So cops come to your house in response to a call and film it, for whatever reason. Turns out you didn't do anything but someone said it was a domestic abuse case. You want that film if you answering the door at 2am public? Even though you didn't do anything wrong? Isn't that an invasion of privacy?
I agree the police side should delete the film, if it was kept, but making it public... not so much.
after the technology no longer serves a majority of their users.
Like an ethernet port?
It seems more likely that Apple drops things that they think shouldn't serve a majority of their users? Is that good or bad? I don't know. But it seems Apple wants to decide what SHOULD be there, not what is there and the majority of their users use.
Seriously, you think all that non-replaceable-battery thing was because they decided that replacing batteries no longer served the majority of their users?
Plus... sometimes, the questions are phrased in ways that make it really difficult to parse. Sometimes they use humor, satire, sarcasm, etc. For example, some of these questions wouldn't be so trivial, I don't think, in a simple information Google-esque ranking search.:)
Most of the questions were of that variety, where a simple Google search would easily find the answer.
But that means that the human doing the google search is parsing both the question (to figure out what key words will work best as a search) and parsing the results (to figure out what looks like the actual answer). It's not a simple 1 to 1 "put the question in and the first google result is the right answer." It could be that the first google result matches the question but doesn't even contain the answer...
So, the certainty thing is important; Watson is parsing both the question and the presumed answers and determining how certain it was that it was the actual answer. That language parsing, to me, is a lot more important than the speed at doing searches through vast amounts of information. Anyone can have a computer search vast amounts of information, that's an old problem;) But parsing language isn't often done very well by machines/algorithms, even though humans do it quite well and efficiently.
It didn't just "look up answers." It first had to parse the question (okay, okay, so in this case it'd be "parsing the answer" and "giving the question":P ). That's a bigger deal than a human using Google; the human can parse a language and figure out how to look up the answer. Watson, though, had to be programmed to parse the language and figure out *how* to look up the answer. I think that was the big part of this. It's easy enough for a machine to look up an answer in vast amounts of information given that a human converts language into something the machine can look up for the human. But programming the machine to understand, in some way, language and be able to eliminate the human step is bigger.
It's not just doing a Google search as someone else on this article commented... you cannot put "On Sept. 1, 1715 Louis XIV died in this city, site of a fabulous palace he built." into Google and get an actual answer; you'll have to sift through a lot of results to find something that looks like it will give the name of the city... so, even in finding the trivia answer, the human is the one doing the parsing and finding the actual city. In Watson's case, the machine had to parse both the trivia question and the information given in the matches to attempt to find the right answer, and not just something with a lot of hit results, which may not be the actual answer...
At least, that's my understanding. I can't imagine all that processing power is being used just for parallel Google-esque ranked searches. I know they have to do a lot of language parsing. We're good at that; machines aren't.:)
What? I'm even okay with saying that you think observational science has given another method (evolution, not creation)... but saying that creation has been proven wrong by observational science? The only thing I can think of is that you're referring to earth age, not origins.
If you actually are saying that observational science has proven that God does not exist and God did not have a hand, in any way, in origins (i.e., no "creation" at all) and that the Big Bang has been proven as being indisputable fact... then I'd be interested to see that proof. Proof, not a balance of "well, it makes more sense..." or "the evidence seems to point..." but actual proof, since you have stated that you know...
There is some merit in repetition (homework). I can learn something for a test and forget it afterwards. Doing it many times over in homework tends to make it stick longer.
Of course, not all homework is merited in that way... but some is.
Volunteers called "Beta Testers." Wow. I wonder if this will catch on with other development groups? Sounds like a pretty neat idea. I'm surprised no one else has done that...
Most universities have more than 1000 students. Let's assume they have 10,000 students. Now we are at 1gbps or 10x100mbps. I'm having a hard time figuring out, even assuming that 50% were using it all at once (so 1mbps per 5 students), how they need that for educational purposes. Plus, assuming that 50% of the student body all suddenly download a *ahem* textbook at the same time? Hum. And, seriously... because of online courses or online books, that's why it needs that sort of broadband? That's kinda ridiculous.
