Arguably as technology eats jobs, there are going to be a lot of low end automation related jobs.
For example, right now if you can master a bit of SQL and pump out charts you can do a passable job in business intelligence without much problem. Not great, but passable.
How many other roles are going to exist where the job is not programming so much as it is making data accessible to non IT decision makers?
Arguably a lot. If these people have other strengths; having minimum proficiency in technology is going to take you a long way.
1) http://www.rfidjournal.com/art...
2) It literally is exactly what it is: *Things*. On the Internet. Mechanical things. Sensors. Fridges. Not internet only concepts like web pages on the web.
As someone who works in the (Australian) industry and is familiar with the various sorts of rules engines and automated valuation models (AVMs) in use, it's really not that hard to predict the selling price of a *standard, boring suburban house* so long as you have a rough idea of the land area, living area, age, bedrooms, bathrooms, etc.
You then index transactions/settlements on other properties with similar attributes and get a range of likely values. When the figure comes back "spot on", it's more like that behind the scenes. Feeds of these transactions are published fairly widely, and it's easy to just index everything "just in case" something in the area transacts.
Anywho:
1) Your loan to value ratio was beneath a certain level of risk for the bank
2) The range of values out of the automated model were considered accurate enough
3) Its often easier for a set of rules around lending decisions to mark you as 'acceptable risk' and display a matching figure to an end user/decision maker than to display a range or something a few hundred dollars off *if* you pose no obvious risk. Either that, or you had a contract of sale, so the valuation is only really agreeing your offer is reasonable.
Where it gets interesting is when the housing is non standard - proximity to waterfront views, industry, rail, high value, weird zoning, etc - if there was anything like that flagged, people would be involved to get the 'ground truth'.
I'll take a zooming user interface on the desktop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooming_user_interface) - this already works quite well for things like google maps (more zoom = more information); I can see it working well for other things as well.
I'm talking more about Jef Raskin's archy mockups rather than the current smartphone ZUI controls we get; which simply make text bigger without having other content available.
The alternative is to believe there is a mistaken assumption in your model.
Perhaps somewhere between chemicals rubbing up against each other and the potential evolution of a human like intelligence.
I suppose what I'm frustrated by the most here is that an engineer behind the google news aggregation platform hasn't even look at what other ways to solve this problem are out there.
The link/@rel pattern fits this problem much better than a meta tag at the very least.
If you want to go a bit further; there are some fairly core vocabularies out there (DublinCore/PRISM) which describe a lot of what a document is and who authored it without much effort; and undoubtedly "googlenews:syndication-source" and "googlenews:original-source" could be put along side terms such as "owl:sameAs", "rdf:seeAlso", or "dc:source".
It's not like it takes much effort at all to render that; and it sure makes it easier for other platforms to extract useful content.
One google team is pushing it; but these guys have missed a chance to implement it properly by only the barest of margins.
RDFa would be a perfect solution for this.
Also - think of the cost! I believe it was around $42 million set aside to implement such a filter - a hair over $100k per site.
Are you really telling me that there is value in this? Are you really telling me that you could not put $100k under a police investigation per site in order to shut some of them down?
I'm aware there was already funding for the AFP included in the initial proposals; but if you are going to do something, why not do it right? Give $42 million to those that can actually prosecute the offenders in some % of cases.
Additionally: It's called a justification. To do a project, you need one. If you do a project without one, it's pointless, almost by definition.
So, where is it? Where is a well thought out, rational perspective on why we need any kind of internet filtering? Where is the research or argument which demonstrates the positives, balanced against the negative?
I can't find it; and apparently neither can the pro filter crowd - so how is this my government reflecting the will of the people?
I have other objections to internet filtering pertaining to freedom of speech and what a civilised society should be able to say, think, consume and do - but that's off topic from the article here.
This angers me significantly: this is not a debate about the theory of filtering.
This is a tooth and nail fight against a specific proposal put forward by the current government.
