So, what you're saying is that if we gather all that information, then we CAN make a perfect model of planetary motion. Not saying what you say is false, you just have a weak argument for the case.
It is your argument that is weak. You can never gather all the necessary information unless the universe is finite, which it's not. Besides, the original poster did not imply that anything could be determined exactly, only that you can continually increase the significant digits of your estimate.
So what you're saying is that in basic training they should have shot him in the leg, captured him, beat him, and then leave him in a freezing cell with no food for a week? Or perhaps they should have formed two opposing teams and used live ammo? (You can't use paintguns because that would be fun and not war-like.) Or would you prefer the military teach 18 year old recruits a thousand ways to kill a person? Now seriously, answer this question without dancing around it, how would you expand their basic training to be more realistic?
No kidding. I'm personally quite disappointed with state of the art speech to text, computer vision, etc... Much of it has gone largely unchanged for years, optimizations here and there is about it.
I think at some point we went down a path which will never lead to the solutions we expected to have by this time. And the reason we can't get off the current path is because of the way the tech culture is, you always have to publish an extension to previous work with copious references.
And its not even the big stuff, look at spell checkers and grammar checkers. Are there any that can tell correctly spelled but misused words? Affect/effect? There/their? How about something easy like made and maid?
First of all unless your camera has active cooling I doubt there is a lot of information in the last 2 bits - Your camera may be capturing 12 bits but the usables one would be the first 9 or 10. Most camera's 8th bit is not that useful either. The rest is lost in noise of various origins.
Actually the noise present in the lower bits is more dependent on the physical size of the chip. Smaller cells require fewer photons so the shutter time can be shorter, giving less time for thermal noise etc to creep in. I'm not sure what the number of significant bits is for current tech, but I guarantee you that your statement will eventually be false if not already false.
Please do not misuse the word "engineering". You would not call a carpenter an architect, nor would you call a mechanic a mechanical engineer, and certainly you wouldn't call an electrician an electrical engineer. If you read "Learn surgery in 21 days", would you call yourself a doctor?
To be called an "engineer" you must graduate from a school authorized to bestow the particular engineering degree.
Also, a computer science degree does not make one an engineer. This statement is not meant to belittle the degree, it is merely a fact.
Now, we all know what happens with lossy compression...
I understood that to mean perceptually lossy, and not just technically lossy.
I think the parent poster makes a good point. What you need to realize is that speech research like this has been ongoing for like 50 years. It is my opinion that if we were going down the right track we would be further along then we are now. It is always a good idea to step back (sometimes way the hell back) and see if there are any other ways to attack a problem. Even examining methods that have failed miserably can be quite useful if you bother to figure out exactly why they failed so badly.
Personally I think the way the speech problem itself is formulated is flawed. Think of it this way, you hire a secretary that does not speak English. So instead you read to her from a book for a couple hours until she has figured out how to map your utterances to the words in the book. Later you ask her to read stuff back to you. Can you see how much much more difficult the problem is? If the secretary had knowledge of the language, then the problem would not be so difficult. But the current methodology is typical engineering style, break the problem down into small chunks, solve small chunks, assemble small chunks to form much larger chunk, voila! Problem solved.
Well, saying "wood" is misleading, it's like saying "metal". Teak was used to build ships because it doesn't rot and bugs don't eat it. And if you want a solid house, build it out of that wood that grows in Africa, primarily used for musical instruments. (iron wood?)
Perhaps you should review the definition of the word "inert". The word inert has nothing to do with bacteria or other types of life, it is a chemistry term.
It is not nitpicking, it is a grossly wrong comparison. For a normal person, bubble-boy syndrome is like smallpox everywhere. For allergic reactions it is more like cayenne pepper in the face (less an overreaction by the body). Maybe a severe allergy to bee stings or oysters is easier to grasp.
So if I understand you correctly, instead of having one program that manages all application installtions, you would rather rely on the people who wrote the application to not fuck your system?
