Our experiments show that it can acquire intricate structures from raw data, including transcripts of parents' speech directed at 2- or 3-year-olds. This may eventually help researchers understand how children, who learn language in a similar item-by-item fashion and with very little supervision, eventually master the full complexities of their native tongue."
In addition to child-directed language, the algorithm has been tested on the full text of the Bible in several languages
I hardly would consider transcripts of parents' speech directed at 2- or 3-year-olds "intricate". And while the algorithm may have "been tested on the full text of the Bible", it doesn't say with what percentage of accuracy or what translation. King James version or the Teen Magazine Bible?
And the "rules" of a language are NOT what children "learn". First of all, children acquire a language, they do not "learn" it. That is a large attribute to the child's ability to speak it--not whether or not they understand gerunds and the pluperfect.
Second, in a language such as English whose words for the most part lack any necessity to the order in which they're placed to understand they're meaning and, even worse, lack declension forms to distinguish subject from object of the preposition, with what success can a language recognition program have "learning" such a language when prepositions themselves mainly can be omitted? To teach a computer Latin is easy.
Third, what's the hope of the computer ever understanding something like Shakespeare, Joyce, or Dante, whose uses of language rely extensively on erudition for word placement as opposed to typical usage? While a computer might be able to learn Latin because of its rigourous rules, I doubt it could faithfully render a text from Ovid.
The alternative is to stop supporting sites who don't support any kind of open standard. You're essentially giving them incentive not to code properly.
"Internet movie thieves be warned: You have no friends in the online community when you are engaging in copyright theft," MPAA Senior Vice President John Malcom said in a statement.
Someone stole your copyrights? Maybe that person's running a few trackers and is distributing the works as [s]he sees fit!
The Communist Party's management of chat rooms works similarly. A post like "Let's hold multiparty elections" is deleted before posting or soon after. But more crucial is the party's channeling of chat-room discussions to serve its own interests.
How do they plan to deal with an encrypted connection from end to end? Or, because they provide [at least one of those] ends, is it as simple as a backdoor? I wouldn't imagine the "free for everyone" crowd will stand for implementations that circumvent SSH, etc. Forget bloggers.
In other news, the government has authorised USPS spam, that would generally start at 18, to begin at 13. Tommy Farrier, local 13-year-old boy, is ecstatic about the 24.9 APR on his new VISA.
"I don't know why this is such a big deal," he said. "At no time was the security of the server breached, and I don't know that it has cost the taxpayers any money."
A server breach does seem pretty impossible. Considering the complexity of the password and how few people knew it, it's doubtful they wouldn't know if the server was breached anyway.
Say it's YOUR internet café. What are the ethics of installing keyloggers? It seems quite clear that these public stations would have keyloggers--barring an evil SysAdmin--to protect their computers (their property). Should the public be informed if they are paying to use the system (or not)?
I was with you until this. This is simply NOT the case. You can't buy a retail PC today that doesn't come with Windows preloaded. With desktops, sure, you can build you own. Laptops? Shit out of luck unless you want to pay a lot more. So, yes, quite a lot of corporate people are saying we "ha[ve] to buy it."
Isn't this the NSA's job, or Homeland Security? I can't really see how this is gathering intelligence. Is this supposed to be Ops? TFA mentions
"Information Operations Center, which evaluates threats to U.S. computer systems from foreign governments"
, which is understandable, but the conventional notion of "terrorists" aren't "foreign governments". Does this mean we're expecting to go to cybercarpetbombing against France, the "anti-Americans"?
"Sorry, your honor, but I just spent my last $30,000 on the documentary I've put together on Being Sued by the MPAA(.com). Can you give me a few months to distribute it for a dollar a download via Bittorrent?"
"I think that people who rate old movies as high or higher than recent or current movies are just being nostalgaic or trying to sound sophisticated."
Too often people who know little about cinema or regard it as little less than entertainment take that point of view. Here's an "elitist" vantage point on cinema.
Personal preference and the merits of a film can largely be separated. You might watch ID:4 every time it comes on TV and think it's the best movie because it entertains you, but that means little to anyone else. The stultifying contemporary argument is that "it's all subjective" and it should be left at that--a resolution which resolves nothing and is escapist. There is quite the difference between an objectively good film and grading a film on objective criteria. The former no intelligent person would claim; the latter is the bit we're concerned with.
To your stigma against old films, I have to say it's probably because you've seen far too few. You may have seen what you think is a good number, but compared to all the contemporary films you've seen it's a fraction. This isn't your fault necessarily, but obscures your judgment.
Once you begin to get a handle on simple cinema elements like mise-en-scene, composition, editing, lighting, plot, sound, historical importance, and direction, you intuitively begin to distinguish between the 'bad' and the 'good'. A lot of people with such sensibilities conform to film critics' standards, but the bold among us who actually think for ourselves (in effect, doing as opposed to following) can carve out your own lists and justify them. First thing you'll figure out is critics are mostly idiots who are paid to sell a film: nobody wants to read reviews of a critic who will trash everything he has to review (because, seriously, 95% of all films that will come out this year could justifiably be trashed).
The gravitation to old films is primarily an inquiry to where cinema started. As such, some people will find old films unrivaled by modern day films, mainly because modern films' budgets are exponentially higher, technology is better, and the quality has depreciated. The thing few realise is that today we don't necessarily make more films than in the 30s and 40s. There are as many awful, awful films from 1937 as 1997. However, since so many years have passed, hindsight allows clearer vision of the gems of the age, while the bad films are not even known to exist.