I understand wanting it for certain sections of the school, perhaps - like the CS department (downloading Linux, or Microsoft stuff through MSDN, etc.) or multimedia department (video is pretty big.:) ). But that has little to do with online textbooks or online collaboration tools...
Uh... so basically, you're willing to think the universe always existed because that makes sense; however, it's nonsensical to assume that there is a God that has always existed, because He would have needed to be created?...
Exclude the Jews from Salvation? What? Neither Romans, Hebrews, nor Paul's epistles back this up. I realize, of course, that the Roman church, for quite a while, held that Jews were pretty much abandoned. This was very bad, but not very scriptural.
So, realizing that your competitors aren't going to lower their prices == collusion? Somehow, that doesn't seem fair to me. If it's purposeful, where they actually get together to do it... fine, that's price fixing. But if everyone is just happy with the current price and realizes they don't have anything to gain by cutting the price down below their competitor's... I don't see how that's illegal.
How is it self-serving? Keeping your employees from using non-internal storage services for confidential data... I guess that's self-serving in the "protect your assets/intellectual property" way, but forbidding your employees from using external companies for storage of confidential data is hardly self-serving. It's right up there with making your employees password and/or encrypt their work laptops...:)
They got to a safe mode command prompt. They should be able to (maybe?) run msconfig from the command prompt and re-enable everything. This would, admittedly, look pretty funny, after having just disabled it due to "malware."
Not only is this three times as much as the previous record, but also, it uses only one sixth of the hardware resources, according to a blog post about the test from Microsoft.
The important part is not that this is a new approach, but that they beat the previous record using less hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought you were joking or exaggerating. but I guess not. yikes.
I believe you would lose your penny. link one, link two
What?
So cops come to your house in response to a call and film it, for whatever reason. Turns out you didn't do anything but someone said it was a domestic abuse case. You want that film if you answering the door at 2am public? Even though you didn't do anything wrong? Isn't that an invasion of privacy?
I agree the police side should delete the film, if it was kept, but making it public ... not so much.
after the technology no longer serves a majority of their users.
Like an ethernet port?
It seems more likely that Apple drops things that they think shouldn't serve a majority of their users? Is that good or bad? I don't know. But it seems Apple wants to decide what SHOULD be there, not what is there and the majority of their users use.
Seriously, you think all that non-replaceable-battery thing was because they decided that replacing batteries no longer served the majority of their users?
Er, what? Your color blind friend can't see color (in nature?) but can see it on an iPad 3?
Ahhh, I see my error in thinking ... the first regex section after the @ sign's "+" threw me, I was reading it wrong. Obviously. :)
Plus ... sometimes, the questions are phrased in ways that make it really difficult to parse. Sometimes they use humor, satire, sarcasm, etc. For example, some of these questions wouldn't be so trivial, I don't think, in a simple information Google-esque ranking search. :)
Most of the questions were of that variety, where a simple Google search would easily find the answer.
But that means that the human doing the google search is parsing both the question (to figure out what key words will work best as a search) and parsing the results (to figure out what looks like the actual answer). It's not a simple 1 to 1 "put the question in and the first google result is the right answer." It could be that the first google result matches the question but doesn't even contain the answer...
So, the certainty thing is important; Watson is parsing both the question and the presumed answers and determining how certain it was that it was the actual answer. That language parsing, to me, is a lot more important than the speed at doing searches through vast amounts of information. Anyone can have a computer search vast amounts of information, that's an old problem ;) But parsing language isn't often done very well by machines/algorithms, even though humans do it quite well and efficiently.
It didn't just "look up answers." It first had to parse the question (okay, okay, so in this case it'd be "parsing the answer" and "giving the question" :P ). That's a bigger deal than a human using Google; the human can parse a language and figure out how to look up the answer. Watson, though, had to be programmed to parse the language and figure out *how* to look up the answer. I think that was the big part of this. It's easy enough for a machine to look up an answer in vast amounts of information given that a human converts language into something the machine can look up for the human. But programming the machine to understand, in some way, language and be able to eliminate the human step is bigger.
