Cases like this are good for the Internet because they have the opportunity to officially set the rules so little guys don't have to be worried about being sued. And, sure, some idiot court could say that her rights were violated, but I'd suspect at that point some group of companies with a combined trillions of dollars will enter the case and it would be overturned.
It would be great if robots.txt somehow got the force of law. A lot of stupid lawsuits would go away.
Google needs to consider script if they want high-quality results. Besides the obvious fact that they'll miss content supplied by dynamic page elements, they could also sacrifice page quality. Page-rank and the like will get them very far, but an easy way to spam the search engines would be to have pages on a whole host of topics that immediately get rewritten as ads for Viagra as soon as they're downloaded by a Javascript-aware browser. It's interesting to know the extent to which they correct for this.
Of course, there are much more subtle ways of changing content once it's been put out there. One might imagine a script that waits 10 seconds and then removes all relevant content and displays Viagra instead. Who knew web search would be restricted by the halting problem? I wonder how far Google goes...
From the site, illustrating its obvious simplicity:
"The most common example is that Joe buys a new car for personal use and pays the FairTax on it. If Joe then sells his car to Bill, there would be no tax on it because the tax had already been paid. Let's look at another example. Assume that Joe owns a flower shop business and buys a van to use when making deliveries to his customers. No tax is charged on purchases for business purposes so that the FairTax on goods sold to consumers does not double tax, or put a tax on a tax.
If Joe decides to sell the van to his friend Bill (who is not in business) for use as his personal vehicle, then it would be a taxable sale to Bill. Why? Because Joe did not pay tax when he bought the van for his flower shop. Since no FairTax has been previously paid on that van; it is not considered used and the sale to Bill would be taxable.
If later, Bill decided he did not like driving a van and sold it to someone else, it would not be a taxable sale. Why? Because the tax had been previously paid (when Bill bought it from Joe) making the item "used" and not subject to tax."
Just because someone else does it, doesn't make it right.
I would expect Google to seek out the country where they would pay the highest taxes and funnel all of their money there. Governments know better how to manage our money than we do.
Scratch that. Just funnel it all to the U.S. because the U.S. knows better than the rest of the world how to handle the world's money.
Darn it! I got beat!
Mine's way cooler though: http://youtube.com/watch?v=o1LybpnekIo
Fine, it's actually exactly the same. You'd think I'd have something better to do, but no.
HPV is different than Polio and it's different than small pox. HPV is rarely deadly for women that have regular checkups. In fact, the majority of women (and probably men if they could be tested more easily) have HPV. It is rare for someone that gets checkups to die, and its actually rare for the disease not to go away on its own. That's why it's much more of a choice in this situation. Polio and small pox either killed or left their victims severely disfigured - HPV is not as cruel...to everyone. All vaccinations include some inherent risk and this one mainly affects those who will not be going to the doctor to get a Pap smear regularly. A perfectly reasonable option is to let people decide for themselves. Unfortunately, like I said, it's unclear who would decide if a young person wants it, because no one is in a really good position to do so. The only thing that I think is clear is that the vaccination should be made free to anyone that wants it.
It seems as though the real issue here is personal choice. The problem is that neither the state, nor parents, nor the person being vaccinated is the proper person to ask for their choice. The person that should be asked their choice is the person that is to be vaccinated, but 10 years in the future.
The software is available before the election. Someone has to write it and someone has to put it on all those voting machines which then have to be sent out to all those polling stations.
Most people will cite the important security principle that security through obscurity is no security at all because someone must always have access. There's always at least an inside person that will no what's going on and people are fallible.
I come down somewhere in between. Obscurity is good - getting past the human element provides one more hurdle a potential enemy would have to get past. It's not good by itself though because you wouldn't want that to be your only barier and it's not good if it means that fewer people will review the code for potential errors
I say, don't release it to the public, but require that DieBold's machines/code pass independent security checks by people like the folks at Princeton or they don't get used.
That is if you believe electronic voting is a good idea at all...
Intelligent Design is wrong for so many reasons, why do so many comment on it while not understanding it?
"As such, it will be a blow to proponents of intelligent design, who claim that the many gaps in the fossil record show evidence of some higher power."
It's like saying evolution isn't true because my dad isn't a monkey.
And we're supposed to be the intellectuals...
This might not help with all of your complaints, but have you thought of taking the longest vacation that you can get away with? You get a nice break and when you get back everything will be so f$#%ed up you'll be the god the big bosses worship.
I like this argument, but usually in such cases the government pays what they say is a reasonable price for the property taken. I don't see the Taiwanese government offering to pay a "reasonable" price. Why not meet in the middle and instead of bypassing patents altogether, produce them on the cheap and pay the patent holder something reasonable.
