A somewhat sensible bill -- but still requiring GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION, which grandparent poster seemed to think was both inherently evil and inherently avoidable.
"Run their own fiber optics in parallel" -- ok, and where are they going to run fiber? In the ground? Need right of way -- either share space in the conduit with Comcast, or dig new rights of way. Either way, government is involved, either in requiring Comcast to share space, or in allowing you to dig in public land.
Take government OUT of that, and it becomes possible for ANYONE to dig ANYWHERE. Including your front lawn. What's that? The cops will stop them? Oh, and who provides cops again? (Government.)
He was mistaking using the term "peer review" when he should have said "scientific advancement."
"Peer review" is exactly that: a review of a paper by your peers, who should know as much as you do about the subject and can find the mistakes you've missed.
"Scientific advancement" does indeed require independent reproduction of experiments.
That's what I get for copying and pasting the link wrong. My initial search included all the crap Google usually appends to their search (&hl=en and so forth) so I chopped it off after the keywords themselves.
Yes, there's a lot of giant shoulders he stood on. But he gathered plenty of pebbles on his own -- boulders, in fact. Wrote lots of papers. Invented TeX, Metafont, literate programming, perfect shuffles. Dozens if not hundreds of original papers outside of his books.
Do one thing for me. Spend five minutes researching before posting. Or even just one minute THINKING about what an idiot you might appear if your post is wrong.
I'm just anti-ASCAP/RIAA/MPAA. And any organization that is against them will get my donation. Copyright holders who are hurt by that will stop being hurt by it when they stop giving their money to the scum of the earth.
"Their totally dominant position in the online music business" is not "a near perfect monopoly on music players". They are totally different things: one is the sale of content through a particular type of channel, the other is the sale of devices you hold in your hand and plug earphones into.
"Near perfect monopoly on music players"???? WTF? Between my friends and I, we use ten different portable devices to play music (not counting CD players, just digital files). NOT ONE OF THEM WAS MADE BY APPLE. And we don't feel the lack AT ALL.
You just want to play music, there's no need to suck Apple's dick. There are plenty of alternatives. GOOD ONES.
The joke is that your doubtful hypothetical rests on the even more doubtful hypothetical that the slashdot reader to whom it is addressed actually has a wife.
The patent system relies on the ability to discriminate between entities with valid patents, and entities without valid patents. This is the fundamental issue - whether this is even possible.
That's insane. That would remove all protection from the traditional lone inventor who comes up with something useful and wants to sell it to the big companies. In effect you'd be saying that you can't invent anything unless you plan to sell it yourself.
That "generic background training" inside your head is derived from years or decades of experience WITH MULTIPLE SPEAKERS. And when you meet someone with an accent you've never heard before, you DO need additional training. Deny it if you dare.
Furthermore, the data from your training is not accessible to be used to train new listeners. Each listener must be trained individually.
I'm not saying it will be impossible to do what you want. I'm just saying what you want is one or more orders of magnitude more complicated and more impressive than training a baby to understand speech.
"Works for humans. I don't need to recite some Shakespeare (or in my case, something from Eça de Queiroz) excerpt before people can understand me. It's not perfect, but it works fine."
Humans spend YEARS being trained to understand speech, by multiple speakers. We call those humans who are untrained at speech recognition "babies".
Slashdot Mirror
So what you're saying is that to get optimum effects in life, you would have to force people to adopt your point of view? Interesting.
It's nice to believe something, but it often has no connection with or effect on reality. As in this case.
A somewhat sensible bill -- but still requiring GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION, which grandparent poster seemed to think was both inherently evil and inherently avoidable.
"Run their own fiber optics in parallel" -- ok, and where are they going to run fiber? In the ground? Need right of way -- either share space in the conduit with Comcast, or dig new rights of way. Either way, government is involved, either in requiring Comcast to share space, or in allowing you to dig in public land.
Take government OUT of that, and it becomes possible for ANYONE to dig ANYWHERE. Including your front lawn. What's that? The cops will stop them? Oh, and who provides cops again? (Government.)
