The film was very entertaining and Depp really made that character his own. You could see he was really enjoying it too...
My favorite moment in that movie is when Orlando Bloom parodies Depp's character. To let that go into the movie, the crew must have been a) willing to have fun and b) very confident about the character at the same time.
What's even funnier is that (in theory anyway) a geo-synchronous LEO is possible. The thing is that, technically, geosychronous does not automatically mean geostationary. Geo-stationary orbits are a common subset of geo-synchronous orbits. But (quoting now from the Cambridge Dictionary of Space Technology) a geo-synchronous orbit is: "An orbit whose period of rotation is some multiple or submultiple of the Earth's rotational period...a satellite in such an orbit will pass over the same point at a given time (or times) each day...Geostationary orbit is a special type of geosynchronous orbit."
NASA's infrastructure is degrading rapidly. Check out the parts of the Columbia accident investigation report where they have pictures of Kennedy Space Center trailer office park, or the pictures of the VAB roof -- they've had to install netting in some parts of the building as a hedge against parts of the roof falling in.
Actually the plan to bring the Hubble back in a shuttle bay was cancelled even before the servicing mission was. No shuttles are going to near Hubble, period.
On the nerdly end of things, if slashdot had their own DTD or used some other DTD
Even back when the web was just composed and read by nerds, people still didn't follow the "rules" -- look at how HTML drifted from it's original use of marking up content to being a poor man's page layout language.
they might do it.
Sorry, I just can't believe it. Most contributors to the web (i.e. non computer nerds) are hard pressed to remember even a handful of HTML tags, let alone maintain a familiarity with a DTD, however easy it was to lookup.
Re:How long before people start gaming the system?
on
IBM vs. Content Chaos
·
· Score: 1
The thing is, that it's hard to do the second step of your general algorithm: Simulate algorithm and play with the inputs until the outputs match what you want.
Determining the outputs and closing the feedback loop is hard -- getting WebFountain output is pretty pricey, compared to search engine results, where you can have a very low-cost feedback loop. This makes reconstructing the alogrithms hard, if not impossible. Also remember that the exact set of algorithms varies depending on the problem: because the gamers can't get direct access to WebFountain, they can't determine what alogrithms are running. Finally, to simulate some of these results you'd need databases so large that you'd in effect have to be running your own WebFountain.
Re:Encourage Human Markup Discourage Machine MU
on
IBM vs. Content Chaos
·
· Score: 1
I think you are missing the point. The tags are not for people, but for data analysis software. Comparing a search engine to a general analysis platform (which is what WerbFountain is) is like comparing apples to oranges. The entire apparatus (WebFountain plus data mining software) is designed to produce high level reports that talk about data in the aggregate.
Except IBM isn't trying to build a general purpose search engine for humans, but a platform for data mining programs.
Also WebFountain is trying to analyse not 150 hits, but the millions of hits returned over the web, not just the handful of top-ranked hits that vivisimo returns from other search engines (look at the details sections of the vivisimo result page where it lists the engines searched). It's apples and oranges really.
The point is that the "you" in "you can get exactly the data you're looking for" is not a person, but a data mining program.
Disclaimer: I'm the author of the article!
Re:How long before people start gaming the system?
on
IBM vs. Content Chaos
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Disclaimer: I'm the author of the article
As soon as people become aware that Google or WebFountain or whatever is trying to evaluate web content, immediately they will begin trying to reverse-engineer and subvert the algorithms and heuristics that are used. .
This could be tricky -- WebFountain uses a kitchen sink approach, with a varying palette of content discriminators and disambiguators. The developers are also savvy to downweight link farm type approaches. Of course, one could say, conduct a campaign among bloggers to mention a term and make it appear well-known to WebFountain, but the inevitable consequence is that it would then actually be well-known!
I know, from talking to the WebFountain team that they're very sensitive to privacy concerns. WebFountain obeys robots.txt and doesn't archive material which has vanished from the publicly visible web (if only for reasons of storage capacity!).