But, that's just Hollywood. Given your list, you're one of the countless individuals who doesn't know cinema existed before 1977 (generalising obviously, but it's still quite true). Foreign films escape your list, presumably for the same reason as old films: you (and by 'you' I mean you as one of the general moviegoing public of America) probably only speak English and have a recalcitrance to subtitles. This means you miss a large percentage of great films from other countries, added to the large percentage of old films, which leaves you with a small percentage from which to pool your 'top choices'.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet, neither this nor the "adjectives-always-following" former accounts for those adjectives whose meaning changes depending on its placement.
Whereas "ma chambre propre" means "my clean room", "ma propre chambre" means "my own room".
Hardly. More like embarrassing themselves completely. How pathetic.
That was the point.
And the "rules" of a language are NOT what children "learn". First of all, children acquire a language, they do not "learn" it. That is a large attribute to the child's ability to speak it--not whether or not they understand gerunds and the pluperfect.
Second, in a language such as English whose words for the most part lack any necessity to the order in which they're placed to understand they're meaning and, even worse, lack declension forms to distinguish subject from object of the preposition, with what success can a language recognition program have "learning" such a language when prepositions themselves mainly can be omitted? To teach a computer Latin is easy.
Third, what's the hope of the computer ever understanding something like Shakespeare, Joyce, or Dante, whose uses of language rely extensively on erudition for word placement as opposed to typical usage? While a computer might be able to learn Latin because of its rigourous rules, I doubt it could faithfully render a text from Ovid.
The alternative is to stop supporting sites who don't support any kind of open standard. You're essentially giving them incentive not to code properly.
Here are some great Enlightenment videos. http://lycos42.free.fr/e17/cvs/videos/
Oh my god... think of what CFLAGS could do for my car!
Max!!!
You thought you'd win, but looookie now!
In other news, the government has authorised USPS spam, that would generally start at 18, to begin at 13. Tommy Farrier, local 13-year-old boy, is ecstatic about the 24.9 APR on his new VISA.
But at that point the joke'll be on you because they have your previous use of it on record "for quality assurance."
A server breach does seem pretty impossible. Considering the complexity of the password and how few people knew it, it's doubtful they wouldn't know if the server was breached anyway.
Because the person might save a few hundred bucks when, after finishing the book, they realize FrontPage isn't necessary?
Say it's YOUR internet café. What are the ethics of installing keyloggers? It seems quite clear that these public stations would have keyloggers--barring an evil SysAdmin--to protect their computers (their property). Should the public be informed if they are paying to use the system (or not)?
Sort of offtopic, but I'm curious.
does someone volunteerily have their site crash to a hault posting an article on /. about the relative speeds of programs.
Isn't this the NSA's job, or Homeland Security? I can't really see how this is gathering intelligence. Is this supposed to be Ops? TFA mentions
"Information Operations Center, which evaluates threats to U.S. computer systems from foreign governments"
, which is understandable, but the conventional notion of "terrorists" aren't "foreign governments". Does this mean we're expecting to go to cybercarpetbombing against France, the "anti-Americans"?
"Sorry, your honor, but I just spent my last $30,000 on the documentary I've put together on Being Sued by the MPAA(.com). Can you give me a few months to distribute it for a dollar a download via Bittorrent?"
Eh, in all sincerity, I might have to agree with AC here. Unless that was a joke, and then it was a decent one.
"I think that people who rate old movies as high or higher than recent or current movies are just being nostalgaic or trying to sound sophisticated."
Too often people who know little about cinema or regard it as little less than entertainment take that point of view. Here's an "elitist" vantage point on cinema.
Personal preference and the merits of a film can largely be separated. You might watch ID:4 every time it comes on TV and think it's the best movie because it entertains you, but that means little to anyone else. The stultifying contemporary argument is that "it's all subjective" and it should be left at that--a resolution which resolves nothing and is escapist. There is quite the difference between an objectively good film and grading a film on objective criteria. The former no intelligent person would claim; the latter is the bit we're concerned with.
To your stigma against old films, I have to say it's probably because you've seen far too few. You may have seen what you think is a good number, but compared to all the contemporary films you've seen it's a fraction. This isn't your fault necessarily, but obscures your judgment.
Once you begin to get a handle on simple cinema elements like mise-en-scene, composition, editing, lighting, plot, sound, historical importance, and direction, you intuitively begin to distinguish between the 'bad' and the 'good'. A lot of people with such sensibilities conform to film critics' standards, but the bold among us who actually think for ourselves (in effect, doing as opposed to following) can carve out your own lists and justify them. First thing you'll figure out is critics are mostly idiots who are paid to sell a film: nobody wants to read reviews of a critic who will trash everything he has to review (because, seriously, 95% of all films that will come out this year could justifiably be trashed).
The gravitation to old films is primarily an inquiry to where cinema started. As such, some people will find old films unrivaled by modern day films, mainly because modern films' budgets are exponentially higher, technology is better, and the quality has depreciated. The thing few realise is that today we don't necessarily make more films than in the 30s and 40s. There are as many awful, awful films from 1937 as 1997. However, since so many years have passed, hindsight allows clearer vision of the gems of the age, while the bad films are not even known to exist.
But, that's just Hollywood. Given your list, you're one of the countless individuals who doesn't know cinema existed before 1977 (generalising obviously, but it's still quite true). Foreign films escape your list, presumably for the same reason as old films: you (and by 'you' I mean you as one of the general moviegoing public of America) probably only speak English and have a recalcitrance to subtitles. This means you miss a large percentage of great films from other countries, added to the large percentage of old films, which leaves you with a small percentage from which to pool your 'top choices'.
In summary, see more films.