That seems to bypass the argument that it's necessary because the drug companies price gouge.
The semantic web is impractical for a variety of reasons, most importantly it requires a bunch of people to know a new protocol. Much more practical is to leverage the similarity in the structure of websites like Wikipedia to automatically generate the semantic tags. As an example, it's really easy to scrap off the birthdays of people from the vast majority of wikipedia articles about people.
As long as the baseline for AdSense is around 4-5 cents a click and the annomolies are 35 cents then I don't care. 4-5 cents is already higher than I'd get from anywhere else considering I'm a little nobody and those 35 cent clicks now and again make me feel happy.
Go Google!
How easy do you think this would be to do? Answer - very hard.
An email you'd have to parse correctly for this to work (and it's not clear it would then either):
Hey Jim-Bob,
I really like AOL, it rocks. I'd put all my money in AOL had I not lost it during the bankruptcy. I heard about this new product that going to give free wireless to everyone, that's going to revolutionize the market...or waste a lot of money.
TTYL
Bob-Jim
Unfortunately, we're just not there yet. Maybe if someone with inside information was talking about it and they could somehow find that person and have an actual person read through the email they could have a chance. But no company that has such information should be using gmail as their primary email service, they shouldn't be talking about it anyway, and it would be against the law.
In summary: If Google can create something that "understands" messages well enough to parse out stock tips from morons using convoluted language then more power to them. Until then, I'll keep building my giant magnet that will finally rid the world of all the foil hat wearing crazies.
Uh, yeah...it's morally wrong to claim credit for someone else's work, if that is indeed what happened. Not to mention that scientists need to get funded and get papers published so they can have the resources to continue their work, and both are harder if you just discover something again.
It's true that an individual will be better off for the short term, but eventually NLP will catch up and it won't matter so much anymore. Certainly, we'll still teach it in school, but only because other things build off of it. The fundamentals never go out of style, their emphasis is only marginalized in the classroom relative to all of the new stuff in order to teach more advanced topics.
For example, I know how to do division longhand, but I'm not good at it. I don't know how to compute square roots looking at tables and what not - I could learn but why? Eventually aspects of language such as grammar will be the same.
Don't consider the complex proper English grammar something necessary because the problem is too hard, consider it an annoyance until someone solves it and allows us to write what makes sense to us and still get our points across.
People with a need to communicate will keep languages conforming to a de facto standard.
But you're right, maybe we should be careful, because - *gasp* - what if there were multiple languages! That would be HORRIBLE!
Languages are disappearing. Because people are increasingly coming into contact with people from a wider variety of places, and it's not because someone sat down and standardized something. It's out of necessity, and it's like IM clients. No one wants to speak Googleese if all their friends and business partners are chattin' in AOLish.
Do you not understand someone when they say "nukular" instead of the preferred pronunciation?
Language is not a fixed protocol, there is no standardization that means anything in the real world, all that matters is that you can get your point across. I "fixed" my pronunciation because there are a few too many ignorant people out there that still believe how you pronounce a few key words indicates your intelligence. How many actors out there hide their Southern accent? Perhaps more pertinent to this discussion board, how many of those in academia hide their Southern accents?
I don't villify ebonics, in fact, my realization a few years back that I was guilty of saying "nukular" made me understand it all the better. And, I'm a bit skeptical of anyone that blanketly labels any group of people anything.
There's a slippery slope between incorrect and accent, just like there's a slippery slope between words and non-words. If enough people say something, it becomes correct. Language is an evolving mess, spoken language doubly so, trying to say some significant portion of the people speaking a language are wrong is a losing battle. You can cite whatever linguists you want, there are certainly those that disagree, and 50 years from now they'll be even more. Eventually they'll be two pronunciations in the dictionary - so, you're wrong now, but call me in a few years and I'll point you to the reference that proves it.
Did you get modded up so fast because no one understood what you meant?
Maybe I grew up very sheltered, but it didn't occur to me that I was even saying it incorrectly until I moved East. You missed the point saying where you currently live. It depends very much on what your exposed to, just like any other peculiarity to one's speech.
What makes "nukular" different than other pronunciations characteristic to a particular region? I've heard a lot by now - everywhere has something they say oddly.
You're making fun of someone's accent, not their intelligence. I grew up in a rural part of the Midwest. Everyone around me said "nukular" and so I did as well, not thinking a thing about it until some jack@ss decided to make fun of me. I'm pretty smart, went to an Ivy League school and on the verge of getting my PhD.
Don't make fun of people because of where they're from - it's not nice.
Slashdot Mirror
Cases like this are good for the Internet because they have the opportunity to officially set the rules so little guys don't have to be worried about being sued. And, sure, some idiot court could say that her rights were violated, but I'd suspect at that point some group of companies with a combined trillions of dollars will enter the case and it would be overturned.
