Everyone knows the last vampire was killed off by a teenage film series.
I'm just teasing you. Play with Reaper. You'll be rewarded for the time spent.
The FOSS auto-tune alternative has been around a long time. It's called "practice"
Next up, a circuit to ring a bell when someone calls your phone.
Its not a zero-sum game, ya know. China "winning" comes mostly at the cost of their rampant ecological disaster and corrupt mid-level government. They push solar because the air is literally toxic.
Well, if the ISP's succeed in switching us from a base/tiered bandwidth billing scheme to a metered or base+metered billing scheme, then they better be prepared for highly-customized clients that skip/morph pages to avoid useless downloads. Adblock is just the tip of the iceberg.
Frameworks, Platforms, Languages.... which to choose for "longevity" isn't the right question.
Ask First: How long is the product's lifetime?
Will the tools used be supportable over that period? Most business applications don't live more than 10 years. Mostly because the data requirements completely change over that time.
Regardless of tools, if you really want to avoid the future "big rewrite" make sure the system is partitioned - all the way through the persistence/data layers. You should be able to someday migrate it in pieces.
Tagging isn't anything. It's a construct within a semantic web design; a common-language-everywhere issue. Essentially, you want everyone to agree to a tagging vocabulary, or morph things into it using automation. Why not just ask everyone to speak Esperanto?
My questions for OP...
why use words of any language?
why isn't everything online (include video, images, sound) simply act like a tag with "search the web with this input"?
isn't the best database of tags the web itself? in that case, isn't our best query a search engine?
Both. Scarcity will disappear for a larger portion of the population, but imo wealth is already just consuming higher-end versions of the same toys.
There will be a point where labor+logistics within the country will be a equation, but fuel costs and overseas instability will have to rise.
But survey results from executives seem to disagree
The biggest question I have is just how many shops will be able to re-awaken manufacturing at large-scale if/when. One of several common concerns:
I think we're talking about two different things. NLP breaks down into the "hard AI" problem for any sufficiently complex conversation.
See my other response above in this thread.
Having re-read the article, this "dictionary without a dictionary" is a frozen-in-time corpus, which won't be able to *converse* with people because it's built from written text, which is dramatically different. Now, if this body of statistical word association was tied into just the language of a single town, and everyone's spoken conversations in that town for the past 10 years, then it might be easier for those particular people to use this tool, but still far from using "natural" language.
Each time I've researched NLP solutions, the full sensory experience is ultimately found to play a role in full context and meaning. This begins in a very tight locale, and expands outward, or hopping around locations/time as part of context.
Instead, when most solutions attempt to pick a "general corpus" of a language, they pick such a general version of the language that contextual associations are difficult to follow for any conversation. Even the most ubiquitous vocabulary, such as in national broadcast news, there are assumptions that point all the way back to simplistic models of our experiences via sight/hearing, taste/smell, touch/movement and planning/expectation. Even in our best attempts, nothing such as metaphor or allusion is followed well, and only the most robotic - formal - language understood. This interaction is certainly nothing "natural".
I don't believe NLP problems will be (as easily) solved until we begin to solve the "general stimulus" for input, storage, searching and recall across the senses that humans have - their true "natural" habitat that language is describing. So that when apple goes from "round" to "red" to "about 4in" to "computer" to "beatles" to "not yet in season here" to "sometimes bitter" to "my favorite of grandma's pies", etc - and onward, like potential quantum states until the rest of the conversation collapses most of them - we may be able to get a computer to really understand natural language. This isn't possible in just the manipulation of pieces of text and pointers.
Dawkins' quotes and intentions are often cherry-picked toward their most limited form, but from what I've read, he questions why smart people, who reflect on their faith, continue to embrace it. Usually, people select only a few tenets of a faith - one must since all are self-contradictory in some way. So for most people it usually boils down to The Golden Rule, plus some added flavoring of ceremonial icing.
I believe Dawkins would rather people examine their faith, and not allow it to suffice for an answer in any scientific exploration. Once it does, that person is willingly embracing an artificial limit. As exploration continues, that limit manifests itself as "ignorance" in comparison. If there was a faith that refused to divide, label or abandon portions of society and stuck merely to the myth of an afterlife, we'd be far along the path to agreement. The last step on this path Dawkins takes, as most atheists, is to connect the scientific inquiry to the myths of the afterlife and reason that nothing has presented any overwhelming evidence thus far. Hence, one more position: no myth is correct.
Religions never stay to just the position of postulating a myth as a story. They demand concrete actions in the here & now, which - though well-intentioned - only continue to label, divide, compel, coerce and finally, limit man's curiosity. One only need to look at the huge campaigns to teach ID myths as science to see how a generation of people raised without the knowledge of how evolution works will severely limit advances in the physical sciences. This is a damn shame, all in the name of something that could instead be a fascinating story.
The Abrahamic religions, popular today, are severely limiting. The polytheistic religions predating them even more so, and the Naturalistic religions predating them even more so. So it seems we're heading toward a less-limiting worldview, but it certainly seems to be a slow crawl. Dawkins is perhaps showing us that our beliefs in the mysterious don' t have to restrict any discussion, propose any behavior, or demand any sacrifice. They are no more useful than a science fiction movie in doing so - entertaining and yet not relevant to any real journey of discovery: Research, Inquiry, Postulation, Experiment, Revision, Discussion. Religions always seems to want to curtail something in that process.
Once the FAA puts these designs through the wringer, it'll be much the same involved certification process as current aircraft. Time, money and commitment keep most people out of recreational aircraft now, I doubt any of that will change. These are just overpriced new designs.
Hmm. I think I've heard this comment before. Usenet, then dialup hubs, then "blogging", then forums, each used to be in this position. They still exist. Yes, these populations were tech savvy and FB is drop-dead easy, but the next product will have to be even easier.
I can't predict the future, but FB will leak members as the market fragments. Something will eclipse them entirely for it's core featureset, eventually. There's no way commercial companies can compete with the try-anything openness of the general web. Whatever does, it will have to (at least initially) tie-in to FB to bridge the gap. FB itself would dislike this but they may have no choice. Behold the Age of Social-Dashboards.