It's still better than previous attempts. That's the point. Nobody claimed the machine is actually a thinking entity. It's just a good enough algorithm to fool some of the people some of the time. Which is better than before. Where is the problem?
still though, it's an improvement over past attempts. I think complaining about this is kind of like complaining about the fact that 'magicians' aren't using 'real' magic. Of course it's a trick/algorithm. What's the problem with a more convincing algorithm than the last attempts getting a little praise for it?
It's like HughesNet on the moon. Gaming and anything else like remote viewers (RDP, conference calling, etc) apps will suck too. It's kinda like how on CNN when you see those Satellite uplink interviews where they pause for like 5 seconds between questions and answers, except for everything. After having DirecWay on the side of my house for less than the 30 day trial period, I have a new respect for people remote controlling the rover on mars.
While I don't think they use Monte Carlo modeling for the weather, you do have a point about it being a young thing. The gist of TFA is a little silly though... sure someone (google) is using a faulty algorithm to grok epidemiology data... and? That's about the only conclusion we can draw. Doesn't mean 'the technology' itself (ie big data platforms, the techniques applied to it -- graph traversal or map reduce, etc) are actually 'bad things.'
I know the comment section is what it's all about, but seriously though, you are given a channel to provide your feedback. no need to go postal on them. the fact that they are actually redoing the website and providing feedback channels indicates that they are well aware of the need for readers. it's in their interest to do what you want. but you don't have to throw a fucking fit about it.
Right because throwing a temper tantrum in the comments section of a free site is so much more respectable.
Yeah, I think I've seen this episode. It's a rerun.
Those large teams of people were hired and paid by them, receiving more than their own talents procure alone without having someone to pay them for them. So yes, while 'self-made' men require paying an army to work for them, any one 'soldier' in the army receives a bonus for the boss having assembled it, and included them in it.
It's funny, that was my first response, before even starting the summary. The writer seems to know nothing of the difference between codes and code. Baby, bathwater, out.
Saving money. Baller (not ballmer)
If you are doing military work, you probably have to worry about ITAR (international trade in arms regulations) which is a LOT cheaper to handle if you don't hire foreigners. This is not to say anything about the competency of foreign workers, it just means you have to jump through the government hoops, which in the case of ITAR means avoiding having to set up a 100% separate network where foreign nationals must have independently trackable/restrict-able access. If you want someone to blame for this inconvenience and inefficiency, look no further than your helpful government.
If, by national origin you mean, "wages at which you receive commensurate service" then you're correct. But you do not mean that. So you're not. If you can achieve a similar result at a lower cost, your customers win. That's business. Start your own if you're feeling victimized. If 85% of businesses fail, that means you only have to do it 6 times before you're a winner. And if you fail, yes, it is your fault. Try again.
+1 Funny. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about here... the idea is not to appeal to coders with geeky heros, it's to get people who aren't coders to code. If will.i.am can talk someone into a computer science degree, great... where's the problem?
er... they have to start somewhere? it's not meant to be fool proof. just better than reading all of them. do you, when you browse the web, look at every single document, following every link, until you get one that is relevant? no, you go to google, put in some keywords, and look at those results. Do you get wrong pages? Same thing. I don't think the government should be reading our emails without a warrant or anything, I'm just saying, logistically speaking, there is nothing wrong with producing false positives, there are many ways to weed them out, even before 'reading' them. there is always the possibility they'd get false positives even just picking emails at random to read too, so I don't see what your issue is... if the moral implication of searching people's email is what you're upset about, then complain about that. But if you're already past that point, and you're going to search them, keywords are a good start. I don't see how that's anything but self-evident.