927 karma · joined March 31, 2010
they mention apple, google, microsoft have some sort of license from them, i wonder if the relatively low cost of a license is the reason: http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-what-are-you-charging...
i.e., cheaper to just pay them off than fight it.
will you post all of the data (in its original, unadulterated form) collected for free, unrestricted download by anyone for any purpose, including competing with last.fm?
intending to share, and actually making a public promise to do so, are quite different things.
i'm not sure your caricature of the netflix winning solution is correct: i believe it was a blending of around 25 different models (including, i think, the RBM someone pointed about above) each in themselves quite varied from one another. this is typically how these challenges are won.
http://www.shogun-toolbox.org/
it provides a nice wrapper around libsvm, liblinear, and a whole bunch of other classification libraries. plus it provides things like HDF5 support, octave, matlab, python and R bindings, more esoteric kernels (e.g., on strings) as well as one-class and multi-class SVMs.
the correct way to elicit a password from the user for ssh is to use ssh-askpass. a safe way to pass this to processes such that it does not appear in the process table is to pipe it.
Despite the scientific impact of their discovery, both León
and Vega agreed to end their research and allow other
academics to take over. After five years working on the
project, they are ready to let it go and allow other
experts continue the research.
this seems bizarre to me. it cannot be a matter of funding. they've spent 5 years gathering a great deal of expertise, and now decide to quit just when momentum has built up?
they could instead seek collaborations on future work, if they want other people to work on this direction. otherwise there is likely a lot of catching up to do that is perhaps intimidating.then you realise that you want to change a data structure or a function needs some information that you want to weave through it or you used the wrong abstraction. then it's a pain in the ass.
i've used haskell in work i was paid for, i've used haskell for real-time low-level video processing, as well as high level machine learning. i've contributed to a few open source haskell projects. the entire code for one of my research projects was written in haskell, coming to 2.5k lines of code.
you'll often find people who advocate haskell have the attitude that you "just don't get it" or "don't have enough experience" (an attitude you might find purveys some of the responses to my comment... i certainly do). i do like haskell, it's beautiful in many ways, but for large, hard problems where it's tricky to know how to develop code, i found it inappropriate. where you know what you want to write (i.e., have a specification that is solid or are willing to spend a while properly engineering things), haskell is great.
Haskell shines at making frequent fundamental changes.
my experience of haskell is completely the opposite of this. haskell is terrible when you want to make big changes---it's often quicker to just rewrite completely from scratch. fixing all the little inconsistencies is a real pain. want to add an extra parameter to a type class? want to remove an attribute from a data type? sure, if you picked the right abstraction from the start, this is a non-issue, but that's not how it is with a hard problem.the type system gets in your way; this is why i now use python (colleagues have noted the same problems when using c++; we prototype in python, scale up in c for the slow bits). often when i'm fleshing out ideas or trying a new approach, i don't need everything to be consistent---just the bit i'm working on, even then i don't care too much. if things don't quite work, i'd like a quick way to find an inconsistency (often i write a consistency checker function for each class that i use when debugging, that checks types and structures).
i find haskell fundmentally useless for tackling hard (research) problems for this reason alone.
a single user can theoretically throw the mean off from the central tendency completely. i would imagine there are a few users that send a lot more text messages and calling more than most people, biasing the result. it would be more useful to talk about the median in this case, i think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robust_statistics#Examples_of_r...
for other apps, i just have to not install them; it doesn't seem like i can give feedback to app developers about this.
also provided the test data (i.e., the data it's bidding on) is not used in training, this should be a fair(ish) test; overfitting on the training data should lead to poor test performance.
however it's not clear to me that the data aren't being used twice, and what machine learning is actually going on... so in the best of worlds it could be ok, but given the scant details it could be all bunkum...
http://nlp.stanford.edu/~wcmac/papers/20050421-smoothing-tut...
the data is compelling
... Even their money fount, AdWords, is problematic. An
illustrative anecdote: I ...did this and that...
... While I can’t quantify this, I’m confident that most engineers will agree:
the article claims to argue from data, but presents no actual data: simply anecdotes. c.f., http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2011...you simply cannot do this on a desktop system unless you pull in data from other users. you might be able to do that but: bandwidth, privacy concerns, and you might find you have to do just as much work to get the same performance.
$ cat >hello.s <<EOF
.text
.globl main
main:
leaq msg, %rdi
callq puts
ret
.data
msg: .asciz "hello world\n"
EOF
$ as -o hello.o hello.s; cc -o hello hello.o; ./hello
hello worldhttp://www-ai.ijs.si/SasoDzeroski/ICML99/award.html via http://www.machinelearning.org/icml.html
in machine learning, i think the significant conferences are NIPS (http://www.nips.cc/), ICML, UAI (e.g., http://event.cwi.nl/uai2010/), and AISTATS (http://www.aistats.org/).
in terms of metrics of research quality, not all conferences are equal, and "best" papers are often selected by a relatively small group of people whose decision isn't really validated too much.
The Internet was designed to provide a communications channel that is as
resistant to denial of service attacks as human ingenuity can make it. In this note,
we propose the construction of a storage medium with similar properties. The
basic idea is to use redundancy and scattering techniques to replicate data
across a large set of machines (such as the Internet), and add anonymity
mechanisms to drive up the cost of selective service denial attacks. The
detailed design of this service is an interesting scientific problem, and is not
merely academic: the service may be vital in safeguarding individual rights
against new threats posed by the spread of electronic publishing.
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/eternity/eternity.htmlan implementation of which can be found here (also from similar time):
c style:
type Foo = Int
pascal style: newtype Foo = Foo Inti don't think these companies are going to do it, and this seems exactly what w3c is meant to do. so why not? seems more productive.
what kind of person would apply for such a job, knowing this was one of the duties?
how is this not state-sponsored sexual assault?
... definitely trying to avoid the usa for the foreseeable future. too fucked up.
i don't understand why people tolerate facebook. they don't seem deserving of the trust people give them. first opt-in/opt-out privacy issues, now this... plus it doesn't seem like they're really trying to make money yet. i suppose this is what the initial "exclusivity" of the facebook brand got them: loyalty without needing trust.