The point is that all the information that feeds into IBM is already publicly availble. If wanted to go after Green Party members and if the Green Party posted it's membership roll on a webserver, I think they'd be able to get it, WebFountain or no.
Of course, I suppose WebFountain could be used to construct a membership list by scanning people's home page's to find out if they say that they're a member, but again this is publicly declared information.
Bottom line, as always: if you don't want it generally accessible to all, don't put it on a public web server.
Most people don't and won't tag as they go. (Except for those of us used to writing HTML-enabled comments on/. of course). Also, in order to be able to write <popularmusic>Pink</popularmusic>, and have it make sense, you'd have to be following a DTD.
As anyone who's been involved in DTD formulation can attest, even for internal documentation, it can be a royal pain in the butt. I don't think the vast majority of on-line rapid content generators (all those bloggers, emailers, chatters) will ever use XML to routinely tag their content manually. The article isn't talking about machine generated or commercial content, like Amazon's, but the day to day stuff that gets put up in the time it takes to write it and click submit, and which is of most interest to market researchers.
Although the article didn't have room to go into this point (and I should know, I'm the author), IBM can completley compartmentalize competitors' data, even if hosted in house (IBM already does this in other parts of its business). If companies are still wary, they can host the data themselves and let WebFountain troll it on a need to know basis.
The point is that it's not intended for use as a search engine, but a platform for doing computation intensive data mining and analysis. A search engine can tell you how many mentions of IBM appear on the web, but not how people feel about IBM.
One kept hearing that WB music, even -- dump dump dump dump DUMP dump dump dump...
Just FYI, that music is titled Powerhouse and was composed by Raymond Scott. Carl Stalling was the man responsible for incorporating it into many cartoon medleys for WB.
When I was at E3 a couple of years ago, I was talking to the people who develop the Harry Potter games. The schedule was killing them: a game normally takes about 18 months, while the movies only took about a year to produce, plus the games people had to wait till enough art elements (i.e. the exact way the movie people were going to implement Fluffy, or the Basilisk) had been figured out for the movie before they could begin 3-d modelling etc.
I guess the year's hiatus between The Chamber of Secrets and The Prisoner of Azkaban will everyone a chance to catch a breath.
I didn't say they were arbitrary, just inappropriate to answering the question of "How much does Apollo Mode cost?"
Also, I agree it is clear that NASA today is not getting the biggest bang per buck possible -- but this is largely because of the dramatically lower year on year funding, something masked by the 1961-1973 window. This reduced funding meant (the shuttle is an excellent case in point) that high development cost but low operating cost designs had to be abandoned in favor of lower development cost but higher operating cost designs in order to get anything built at all.
The collapse in funding guaranteed inefficiency and failure, in both the hardware and culture of NASA, so it's a little disengenious to ask why NASA can't do Apollo Mode stuff even though its funding today is comparable to the average over the entire 1961-1973 period.
It's like filling a car's tank up at the start of a long journey and then only dribbling in a small amount of fuel every 50 miles or so. Even though the overall average fillup for the first and second halves of the journey is very similar (the big fillup at the start gets spread out over all the small fillups in the first half of the journey), you shouldn't be surprised that at the end of your, say 1,000 mile, journey you're out of gas, whereas at the 500 mile mark you still had a healthy reservoir. You could conclude that (a) your fuel efficiency had dropped or (b) including large fueling peaks in your averaging window can be misleading.
If you're still uncertain, look at the funding graph on page 102 of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board's Report. I think anyone would agree that after looking at that graph that using averages is an inappropriate tool to compare Apollo-Mode funding to Shuttle-Mode funding.
Slashdot Mirror
What, you've never seen a cathode ray tube then? Used to be all the rage before flatscreens...
The film was very entertaining and Depp really made that character his own. You could see he was really enjoying it too...
My favorite moment in that movie is when Orlando Bloom parodies Depp's character. To let that go into the movie, the crew must have been a) willing to have fun and b) very confident about the character at the same time.