The store security has to actually witness the theft. If the item in question is your Sisley panties, then I imagine a huge out of court settlement will curb future behaviour.
I think the solution is simple, you use the spammers method of operation against them. You first have all your good email accounts, to which you add several spam addresses. Upon receiving all email from all addresses, you look for messages that are (roughly) duplicates and treat them as spam. Why does this work? Because spammers are indiscriminate, chances are highly likely you'll get the same spam mail at multiple addresses.
This has the bonus that "broken" systems which fail to unsubscribe you can be taken care of by simply subscribing with one of your spam addresses.
This way desired mass mailings would never be considered spam. No bayesian filter can do that.
I know that there are groups attempting to start collections of spams for a similar purpose but they have drawbacks. First one man's spam may not be spam to others. Also, this system would increase the costs to the spammers simply by increasing the number of email addresses. You could even have software to pull the links and such in the spams to flood the spammers with false hits.
Once again, you only selectively answered, skipping your unsupportable assertions I guess.
Do you have any idea how many companies out there would have loved to be able to post a $20M profit? I'm sure that the people who work at rambus, paying themselves crap loads of money, are quivering in fear. Just look at all the serious legal trouble that Microsoft is in and what it's gotten them, profit profit profit. But oh yeah, you don't believe that the charges against MS are valid.
The entire purpose of patents is to prevent competition. I do not disagree with that. That's the whole idea.
Uh no. That is completely wrong. The purpose of patents is that once one comes up with an invention, that you have time to go to market with your patented invention and make money. Not to just prevent competition. If there is no intention of taking the patented invention to market then it is against the spirit of the patent system. Do you understand that? The purpose of patents is to provide for a method to financially reward inventors for their inventions. Not solely to prevent competition.
Also I have no idea what MS has patented w.r.t a task bar. So how exactly am I supposed to know that I don't infringe on their patent?
If you think I am coming "out of the wood work and you have nothing to say, and nothing but anger against me on your side" then you are mistaken. I merely point out false statements whenever I see them, you just happen to make a lot of them.
If the DVD is an old crappy movie with ads for new movies, why even mention it? The very reason the dupes appear so close together is also the reason why they are missed, time is short, things can easily happen simultaneously. The only fix I could see is for there to be one person whose sole job is to give final approval to stories.
I have thought about doing my own summaries of stories that I like and am qualified to judge. I'm sure that many more useful comments could be elicited from the knowledgeable readers if they didn't have to read through hundred's of useless comments. That is, to me, one of the biggest shortcommings of/., the inability to continue discussions past a few days.
And your (good) idea of an annual review would necessarily need to be much more encompassing then just/.. That's one of the problems of tech, it's too arcane for the vast majority, much of the subtleties are lost quite quickly. There definitely needs to be more tech historians so that we would have something to show the next group that wants to design yet another programming language.
You're right, when they posted the reviews these criticisms did not exist. In fact no criticisms existed because many of the "professional" sites did not even have the book. Yes, they posted glowing reviews before the books was even available to reviewers. That is completely disgusting.
Alter history? That's quite a strange way to look at it. You would rather they retain items unchanged rather than put a notice at the top of the page altering their readers of the flaws?
Look at volokh, many of the so called impartial and professional sites did NOT publish anything about the criticisms, and to date are still undecided about what to do.
Ah, selective quoting now? Here's what I said, in full, unedited:
The only positive thing about patents are that in maybe twenty years all the bullshit will have their patents expire and life can resume normally once again. It's just fucking sad that civilization will have this crutch for the next two decades.
Note the specific use of "all the bullshit", which refers to the bogus patents in the system. But I guess you want to interpret that in whatever way bolsters your argument.
And I do think it is fucking sad that you can't put up an online store which only requires "one click" to buy something without licensing a frivolous patent, or that implementing a taskbar could infringe on a patent, or the vast world of mathematical patents which are inevitable (think gif). The world of math does not benefit from patent protection. They should like most things require an actual application. Look at the world of gene patents, "we have no fucking clue what it does, but we found it first!"
