The theory is simple enough and the mathematical proof has been done: If you can sufficiently compress a large, general knowledge natural langage corpus like Wikipedia, you can competently articulate and understand natural language.
Is there any reference where this connection between text compression and understanding natural language is better explained for the layperson?
Archive everything to keep your Inbox clear. Then search for old messages when you need them, by labels, by people, or by keywords. You don't have to see a "cluttered view" of your mail.
I used to be a delete-all-messages freak. I deleted every message after reading, replying, etc. when they become irrelevant in order to avoid running out of space, and to keep my Inbox clean.
This is now history since I'm using Gmail. The "Archive" button has replaced the old "Delete" in order to keep a clean Inbox, and storage is not a problem any more.
Why should I have to shuffle around the order of the original message and my reply every fscking time I create a reply? Thunderbird defaults to inline/bottom-posting, which is the One True Way to write email.
This top/bottom posting argument should be soon totally irrelevant.
Any decent e-mail client, ehem Gmail, should provide you with the possibility to fold/unfold fragments of text quoted in a reply
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
I wonder how well it can deal with a query relating to "flies";-)
As far as I understand, this approach is not trying to extract any meaning from sentences, paragraphs or whatever. You don't even "query" the system, so your 'canonical problem' is not relevant here.
The system uses some sort of statistical text anaylisis (no semantics, no meaning) in order to group together news articles that seem to be talking about the same topic.
> Google has the right idea, automatic extraction of semantics from content.
>
> Google does not extract any semantics from content. It merely analyses the linking between
> websites and connects that with keywords. No semantics here.
Google does extract semantics from content in a few particular domains: addresses and bussines info for Google maps, show times and additional information on movie searches, dates and appointments from Gmail to Google Calendar,...
The semantic web has already started. Now we only have it in a few and simple enough domains but, I agree, this should be the right way to go.
But how does it work with Google?
on
Opera 9.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I have always loved the Opera browser, I really think it is the best browser available out there. Fast, standards complaint, everything well integrated together, it has also a very clean, nice, intuitive and easy to use interface. I really was a huge Opera fan.
However I had to give up and stop using it essentially for one reason: it does not work well with new Google products. Gmail used to break every other week, maps didn't scrolled properly, I never managed to properly render the calendar.
Dunno who's fault is this Opera for not implementing some relevant stuff heavily used by new Google's technology, or Google for heavily using technology on which there is still not yet a standard.
I am now downloading the new Opera 9.0 to see it for myself, but does anybody knows whether the situation has improved, or if there is at least some interest on either party to solve this very frustrating problems??
Slashdot Mirror
Because humans are much better at image recognition than computers?
Great reference! Cheers, I'll be reading it carefully.
I was very intrigued by your assertion:
Is there any reference where this connection between text compression and understanding natural language is better explained for the layperson?
So that no one has to suffer again link.
Your first link is incorrect. Just in case someone want's to find them, here are the singing mice.
Yes, you don't understand it.
Archive everything to keep your Inbox clear. Then search for old messages when you need them, by labels, by people, or by keywords. You don't have to see a "cluttered view" of your mail.
Lots of storage space.
I used to be a delete-all-messages freak. I deleted every message after reading, replying, etc. when they become irrelevant in order to avoid running out of space, and to keep my Inbox clean.
This is now history since I'm using Gmail. The "Archive" button has replaced the old "Delete" in order to keep a clean Inbox, and storage is not a problem any more.
This top/bottom posting argument should be soon totally irrelevant.
Any decent e-mail client, ehem Gmail, should provide you with the possibility to fold/unfold fragments of text quoted in a reply
As far as I understand, this approach is not trying to extract any meaning from sentences, paragraphs or whatever. You don't even "query" the system, so your 'canonical problem' is not relevant here.
The system uses some sort of statistical text anaylisis (no semantics, no meaning) in order to group together news articles that seem to be talking about the same topic.
> Google has the right idea, automatic extraction of semantics from content.
...
>
> Google does not extract any semantics from content. It merely analyses the linking between
> websites and connects that with keywords. No semantics here.
Google does extract semantics from content in a few particular domains: addresses and bussines info for Google maps, show times and additional information on movie searches, dates and appointments from Gmail to Google Calendar,
The semantic web has already started. Now we only have it in a few and simple enough domains but, I agree, this should be the right way to go.
I have always loved the Opera browser, I really think it is the best browser available out there. Fast, standards complaint, everything well integrated together, it has also a very clean, nice, intuitive and easy to use interface. I really was a huge Opera fan. However I had to give up and stop using it essentially for one reason: it does not work well with new Google products. Gmail used to break every other week, maps didn't scrolled properly, I never managed to properly render the calendar. Dunno who's fault is this Opera for not implementing some relevant stuff heavily used by new Google's technology, or Google for heavily using technology on which there is still not yet a standard. I am now downloading the new Opera 9.0 to see it for myself, but does anybody knows whether the situation has improved, or if there is at least some interest on either party to solve this very frustrating problems??