What's even funnier is that (in theory anyway) a geo-synchronous LEO is possible. The thing is that, technically, geosychronous does not automatically mean geostationary. Geo-stationary orbits are a common subset of geo-synchronous orbits. But (quoting now from the Cambridge Dictionary of Space Technology) a geo-synchronous orbit is: "An orbit whose period of rotation is some multiple or submultiple of the Earth's rotational period...a satellite in such an orbit will pass over the same point at a given time (or times) each day...Geostationary orbit is a special type of geosynchronous orbit."
NASA's infrastructure is degrading rapidly. Check out the parts of the Columbia accident investigation report where they have pictures of Kennedy Space Center trailer office park, or the pictures of the VAB roof -- they've had to install netting in some parts of the building as a hedge against parts of the roof falling in.
Actually the plan to bring the Hubble back in a shuttle bay was cancelled even before the servicing mission was. No shuttles are going to near Hubble, period.
Yes, because people who find members of the same sex attractive are Abominations Unto God.
Keep your homophobia to yourself.
On the nerdly end of things, if slashdot had their own DTD or used some other DTD
Even back when the web was just composed and read by nerds, people still didn't follow the "rules" -- look at how HTML drifted from it's original use of marking up content to being a poor man's page layout language.
they might do it.
Sorry, I just can't believe it. Most contributors to the web (i.e. non computer nerds) are hard pressed to remember even a handful of HTML tags, let alone maintain a familiarity with a DTD, however easy it was to lookup.
The thing is, that it's hard to do the second step of your general algorithm: Simulate algorithm and play with the inputs until the outputs match what you want.
Determining the outputs and closing the feedback loop is hard -- getting WebFountain output is pretty pricey, compared to search engine results, where you can have a very low-cost feedback loop. This makes reconstructing the alogrithms hard, if not impossible. Also remember that the exact set of algorithms varies depending on the problem: because the gamers can't get direct access to WebFountain, they can't determine what alogrithms are running. Finally, to simulate some of these results you'd need databases so large that you'd in effect have to be running your own WebFountain.
I think you are missing the point. The tags are not for people, but for data analysis software. Comparing a search engine to a general analysis platform (which is what WerbFountain is) is like comparing apples to oranges. The entire apparatus (WebFountain plus data mining software) is designed to produce high level reports that talk about data in the aggregate.
Exactly what IBM wants to achieve, it seems.
Except IBM isn't trying to build a general purpose search engine for humans, but a platform for data mining programs.
Also WebFountain is trying to analyse not 150 hits, but the millions of hits returned over the web, not just the handful of top-ranked hits that vivisimo returns from other search engines (look at the details sections of the vivisimo result page where it lists the engines searched). It's apples and oranges really.
The point is that the "you" in "you can get exactly the data you're looking for" is not a person, but a data mining program.
Disclaimer: I'm the author of the article!
Disclaimer: I'm the author of the article
.
As soon as people become aware that Google or WebFountain or whatever is trying to evaluate web content, immediately they will begin trying to reverse-engineer and subvert the algorithms and heuristics that are used.
This could be tricky -- WebFountain uses a kitchen sink approach, with a varying palette of content discriminators and disambiguators. The developers are also savvy to downweight link farm type approaches. Of course, one could say, conduct a campaign among bloggers to mention a term and make it appear well-known to WebFountain, but the inevitable consequence is that it would then actually be well-known!
Disclaimer: I'm the author of the article.
I know, from talking to the WebFountain team that they're very sensitive to privacy concerns. WebFountain obeys robots.txt and doesn't archive material which has vanished from the publicly visible web (if only for reasons of storage capacity!).
The point is that all the information that feeds into IBM is already publicly availble. If wanted to go after Green Party members and if the Green Party posted it's membership roll on a webserver, I think they'd be able to get it, WebFountain or no.