Every variation of the filtering plan that has been put forward in the media has been savaged by opponents, who are entirely correct in their criticisms. What Conroy has failed to do is provide a convincing counter-argument. In media interviews, when grilled, he often struggles with defining just exactly what it is he is proposing.
One moment it's a URL blacklist to protect children from accidental porn; another moment it's to prevent access to abhorrent material which is currently RC content. Conroy has not listened to one iota of the overwhelming feedback from members of the public; and is utterly clueless as to how to move forward from here.
I absolutely cannot tolerate such a waste of time and money on an unworkable solution driven forward by an individual who does not listen to reason for entirely political purposes.
Brushing this off as "filtering is ok in theory" is a red herring: the currently publicised intentions of the government are not ok; and all efforts by Conroy to implement such should be fiercely resisted.
This sounds suspiciously like a lot of what http://linkeddata.org/ + friendly end user tools could give us - data from multiple sources which can be combined to enhance what you are looking at, viewed through a 'lense' (specific application) to make it meaningful - say, an interactive graph.
Don't reinvent, as so many have already said.
CSS works for print media, LaTeX works wonderfully, pdfs work wonderfully.
RDFa lets you really define the semantics of anything - People, Businesses, Biliographic data in a workable way.
Kohenen Neural Nets are probably the basis for this... I discovered this article only a short time ago. The author does some pretty impressive things with his client. I can't find the source he linked to anymore, as it's dead:(
Self Organising Maps (another name for Kohonen NN's) are pretty good at figuring out stuff like this.
Slashdot Mirror
Arguably as technology eats jobs, there are going to be a lot of low end automation related jobs. For example, right now if you can master a bit of SQL and pump out charts you can do a passable job in business intelligence without much problem. Not great, but passable. How many other roles are going to exist where the job is not programming so much as it is making data accessible to non IT decision makers? Arguably a lot. If these people have other strengths; having minimum proficiency in technology is going to take you a long way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... is chilling to see how it is being rammed through.
1) http://www.rfidjournal.com/art... 2) It literally is exactly what it is: *Things*. On the Internet. Mechanical things. Sensors. Fridges. Not internet only concepts like web pages on the web.
As someone who works in the (Australian) industry and is familiar with the various sorts of rules engines and automated valuation models (AVMs) in use, it's really not that hard to predict the selling price of a *standard, boring suburban house* so long as you have a rough idea of the land area, living area, age, bedrooms, bathrooms, etc. You then index transactions/settlements on other properties with similar attributes and get a range of likely values. When the figure comes back "spot on", it's more like that behind the scenes. Feeds of these transactions are published fairly widely, and it's easy to just index everything "just in case" something in the area transacts. Anywho: 1) Your loan to value ratio was beneath a certain level of risk for the bank 2) The range of values out of the automated model were considered accurate enough 3) Its often easier for a set of rules around lending decisions to mark you as 'acceptable risk' and display a matching figure to an end user/decision maker than to display a range or something a few hundred dollars off *if* you pose no obvious risk. Either that, or you had a contract of sale, so the valuation is only really agreeing your offer is reasonable. Where it gets interesting is when the housing is non standard - proximity to waterfront views, industry, rail, high value, weird zoning, etc - if there was anything like that flagged, people would be involved to get the 'ground truth'.
I really wish this wasn't an article about "sage commons" but one for Life Sciences & the semantic web - http://www.w3.org/blog/hcls
I'll take a zooming user interface on the desktop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooming_user_interface) - this already works quite well for things like google maps (more zoom = more information); I can see it working well for other things as well. I'm talking more about Jef Raskin's archy mockups rather than the current smartphone ZUI controls we get; which simply make text bigger without having other content available.
You know; I'm fairly sure I just updated the skin I was using which magically did this all for me... even via a GUI.
I wish I could use the hit and miss behavior of all of the printers on our network to justify a migration to ubuntu for all.
http://code.google.com/p/paint-mono/ for the common use cases. I just want the damned thing stable, packaged.
