Isn't it better to be more common that to be more unique? Setting the USER-AGENT to something randomly generated will make you unique, but it's it better to "blend in" than to "stand out" ?
I think the automatic translation is a bad example, because it requires you to solve several problems, which are not exactly related to AI. First of all you need to parse the text(syntactically) in the original language which is a hard problem because although languages are thought to be context free, context-free grammars are not known for most of them and there are few suitable and complete data sets(corpora). Second problem is semantics and it is related to AI. Third problem is again constructing a morphism from the original language with the semantic information attached to the target language, which again requires a good corpus and a good algorithm which takes both syntax and semantic into consideration - AI is partially involved here.
And he said.NET is evil because it's patent ridden. To which de Icaza responded saying "it's ok, they promised not to sue"(paraphrased). So, what about my mold? Maybe I'm missing something.
When Stallman said the same thing, de Icaza called him a fanatic. Well, most voices on/. called him the same thing. He was right then like he was right with his movement from the start. You can't have half-measures.
Problem is Linux runs on 386+. You might be able to run something like ucLinux on 286, but i doubt you'll be able to run anything like Linux on a 8088/8086/80186. With 512k RAM you won't be able to boot any kernel, no matter how old.
Not all WoW players are american, you insensite clod:P
Now on a more serious note. $25k-39k is very low for US, but is a mean over lots and lots of other countries. It might be low for you, but $25k-$39k is quite high in some parts of Europe.
It's funny when you see it boot up if it previously had a failure or lost power. I never saw Win XP ATMs, but I saw lots of WinNT/Win2k ATMs.
And yeah, I'm living in Eastern Europe.
First of all I don't think they can do face recognition(i. e. this guy is Johnny), the are probably only doing face detection(i. e. this rectangle contains a face). To recognize faces they would need a database of training data which contains several images for each face(more images -> better recognition), which I expect they don't have yet.
Commercial face recognition is no where near 1% false positive, it's more like 5-10% in extremely favorable cases. It's important to note here we're not talking about a controlled environment like an access point where a person is filmed and his face is recognized in a controlled light, face tilt, etc. Also, trying to decrease false negatives(i. e. face not associated with a name) will increase the rate of false positives and vice versa. For such a system, it's important to have a low false negative rate else it's useless.
I work for a company that does image processing, including face detection/recognition.
It depends what you understand when you say "The traveling salesman problem". If you are referring to the decision problem "given k is there a Hamiltonian path, etc" yes, it is NP-complete(see Introduction to algorithms, Cormen et al.). However The Traveling Salesman Problem, is defined usually as "find the minimum k such that k represents the cost of the Hamiltonian path, etc", which is NP-hard(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_salesman_problem).
You appear to not understand complexity theory. I would suggest brushing up on it. Thanks:)
First of all TSP is not NP-Complete it is NP-hard. This means we couldn't find a polynomial algorithm that reduces TSP to a NP-Complete problem: it either exists, but it wasn't found, or it doesn't exist and then it's even harder than NP-Complete.
Second, intractable means "unsolvable by a Turing Machine in a finite time", which is not true, since you can find a naive algorithm that takes a lot of time, but finishes. The algorithm is like this: generate all possible paths in the graph and test if it's a minimal solution. The number of paths is less than |E|!, where E is the set of edges. The solution space is finite so the problem is solvable in finite time.
Simply because they cost money, they drain more battery power, the increase phone size, the make the phone hotter and require more cooling, thus increasing the phone size even more and so on. Did I mention battery?
Yes, maybe true. But there are a few small extremely important differences:
Back then you didn't have a computer at home
You couldn't install software in a large variety of OS es, software suites and configurations
You didn't have an Internet connecting all the world, to the extent it does today and with the content you find nowadays there.
If companies get sucked into this scheme, I don't care. Dealing with idiots wanting to configure their email/Word/Excel is a pain in the butt for the system administrator. Configuring Google Apps is cake compared to that.
I don't have any say over the decisions regarding software in the company I work for. If I would, I'd probably choose something in between what Google Apps offers and what Microsoft offers.
If this move means more freedom/better prices/better software/better service for me, the home user, then it's a Good Thing, and I don't see any reason why this would not mean exactly that.
There is one thing I don't understand. The RTT in GPRS networks is about 600ms, maybe less in some cases, but 10 times higher than the recomended delay for a voice conversation. How are they supposed to solve this problem? In case you wonder how I got the 600ms figure, there's a wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPRS#GPRS_in_practice and personal experience.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't it better to be more common that to be more unique? Setting the USER-AGENT to something randomly generated will make you unique, but it's it better to "blend in" than to "stand out" ?