Even your darling Bill Gates stated that software patents are only useful to prevent competition.
Also, your link is quite useless, I want proof, not claims of proof.
Patents were meant to allow the possessor the ability to market an invention and make money without fear of clones.
Yes, and it does that well.
Prove it. You didn't just make that statement up all on your own did you? I would love to see the number of patent owners that have profited directly* from a patent versus the total pool.
*Directly means that MS patents to prevent competition do not qualify.
Patent squatting is also not rare and in fact seems to be quite profitable.
I would very much like to see the source of your information, "Last year over 4000 patents were ruled invalid."
Extraordinary claims require proof.
Also I am not angry about acquiring patents through whatever means. If I am angry about anything it is a corruption of the patent system. Patents were meant to allow the possessor the ability to market an invention and make money without fear of clones. The current practice seems to be patent squatting where one obtains patents, waits for others to infringe, then sues. Rambus comes to mind with the way they participated in a standards body while secretely wielding patents whose sole purpose was to extract profit from the survivors of going through the risk of developing and selling a product.
And once again, get your head straight, nowhere have I ever said that the patent system should be abolished so take your "word tossing" elsewhere.
In all things there are tradeoffs. The professionalism, the polish that you are referring to, comes at the expense of time. A magazine with a DVD typically has a several month lead time. If that is what you want, then I'll contract with CmdrTaco to take all of the posted stories, fix the grammar, remove dupes, and republish the site to people like you (several months late of course).
As for so called professional sites (CNN et al), they do make mistakes. They rarely admit it, and when they do they put it in a tiny box months later. As an example, some of your so called professional sites still have raving reviews up of Belliesles anti-gun book Arming America, which has been firmly debunked as a work of fraud. Still think they are professional? If so, what then is your definition, the appearance of professionalism?
Although I do concede, a perl script with a spell checker that rejects story posts would be a good thing.
I (ab)use the friends system to flag people who I have judged to actually have intelligent/knowledgeable/logical posts. Unfortunately some of the moderators will mod up posts even though they do not have an appropriate background of the subject matter. Thus for posts in my field of study I actually have to scrutinize the post myself. For posts out of my field, I am unfortunately unable to judge "friend"'s at all.
As for scrapers, why not make it a page purely for the purpose of judging friend or foe? That way you could easily restrict viewing it to accounts that are logged in. Anonymous viewers could still go through the current system.
Your analysis of the moderation system is interesting, but I think the premise that there is full knowledge of the current score is flawed. I think for there to be any significance to the actual levels -1 to 5, the moderators would need to moderate based on those levels. For example, instead of adding a point, a moderator should have a sliding bar and say, I think this post is a 3. Then the resultant score of the post would be an average of all moderations. This way if 10 moderators mod a post simultaneously, it doesn't soar instantly to +5.
Come to think of it, this shoulds suspiciously like a judging event or a grading session with multiple judges. They all grade independently, then you average the scores.
(1) Not being able to post a comment when you think of it would be pretty obnoxious, I couldn't imagine having to wait 20 minutes to post. But having your post tossed if a story is pulled would be obnoxious too. Perhaps you could have a system setup that would either email the post to the user stating the story was pulled, or have it kicked into a journal-like section of the user's page.
That brings me to another thought, often when evaluating whether a poster is a troll or not, you have to click many previous posts to see what they've been posting. I think it would be more efficient for everyone if/. generated a page with the full content of all the posts, one after the other, like the journal posts page.
I think it is a necessity to allow them to post right away. Think of it this way, you read the story and want to post something wonderful.... but you have to wait another 19 minutes. What do you do with your comment in the meantime?