Fred, if you're afraid, you'll have to overlook it,
Besides you knew the job was dangerous when you took it! (cluck, awk!)
Why should I bother answering your question? You will simply decide that the amount of time I've chosen is not "appreciable."
He was mistaking using the term "peer review" when he should have said "scientific advancement."
"Peer review" is exactly that: a review of a paper by your peers, who should know as much as you do about the subject and can find the mistakes you've missed.
"Scientific advancement" does indeed require independent reproduction of experiments.
That's what I get for copying and pasting the link wrong. My initial search included all the crap Google usually appends to their search (&hl=en and so forth) so I chopped it off after the keywords themselves.
Here's the correct link: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=DE+Knuth
Wrong.
Yes, there's a lot of giant shoulders he stood on. But he gathered plenty of pebbles on his own -- boulders, in fact. Wrote lots of papers. Invented TeX, Metafont, literate programming, perfect shuffles. Dozens if not hundreds of original papers outside of his books.
Do one thing for me. Spend five minutes researching before posting. Or even just one minute THINKING about what an idiot you might appear if your post is wrong.
I'm just anti-ASCAP/RIAA/MPAA. And any organization that is against them will get my donation. Copyright holders who are hurt by that will stop being hurt by it when they stop giving their money to the scum of the earth.
"Their totally dominant position in the online music business" is not "a near perfect monopoly on music players". They are totally different things: one is the sale of content through a particular type of channel, the other is the sale of devices you hold in your hand and plug earphones into.
"Near perfect monopoly on music players"???? WTF? Between my friends and I, we use ten different portable devices to play music (not counting CD players, just digital files). NOT ONE OF THEM WAS MADE BY APPLE. And we don't feel the lack AT ALL.
You just want to play music, there's no need to suck Apple's dick. There are plenty of alternatives. GOOD ONES.
See, the traditional way of burning up excess glucose is called EXERCISE.
Fraking Complicator's Gloves, everywhere.
The joke is that your doubtful hypothetical rests on the even more doubtful hypothetical that the slashdot reader to whom it is addressed actually has a wife.
If I come up with a solution, can I patent it?
It's probably an NP-complete problem anyway.
Hello?? That's the whole fucking point of patents, to get an exclusive right for using an invention, even if someone else has the same idea!!!
That's insane. That would remove all protection from the traditional lone inventor who comes up with something useful and wants to sell it to the big companies. In effect you'd be saying that you can't invent anything unless you plan to sell it yourself.
Pho' sho', homes.
That "generic background training" inside your head is derived from years or decades of experience WITH MULTIPLE SPEAKERS. And when you meet someone with an accent you've never heard before, you DO need additional training. Deny it if you dare.
Furthermore, the data from your training is not accessible to be used to train new listeners. Each listener must be trained individually.
I'm not saying it will be impossible to do what you want. I'm just saying what you want is one or more orders of magnitude more complicated and more impressive than training a baby to understand speech.
"Works for humans. I don't need to recite some Shakespeare (or in my case, something from Eça de Queiroz) excerpt before people can understand me. It's not perfect, but it works fine."
Humans spend YEARS being trained to understand speech, by multiple speakers. We call those humans who are untrained at speech recognition "babies".
And you want to skip all that.
Who rated this +1 Insightful? WTF?
I'd like to see an attempt at The Divine Invasion, solely for the religious clusterfuck that would ensue in the media.
Very strange for all six of them ... does it maybe mean it took him six minutes to pass through the service area of one of them?
Having just read Dr. Watt's latest post I'll stipulate that the conviction was not on the original charge. But the docket is most confusing.
http://www.stclaircounty.org/DCS/search.aspx
Last name: watts
First name: Peter
Search results: 2 records
(click on first record)
(click on Charges)
Num Type Charge (Pacc) Asc/Trf Charge Description Offense Date Dsp Evt
1 ORG 750.81D1 POLICE OFFICER-ASSAULT 12/8/2009 GTY JTH
See? Dsp = Disposition, GTY = Guilty.
It doesn't matter what the reasoning was ... it's a felony conviction that carries the name of assault on a police officer.