It would be great if robots.txt somehow got the force of law. A lot of stupid lawsuits would go away.
Google needs to consider script if they want high-quality results. Besides the obvious fact that they'll miss content supplied by dynamic page elements, they could also sacrifice page quality. Page-rank and the like will get them very far, but an easy way to spam the search engines would be to have pages on a whole host of topics that immediately get rewritten as ads for Viagra as soon as they're downloaded by a Javascript-aware browser. It's interesting to know the extent to which they correct for this.
Of course, there are much more subtle ways of changing content once it's been put out there. One might imagine a script that waits 10 seconds and then removes all relevant content and displays Viagra instead. Who knew web search would be restricted by the halting problem? I wonder how far Google goes...
"The most common example is that Joe buys a new car for personal use and pays the FairTax on it. If Joe then sells his car to Bill, there would be no tax on it because the tax had already been paid. Let's look at another example. Assume that Joe owns a flower shop business and buys a van to use when making deliveries to his customers. No tax is charged on purchases for business purposes so that the FairTax on goods sold to consumers does not double tax, or put a tax on a tax.
If Joe decides to sell the van to his friend Bill (who is not in business) for use as his personal vehicle, then it would be a taxable sale to Bill. Why? Because Joe did not pay tax when he bought the van for his flower shop. Since no FairTax has been previously paid on that van; it is not considered used and the sale to Bill would be taxable.
If later, Bill decided he did not like driving a van and sold it to someone else, it would not be a taxable sale. Why? Because the tax had been previously paid (when Bill bought it from Joe) making the item "used" and not subject to tax."
Just because someone else does it, doesn't make it right.
I would expect Google to seek out the country where they would pay the highest taxes and funnel all of their money there. Governments know better how to manage our money than we do.
Scratch that. Just funnel it all to the U.S. because the U.S. knows better than the rest of the world how to handle the world's money.
Darn it! I got beat!
Mine's way cooler though: http://youtube.com/watch?v=o1LybpnekIo
Fine, it's actually exactly the same. You'd think I'd have something better to do, but no.
None of your analogies hold up.
HPV is different than Polio and it's different than small pox. HPV is rarely deadly for women that have regular checkups. In fact, the majority of women (and probably men if they could be tested more easily) have HPV. It is rare for someone that gets checkups to die, and its actually rare for the disease not to go away on its own. That's why it's much more of a choice in this situation. Polio and small pox either killed or left their victims severely disfigured - HPV is not as cruel...to everyone. All vaccinations include some inherent risk and this one mainly affects those who will not be going to the doctor to get a Pap smear regularly. A perfectly reasonable option is to let people decide for themselves. Unfortunately, like I said, it's unclear who would decide if a young person wants it, because no one is in a really good position to do so. The only thing that I think is clear is that the vaccination should be made free to anyone that wants it.
It seems as though the real issue here is personal choice. The problem is that neither the state, nor parents, nor the person being vaccinated is the proper person to ask for their choice. The person that should be asked their choice is the person that is to be vaccinated, but 10 years in the future.
People fluent in sign language are perfectly capable of signing with one hand. They even do so while driving believe it or not.
Wikipedia search really isn't that good.
Google search does it better. Of course, a simple addon that let me easily search X site:wikipedia.org would be useful, and probably already exists.
The software is available before the election. Someone has to write it and someone has to put it on all those voting machines which then have to be sent out to all those polling stations.
Most people will cite the important security principle that security through obscurity is no security at all because someone must always have access. There's always at least an inside person that will no what's going on and people are fallible.
I come down somewhere in between. Obscurity is good - getting past the human element provides one more hurdle a potential enemy would have to get past. It's not good by itself though because you wouldn't want that to be your only barier and it's not good if it means that fewer people will review the code for potential errors
I say, don't release it to the public, but require that DieBold's machines/code pass independent security checks by people like the folks at Princeton or they don't get used.
That is if you believe electronic voting is a good idea at all...
The music industry tried something similar with CDs...why do they think this will be different? http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/papers/drm20 02.pdf
Many oddities exist in Windows that are arguably the fault of Redmond, why bring up something that seems to be Adobe's fault?
Intelligent Design is wrong for so many reasons, why do so many comment on it while not understanding it?
It's like saying evolution isn't true because my dad isn't a monkey.
And we're supposed to be the intellectuals...
Intelligent Design
This might not help with all of your complaints, but have you thought of taking the longest vacation that you can get away with? You get a nice break and when you get back everything will be so f$#%ed up you'll be the god the big bosses worship.
Well...ideally...