It's not just doing a Google search as someone else on this article commented... you cannot put "On Sept. 1, 1715 Louis XIV died in this city, site of a fabulous palace he built." into Google and get an actual answer; you'll have to sift through a lot of results to find something that looks like it will give the name of the city... so, even in finding the trivia answer, the human is the one doing the parsing and finding the actual city. In Watson's case, the machine had to parse both the trivia question and the information given in the matches to attempt to find the right answer, and not just something with a lot of hit results, which may not be the actual answer...
At least, that's my understanding. I can't imagine all that processing power is being used just for parallel Google-esque ranked searches. I know they have to do a lot of language parsing. We're good at that; machines aren't. :)
Either that or it's a way to let employers not pay for employee's devices? ;)
So you don't accept example@example.co.uk addresses?
What? I'm even okay with saying that you think observational science has given another method (evolution, not creation)... but saying that creation has been proven wrong by observational science? The only thing I can think of is that you're referring to earth age, not origins.
If you actually are saying that observational science has proven that God does not exist and God did not have a hand, in any way, in origins (i.e., no "creation" at all) and that the Big Bang has been proven as being indisputable fact... then I'd be interested to see that proof. Proof, not a balance of "well, it makes more sense..." or "the evidence seems to point ..." but actual proof, since you have stated that you know...
There is some merit in repetition (homework). I can learn something for a test and forget it afterwards. Doing it many times over in homework tends to make it stick longer.
Of course, not all homework is merited in that way... but some is.
Volunteers called "Beta Testers." Wow. I wonder if this will catch on with other development groups? Sounds like a pretty neat idea. I'm surprised no one else has done that...
Most universities have more than 1000 students. Let's assume they have 10,000 students. Now we are at 1gbps or 10x100mbps. I'm having a hard time figuring out, even assuming that 50% were using it all at once (so 1mbps per 5 students), how they need that for educational purposes. Plus, assuming that 50% of the student body all suddenly download a *ahem* textbook at the same time? Hum. And, seriously... because of online courses or online books, that's why it needs that sort of broadband? That's kinda ridiculous.
I understand wanting it for certain sections of the school, perhaps - like the CS department (downloading Linux, or Microsoft stuff through MSDN, etc.) or multimedia department (video is pretty big. :) ). But that has little to do with online textbooks or online collaboration tools...
IP addresses, perhaps?
Uh... so basically, you're willing to think the universe always existed because that makes sense; however, it's nonsensical to assume that there is a God that has always existed, because He would have needed to be created? ...
Exclude the Jews from Salvation? What? Neither Romans, Hebrews, nor Paul's epistles back this up. I realize, of course, that the Roman church, for quite a while, held that Jews were pretty much abandoned. This was very bad, but not very scriptural.
Apparently, so did the authors. Unless you have evidence that they wanted to do the same "sanitizing." :)
Ah, yes. Democracy ... except, of course, if the vast majority is wrong (according to me). Then, no more democracy. :)
So, realizing that your competitors aren't going to lower their prices == collusion? Somehow, that doesn't seem fair to me. If it's purposeful, where they actually get together to do it ... fine, that's price fixing. But if everyone is just happy with the current price and realizes they don't have anything to gain by cutting the price down below their competitor's ... I don't see how that's illegal.
How is it illegal for a company to take what customers are willing to pay?
How is it illegal for companies to simply not lower prices... without colluding with each other?
Since when are profit margins required to be low?
How is it self-serving? Keeping your employees from using non-internal storage services for confidential data... I guess that's self-serving in the "protect your assets/intellectual property" way, but forbidding your employees from using external companies for storage of confidential data is hardly self-serving. It's right up there with making your employees password and/or encrypt their work laptops... :)
They got to a safe mode command prompt. They should be able to (maybe?) run msconfig from the command prompt and re-enable everything. This would, admittedly, look pretty funny, after having just disabled it due to "malware."
Not only is this three times as much as the previous record, but also, it uses only one sixth of the hardware resources, according to a blog post about the test from Microsoft.
The important part is not that this is a new approach, but that they beat the previous record using less hardware.