Slashdot Mirror
So what you're saying is that in basic training they should have shot him in the leg, captured him, beat him, and then leave him in a freezing cell with no food for a week? Or perhaps they should have formed two opposing teams and used live ammo? (You can't use paintguns because that would be fun and not war-like.) Or would you prefer the military teach 18 year old recruits a thousand ways to kill a person? Now seriously, answer this question without dancing around it, how would you expand their basic training to be more realistic?
I think at some point we went down a path which will never lead to the solutions we expected to have by this time. And the reason we can't get off the current path is because of the way the tech culture is, you always have to publish an extension to previous work with copious references.
And its not even the big stuff, look at spell checkers and grammar checkers. Are there any that can tell correctly spelled but misused words? Affect/effect? There/their? How about something easy like made and maid?
To be called an "engineer" you must graduate from a school authorized to bestow the particular engineering degree.
Also, a computer science degree does not make one an engineer. This statement is not meant to belittle the degree, it is merely a fact.
I think the parent poster makes a good point. What you need to realize is that speech research like this has been ongoing for like 50 years. It is my opinion that if we were going down the right track we would be further along then we are now. It is always a good idea to step back (sometimes way the hell back) and see if there are any other ways to attack a problem. Even examining methods that have failed miserably can be quite useful if you bother to figure out exactly why they failed so badly.
Personally I think the way the speech problem itself is formulated is flawed. Think of it this way, you hire a secretary that does not speak English. So instead you read to her from a book for a couple hours until she has figured out how to map your utterances to the words in the book. Later you ask her to read stuff back to you. Can you see how much much more difficult the problem is? If the secretary had knowledge of the language, then the problem would not be so difficult. But the current methodology is typical engineering style, break the problem down into small chunks, solve small chunks, assemble small chunks to form much larger chunk, voila! Problem solved.
Well, saying "wood" is misleading, it's like saying "metal". Teak was used to build ships because it doesn't rot and bugs don't eat it. And if you want a solid house, build it out of that wood that grows in Africa, primarily used for musical instruments. (iron wood?)
Death is inevitable, why don't you go kill yourself?
Damn hypocrite.
Perhaps you should review the definition of the word "inert". The word inert has nothing to do with bacteria or other types of life, it is a chemistry term.
And if you really wanted an indestructable house you would make it out of iron wood and teak. Good luck on those.
PS: The bogeyman is even scarier.
It is not nitpicking, it is a grossly wrong comparison. For a normal person, bubble-boy syndrome is like smallpox everywhere. For allergic reactions it is more like cayenne pepper in the face (less an overreaction by the body). Maybe a severe allergy to bee stings or oysters is easier to grasp.
So if I understand you correctly, instead of having one program that manages all application installtions, you would rather rely on the people who wrote the application to not fuck your system?
The store security has to actually witness the theft. If the item in question is your Sisley panties, then I imagine a huge out of court settlement will curb future behaviour.
This has the bonus that "broken" systems which fail to unsubscribe you can be taken care of by simply subscribing with one of your spam addresses.
This way desired mass mailings would never be considered spam. No bayesian filter can do that.
I know that there are groups attempting to start collections of spams for a similar purpose but they have drawbacks. First one man's spam may not be spam to others. Also, this system would increase the costs to the spammers simply by increasing the number of email addresses. You could even have software to pull the links and such in the spams to flood the spammers with false hits.
Do you have any idea how many companies out there would have loved to be able to post a $20M profit? I'm sure that the people who work at rambus, paying themselves crap loads of money, are quivering in fear. Just look at all the serious legal trouble that Microsoft is in and what it's gotten them, profit profit profit. But oh yeah, you don't believe that the charges against MS are valid.
Uh no. That is completely wrong. The purpose of patents is that once one comes up with an invention, that you have time to go to market with your patented invention and make money. Not to just prevent competition. If there is no intention of taking the patented invention to market then it is against the spirit of the patent system. Do you understand that? The purpose of patents is to provide for a method to financially reward inventors for their inventions. Not solely to prevent competition.Also I have no idea what MS has patented w.r.t a task bar. So how exactly am I supposed to know that I don't infringe on their patent?