I think the automatic translation is a bad example, because it requires you to solve several problems, which are not exactly related to AI. First of all you need to parse the text(syntactically) in the original language which is a hard problem because although languages are thought to be context free, context-free grammars are not known for most of them and there are few suitable and complete data sets(corpora). Second problem is semantics and it is related to AI. Third problem is again constructing a morphism from the original language with the semantic information attached to the target language, which again requires a good corpus and a good algorithm which takes both syntax and semantic into consideration - AI is partially involved here.
You are responsible for having a retard for a guard.
Landmark Forum?
... Swedish motherfucker, do you speak it? It's Celsius(https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Anders_Celsius), not Celcius.
That's funny, but google is your friend. http://www.google.com/search?q=compute+the+nth+digit+of+pi
Actually there is an algorithm to compute the n-th digit of Pi without computing the rest.
You're wrong :P
Resistance is Fusile.
It's not thoughtcrime(1984). It's precrime(The Minority Report).
And he said .NET is evil because it's patent ridden. To which de Icaza responded saying "it's ok, they promised not to sue"(paraphrased). So, what about my mold? Maybe I'm missing something.
When Stallman said the same thing, de Icaza called him a fanatic. Well, most voices on /. called him the same thing. He was right then like he was right with his movement from the start. You can't have half-measures.
No, I think it just makes parts of the patent invalid because there is prior art. Which might mean it won't stand in court.
Problem is Linux runs on 386+. You might be able to run something like ucLinux on 286, but i doubt you'll be able to run anything like Linux on a 8088/8086/80186. With 512k RAM you won't be able to boot any kernel, no matter how old.
Makes you check calendar to see if it's April's Fool, doesn't it?
I wonder how long are the martians going to keep feeding us this data. They should be tired of this joke by now.
Not all WoW players are american, you insensite clod :P
Now on a more serious note. $25k-39k is very low for US, but is a mean over lots and lots of other countries. It might be low for you, but $25k-$39k is quite high in some parts of Europe.
It's funny when you see it boot up if it previously had a failure or lost power. I never saw Win XP ATMs, but I saw lots of WinNT/Win2k ATMs. And yeah, I'm living in Eastern Europe.
First of all I don't think they can do face recognition(i. e. this guy is Johnny), the are probably only doing face detection(i. e. this rectangle contains a face). To recognize faces they would need a database of training data which contains several images for each face(more images -> better recognition), which I expect they don't have yet. Commercial face recognition is no where near 1% false positive, it's more like 5-10% in extremely favorable cases. It's important to note here we're not talking about a controlled environment like an access point where a person is filmed and his face is recognized in a controlled light, face tilt, etc. Also, trying to decrease false negatives(i. e. face not associated with a name) will increase the rate of false positives and vice versa. For such a system, it's important to have a low false negative rate else it's useless. I work for a company that does image processing, including face detection/recognition.
From a purist point of view, it does matter and you should care. But what's the solution? This is the real question.
First of all TSP is not NP-Complete it is NP-hard. This means we couldn't find a polynomial algorithm that reduces TSP to a NP-Complete problem: it either exists, but it wasn't found, or it doesn't exist and then it's even harder than NP-Complete. Second, intractable means "unsolvable by a Turing Machine in a finite time", which is not true, since you can find a naive algorithm that takes a lot of time, but finishes. The algorithm is like this: generate all possible paths in the graph and test if it's a minimal solution. The number of paths is less than |E|!, where E is the set of edges. The solution space is finite so the problem is solvable in finite time.
Simply because they cost money, they drain more battery power, the increase phone size, the make the phone hotter and require more cooling, thus increasing the phone size even more and so on. Did I mention battery?
Who's paying you Matthew? I saw you comment everywhere on this thread of how bad this technology is.
- Back then you didn't have a computer at home
- You couldn't install software in a large variety of OS es, software suites and configurations
- You didn't have an Internet connecting all the world, to the extent it does today and with the content you find nowadays there.
If companies get sucked into this scheme, I don't care. Dealing with idiots wanting to configure their email/Word/Excel is a pain in the butt for the system administrator. Configuring Google Apps is cake compared to that.I don't have any say over the decisions regarding software in the company I work for. If I would, I'd probably choose something in between what Google Apps offers and what Microsoft offers.
If this move means more freedom/better prices/better software/better service for me, the home user, then it's a Good Thing, and I don't see any reason why this would not mean exactly that.
There is one thing I don't understand. The RTT in GPRS networks is about 600ms, maybe less in some cases, but 10 times higher than the recomended delay for a voice conversation. How are they supposed to solve this problem? In case you wonder how I got the 600ms figure, there's a wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPRS#GPRS_in_practice and personal experience.