I like this argument, but usually in such cases the government pays what they say is a reasonable price for the property taken. I don't see the Taiwanese government offering to pay a "reasonable" price. Why not meet in the middle and instead of bypassing patents altogether, produce them on the cheap and pay the patent holder something reasonable. That seems to bypass the argument that it's necessary because the drug companies price gouge.
The semantic web is impractical for a variety of reasons, most importantly it requires a bunch of people to know a new protocol. Much more practical is to leverage the similarity in the structure of websites like Wikipedia to automatically generate the semantic tags. As an example, it's really easy to scrap off the birthdays of people from the vast majority of wikipedia articles about people.
As long as the baseline for AdSense is around 4-5 cents a click and the annomolies are 35 cents then I don't care. 4-5 cents is already higher than I'd get from anywhere else considering I'm a little nobody and those 35 cent clicks now and again make me feel happy.
Go Google!
How easy do you think this would be to do? Answer - very hard.
An email you'd have to parse correctly for this to work (and it's not clear it would then either):
Hey Jim-Bob,
I really like AOL, it rocks. I'd put all my money in AOL had I not lost it during the bankruptcy. I heard about this new product that going to give free wireless to everyone, that's going to revolutionize the market...or waste a lot of money.
TTYL
Bob-Jim
Unfortunately, we're just not there yet. Maybe if someone with inside information was talking about it and they could somehow find that person and have an actual person read through the email they could have a chance. But no company that has such information should be using gmail as their primary email service, they shouldn't be talking about it anyway, and it would be against the law.
In summary: If Google can create something that "understands" messages well enough to parse out stock tips from morons using convoluted language then more power to them. Until then, I'll keep building my giant magnet that will finally rid the world of all the foil hat wearing crazies.
Uh, yeah...it's morally wrong to claim credit for someone else's work, if that is indeed what happened. Not to mention that scientists need to get funded and get papers published so they can have the resources to continue their work, and both are harder if you just discover something again.
It's true that an individual will be better off for the short term, but eventually NLP will catch up and it won't matter so much anymore. Certainly, we'll still teach it in school, but only because other things build off of it. The fundamentals never go out of style, their emphasis is only marginalized in the classroom relative to all of the new stuff in order to teach more advanced topics.
For example, I know how to do division longhand, but I'm not good at it. I don't know how to compute square roots looking at tables and what not - I could learn but why? Eventually aspects of language such as grammar will be the same.
Don't consider the complex proper English grammar something necessary because the problem is too hard, consider it an annoyance until someone solves it and allows us to write what makes sense to us and still get our points across.
People with a need to communicate will keep languages conforming to a de facto standard.
But you're right, maybe we should be careful, because - *gasp* - what if there were multiple languages! That would be HORRIBLE!
Languages are disappearing. Because people are increasingly coming into contact with people from a wider variety of places, and it's not because someone sat down and standardized something. It's out of necessity, and it's like IM clients. No one wants to speak Googleese if all their friends and business partners are chattin' in AOLish.
Do you not understand someone when they say "nukular" instead of the preferred pronunciation?
Language is not a fixed protocol, there is no standardization that means anything in the real world, all that matters is that you can get your point across. I "fixed" my pronunciation because there are a few too many ignorant people out there that still believe how you pronounce a few key words indicates your intelligence. How many actors out there hide their Southern accent? Perhaps more pertinent to this discussion board, how many of those in academia hide their Southern accents?
I don't villify ebonics, in fact, my realization a few years back that I was guilty of saying "nukular" made me understand it all the better. And, I'm a bit skeptical of anyone that blanketly labels any group of people anything.
There's a slippery slope between incorrect and accent, just like there's a slippery slope between words and non-words. If enough people say something, it becomes correct. Language is an evolving mess, spoken language doubly so, trying to say some significant portion of the people speaking a language are wrong is a losing battle. You can cite whatever linguists you want, there are certainly those that disagree, and 50 years from now they'll be even more. Eventually they'll be two pronunciations in the dictionary - so, you're wrong now, but call me in a few years and I'll point you to the reference that proves it.
Did you get modded up so fast because no one understood what you meant? Maybe I grew up very sheltered, but it didn't occur to me that I was even saying it incorrectly until I moved East. You missed the point saying where you currently live. It depends very much on what your exposed to, just like any other peculiarity to one's speech. What makes "nukular" different than other pronunciations characteristic to a particular region? I've heard a lot by now - everywhere has something they say oddly.
You're making fun of someone's accent, not their intelligence. I grew up in a rural part of the Midwest. Everyone around me said "nukular" and so I did as well, not thinking a thing about it until some jack@ss decided to make fun of me. I'm pretty smart, went to an Ivy League school and on the verge of getting my PhD.
Don't make fun of people because of where they're from - it's not nice.