If you think I am coming "out of the wood work and you have nothing to say, and nothing but anger against me on your side" then you are mistaken. I merely point out false statements whenever I see them, you just happen to make a lot of them.
I have thought about doing my own summaries of stories that I like and am qualified to judge. I'm sure that many more useful comments could be elicited from the knowledgeable readers if they didn't have to read through hundred's of useless comments. That is, to me, one of the biggest shortcommings of /., the inability to continue discussions past a few days.
And your (good) idea of an annual review would necessarily need to be much more encompassing then just /.. That's one of the problems of tech, it's too arcane for the vast majority, much of the subtleties are lost quite quickly. There definitely needs to be more tech historians so that we would have something to show the next group that wants to design yet another programming language.
As for the book, see my other comment.
Alter history? That's quite a strange way to look at it. You would rather they retain items unchanged rather than put a notice at the top of the page altering their readers of the flaws?
Look at volokh, many of the so called impartial and professional sites did NOT publish anything about the criticisms, and to date are still undecided about what to do.
And I do think it is fucking sad that you can't put up an online store which only requires "one click" to buy something without licensing a frivolous patent, or that implementing a taskbar could infringe on a patent, or the vast world of mathematical patents which are inevitable (think gif). The world of math does not benefit from patent protection. They should like most things require an actual application. Look at the world of gene patents, "we have no fucking clue what it does, but we found it first!"
Even your darling Bill Gates stated that software patents are only useful to prevent competition.
Also, your link is quite useless, I want proof, not claims of proof.
Prove it. You didn't just make that statement up all on your own did you? I would love to see the number of patent owners that have profited directly* from a patent versus the total pool.*Directly means that MS patents to prevent competition do not qualify.
Patent squatting is also not rare and in fact seems to be quite profitable.
Also I am not angry about acquiring patents through whatever means. If I am angry about anything it is a corruption of the patent system. Patents were meant to allow the possessor the ability to market an invention and make money without fear of clones. The current practice seems to be patent squatting where one obtains patents, waits for others to infringe, then sues. Rambus comes to mind with the way they participated in a standards body while secretely wielding patents whose sole purpose was to extract profit from the survivors of going through the risk of developing and selling a product.
And once again, get your head straight, nowhere have I ever said that the patent system should be abolished so take your "word tossing" elsewhere.
As for so called professional sites (CNN et al), they do make mistakes. They rarely admit it, and when they do they put it in a tiny box months later. As an example, some of your so called professional sites still have raving reviews up of Belliesles anti-gun book Arming America, which has been firmly debunked as a work of fraud. Still think they are professional? If so, what then is your definition, the appearance of professionalism?
Although I do concede, a perl script with a spell checker that rejects story posts would be a good thing.
I (ab)use the friends system to flag people who I have judged to actually have intelligent/knowledgeable/logical posts. Unfortunately some of the moderators will mod up posts even though they do not have an appropriate background of the subject matter. Thus for posts in my field of study I actually have to scrutinize the post myself. For posts out of my field, I am unfortunately unable to judge "friend"'s at all.
As for scrapers, why not make it a page purely for the purpose of judging friend or foe? That way you could easily restrict viewing it to accounts that are logged in. Anonymous viewers could still go through the current system.
Come to think of it, this shoulds suspiciously like a judging event or a grading session with multiple judges. They all grade independently, then you average the scores.
That brings me to another thought, often when evaluating whether a poster is a troll or not, you have to click many previous posts to see what they've been posting. I think it would be more efficient for everyone if /. generated a page with the full content of all the posts, one after the other, like the journal posts page.
Read the FAQ. Mirroring sites has never been a bandwidth or technical problem.
I think it is a necessity to allow them to post right away. Think of it this way, you read the story and want to post something wonderful.... but you have to wait another 19 minutes. What do you do with your comment in the meantime?