Of course, I suppose WebFountain could be used to construct a membership list by scanning people's home page's to find out if they say that they're a member, but again this is publicly declared information.
Bottom line, as always: if you don't want it generally accessible to all, don't put it on a public web server.
WebFountain isn't intended a a general purpose search engine, but to provide a platform for data mining and analysis.
Disclaimer: I'm the author of the article.
/. of course). Also, in order to be able to write <popularmusic>Pink</popularmusic>, and have it make sense, you'd have to be following a DTD.
Most people don't and won't tag as they go. (Except for those of us used to writing HTML-enabled comments on
As anyone who's been involved in DTD formulation can attest, even for internal documentation, it can be a royal pain in the butt. I don't think the vast majority of on-line rapid content generators (all those bloggers, emailers, chatters) will ever use XML to routinely tag their content manually. The article isn't talking about machine generated or commercial content, like Amazon's, but the day to day stuff that gets put up in the time it takes to write it and click submit, and which is of most interest to market researchers.
Although the article didn't have room to go into this point (and I should know, I'm the author), IBM can completley compartmentalize competitors' data, even if hosted in house (IBM already does this in other parts of its business). If companies are still wary, they can host the data themselves and let WebFountain troll it on a need to know basis.
The point is that it's not intended for use as a search engine, but a platform for doing computation intensive data mining and analysis. A search engine can tell you how many mentions of IBM appear on the web, but not how people feel about IBM.
The Rovers are solar powered. Taking pictures would suck a lot of power from the batteries otherwise needed to make iti through the night.
One kept hearing that WB music, even -- dump dump dump dump DUMP dump dump dump...
Just FYI, that music is titled Powerhouse and was composed by Raymond Scott. Carl Stalling was the man responsible for incorporating it into many cartoon medleys for WB.
Now that made me laugh!
I watch Father Ted.
Excellent. As long as you understand the money was just resting in his account...
Maith? Something like that?
Tres Bien!
drink, feck, girls
:)
you forgot ARSE!
you are an eejit
This bolsters my impression that you are irish. Conas a ta tu?
When I was at E3 a couple of years ago, I was talking to the people who develop the Harry Potter games. The schedule was killing them: a game normally takes about 18 months, while the movies only took about a year to produce, plus the games people had to wait till enough art elements (i.e. the exact way the movie people were going to implement Fluffy, or the Basilisk) had been figured out for the movie before they could begin 3-d modelling etc.
I guess the year's hiatus between The Chamber of Secrets and The Prisoner of Azkaban will everyone a chance to catch a breath.
the choice of dates in not arbitrary
I didn't say they were arbitrary, just inappropriate to answering the question of "How much does Apollo Mode cost?"
Also, I agree it is clear that NASA today is not getting the biggest bang per buck possible -- but this is largely because of the dramatically lower year on year funding, something masked by the 1961-1973 window. This reduced funding meant (the shuttle is an excellent case in point) that high development cost but low operating cost designs had to be abandoned in favor of lower development cost but higher operating cost designs in order to get anything built at all.
The collapse in funding guaranteed inefficiency and failure, in both the hardware and culture of NASA, so it's a little disengenious to ask why NASA can't do Apollo Mode stuff even though its funding today is comparable to the average over the entire 1961-1973 period.
It's like filling a car's tank up at the start of a long journey and then only dribbling in a small amount of fuel every 50 miles or so. Even though the overall average fillup for the first and second halves of the journey is very similar (the big fillup at the start gets spread out over all the small fillups in the first half of the journey), you shouldn't be surprised that at the end of your, say 1,000 mile, journey you're out of gas, whereas at the 500 mile mark you still had a healthy reservoir. You could conclude that (a) your fuel efficiency had dropped or (b) including large fueling peaks in your averaging window can be misleading.
If you're still uncertain, look at the funding graph on page 102 of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board's Report. I think anyone would agree that after looking at that graph that using averages is an inappropriate tool to compare Apollo-Mode funding to Shuttle-Mode funding.