb (to gray out a disabled control), or a noun (one commonly reported type of space aliens are called grays). And that's not even getting to what are called structural ambiguities - where you place an item in the parse dramatically affects the ultimate interpretation, and you can't always tell from the text what the intended placement is.
For what it's worth, a lot of people do machine translation statistically - I think google translate does, among others.
My original post? It was a joke. I know what the scare quotes mean - I was playing dumb and giving an interpretation that was deliberately obtuse. Why did I make the joke? Part of it is a reaction to scare quotes - they're dumb, I think. Also, I'm kind of tired of the general complaining posts about the Slashdot anti-MS bias. It's like bitching about everyone's always sweating in Burma - it's just the way things are there. Most of my jokes are primarily to entertain me, though, so they sometimes don't translate well to others.
Flickr isn't a public place. It's a private place they let other people use. You agree to their terms when you use the site. They can remove content they don't find appropriate.
It's private property. Your rights to do what you want have always been limited on private property. If you want to have free speech online, get your own damn website or find a site that's willing to tolerate whatever you have to say.
Because MY anaconda don't want none unless you've got buns hon.
No, it doesn't. Parsing is syntax; interpretation is semantics. See below.
Yes, I know; I speak 5 languages and work in human language research. I've actually put a lot of time and effort into studying human language and grammar - it's kind of my thing.
Actually, "proper English grammar" is one dialect among many that comprise the larger language of English.
Judging by the bulk of your post, you didn't understand what I was saying. Syntax is structural. You could consider it as a collection of rules for governing the generation of strings in a language, or as a logical model for a system that analyzes strings ostensibly belong to a given language and yielding parses therefrom. It isn't a body of rules about sticking prepositions at the end of sentences or splitting infinitives, both of which are perfectly acceptable and common features of English grammar that have been in wide use for centuries. Syntax are the rules that make the sentences "John loves Mary" and "Mary, John loves" have the same interpretation (the second should be read kind of in a frame like "There's a big difference between Susan and Mary. John hates Susan. Mary, John loves.") and "Mary loves John" have a related but different one.
If you've ever taken logic, the difference might be clearer if you look at an example from predicate logic. Assuming that for this example, "A" is the universal quantifier:
A(x)(man(x) -> mortal(x))
Which is a translation of "all men are mortal." However the truth values of the predicates man and moral map onto the universe of discourse, there are rules that make assertions formally valid for interpretation. You could not say:
A(x)(man(x) mortal(x) -> )
not for any reason related to the interpretation of the predicates, but purely because of the syntactic constraints on the expression - it's just not well formed.
Wrong. You say that because you are under the mistaken impression that what you have to say matters. Please, feel free to laugh at me.
Yes. You are exactly correct; that is what it was.
And, man, most Slashdot people are dumb as shit.
You showed up way too late to the party to be excused for not having read what I wrote carefully enough to actually understand what I was saying.
Try again.
Now that's funny.
Well, language doesn't parse logically; parsing is a syntactic operation. Logic occurs at the semantic level, and a string that has a valid parse doesn't have to yield a valid semantic interpretation. Such phenomena are quite common in natural language: to take a somewhat famous example, the sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously," is syntactically valid though semantically aberrant.
Hey, thanks for getting it.
If Vista wasn't a failure, then everyone wouldn't agree that it is a failure, and as your own post points out, everyone agrees that it is.
Do you think about this crap before you post?
Yeah, but you don't see the dark side of what that regulation gets you - universal healthcare, decent public transportation (compared to most of the US), lots of vacation time. Your wealthy people probably don't get anything like the tax cuts ours do. Practically the third world, that.
actually made me laugh out loud.
First thing would be to dd the disk to an file on another volume so you can comb through it later at your leisure. Then wipe it and install a new OS.
You stole the hardware, and maybe more if there's anything useful in the data.
They're arguing that YouTube gets more viewership from copyrighted materials than non-copyrighted stuff, and they want the viewer logs to prove that. Then they'll go after Google and others for more money because they're profiting more from it.
I'm not saying that I agree with decision (I don't), but it's not like it's entirely unmotiviated.
On the other hand, I think people really need to start showing up outside the homes of the various lawyers, judges, and corporate executives involved and protest this kind of bullshit. They need to be followed into public places and shouted at about their behavior.
Who wrote that summary? They can't even get the name of the school right - it's the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.
Man, them's some shitty editorial standards you've got there.
Just a hunch. Looks like Google acted like dicks here and released a free, competing product for something they'd previously partnered with LimitNone to promote (according to the article).
On the other hand, Google could pay them off easily, and if there's a contract between the companies that doesn't stipulate non-competition, well then they can eat a dick. And theft of trade secrets? For a tool that uploads Exchange stuff to gmail? Horseshit.
Yes they are. Deviants are stretched or squashed as needed, and beaten for their insolence.
Yeah. Personally I'd rather just use something newer that isn't full of cruft.
I nearly feel bad for the guy; except that I don't, and wish nothing but further business failures for him and his various companies.
Eat hot shit, Rupert!
Oh, he might call himself libertarian, and think that books by Ayn Rand are worth reading for purposes other than derision.