The alternative is to believe there is a mistaken assumption in your model. Perhaps somewhere between chemicals rubbing up against each other and the potential evolution of a human like intelligence.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=231062
I suppose what I'm frustrated by the most here is that an engineer behind the google news aggregation platform hasn't even look at what other ways to solve this problem are out there.
The link/@rel pattern fits this problem much better than a meta tag at the very least.
If you want to go a bit further; there are some fairly core vocabularies out there (DublinCore/PRISM) which describe a lot of what a document is and who authored it without much effort; and undoubtedly "googlenews:syndication-source" and "googlenews:original-source" could be put along side terms such as "owl:sameAs", "rdf:seeAlso", or "dc:source".
It's not like it takes much effort at all to render that; and it sure makes it easier for other platforms to extract useful content.
One google team is pushing it; but these guys have missed a chance to implement it properly by only the barest of margins. RDFa would be a perfect solution for this.
Also - think of the cost! I believe it was around $42 million set aside to implement such a filter - a hair over $100k per site. Are you really telling me that there is value in this? Are you really telling me that you could not put $100k under a police investigation per site in order to shut some of them down? I'm aware there was already funding for the AFP included in the initial proposals; but if you are going to do something, why not do it right? Give $42 million to those that can actually prosecute the offenders in some % of cases.
Additionally: It's called a justification. To do a project, you need one. If you do a project without one, it's pointless, almost by definition.
So, where is it? Where is a well thought out, rational perspective on why we need any kind of internet filtering? Where is the research or argument which demonstrates the positives, balanced against the negative?
I can't find it; and apparently neither can the pro filter crowd - so how is this my government reflecting the will of the people?
I have other objections to internet filtering pertaining to freedom of speech and what a civilised society should be able to say, think, consume and do - but that's off topic from the article here.
This angers me significantly: this is not a debate about the theory of filtering.
This is a tooth and nail fight against a specific proposal put forward by the current government.
Every variation of the filtering plan that has been put forward in the media has been savaged by opponents, who are entirely correct in their criticisms. What Conroy has failed to do is provide a convincing counter-argument. In media interviews, when grilled, he often struggles with defining just exactly what it is he is proposing.
One moment it's a URL blacklist to protect children from accidental porn; another moment it's to prevent access to abhorrent material which is currently RC content. Conroy has not listened to one iota of the overwhelming feedback from members of the public; and is utterly clueless as to how to move forward from here.
I absolutely cannot tolerate such a waste of time and money on an unworkable solution driven forward by an individual who does not listen to reason for entirely political purposes.
Brushing this off as "filtering is ok in theory" is a red herring: the currently publicised intentions of the government are not ok; and all efforts by Conroy to implement such should be fiercely resisted.
This sounds suspiciously like a lot of what http://linkeddata.org/ + friendly end user tools could give us - data from multiple sources which can be combined to enhance what you are looking at, viewed through a 'lense' (specific application) to make it meaningful - say, an interactive graph.
Go and look at Freebase: http://www.freebase.com/
They provide an API to obtain articles and structured data from them. They handle all of the wikipedia import.
Additionally, you can do much more with the structured data there
For instance - Olympic Cyclists and the Way They Died.
http://www.freebase.com/view/user/doconnor/default_domain/views/olympic_cyclists_and_they_way_they_died Try doing that with Wikipedia.
Don't reinvent, as so many have already said. CSS works for print media, LaTeX works wonderfully, pdfs work wonderfully. RDFa lets you really define the semantics of anything - People, Businesses, Biliographic data in a workable way.
Kohenen Neural Nets are probably the basis for this... I discovered this article only a short time ago. The author does some pretty impressive things with his client. I can't find the source he linked to anymore, as it's dead :(
Self Organising Maps (another name for Kohonen NN's) are pretty good at figuring out stuff like this.