Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Microkernal Boner (Score 4, Informative) 212

by qpqp (#49490435) Attached to: GNU Hurd 0.6 Released

If your boner for microkernals lasts more than 25 years, you should probably consult a physician.

I recommend a look at Andrew S Tannenbaum's baby:

MINIX 3 is a free, open-source, operating system designed to be highly reliable, flexible, and secure. It is based on a tiny microkernel running in kernel mode with the rest of the operating system running as a number of isolated, protected, processes in user mode. It runs on x86 and ARM CPUs, is compatible with NetBSD, and runs thousands of NetBSD packages.

Minix

Comment: Re:How is this really news? (Score 1) 309

by qpqp (#49484493) Attached to: NVIDIA's New GPUs Are Very Open-Source Unfriendly
You know, sometimes this pretentious anti-entitlement bullshit is just getting too much on my nerves.
Sometimes it's just a waste of time to argue with such people. They just state something and then you are expected to come up with a referenced list of refutations, while in reality, they were just trolling/astroturfing/swaying public opinion.
Of course people, who are pushing ahead our capabilities are entitled to more demands than beancounters, who only focus on the balance of possible gains and expenses vs. risk.
Vis-a-vis jklovanc, this would have been a moot argument, however, as apparently, he already formed an opinion - and we all know how easy it is to prove someone wrong and have him/her admit it.
So I decided to do the next best thing and reinforce the opinions of entitled people to actually continue to feel entitled and push the boundaries further.

Comment: Re:How is this really news? (Score -1, Flamebait) 309

by qpqp (#49480989) Attached to: NVIDIA's New GPUs Are Very Open-Source Unfriendly

Still a very small market. Lets see, they can spend resources working on the next card that can make them million or spend the same resources suppoting a small market that may make a few $100K. If you ran the company which would you choose?

Are you retarded? How is publishing documentation the same effort as evolving a GPU design?

PS. Using profanity just makes you appear to be an illiterate idiot.

Right, and shitting made up numbers out of your arse makes you a fucking genius...

How is a private company obliged to support your project?

Because "to live in society, while being free of it is impossible." (Lenin)
Now go fuck yourself!

Comment: Re:It's just hard work and machine learning (Score 1) 68

by qpqp (#49337193) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Happened To Semantic Publishing?

There will always be some outliers/exceptions, but it should be possible to sufficiently specifically define the rules and vocabulary of a given system, possibly by breaking it further down into facets/perspectives and then mapping the relations and constraints.
So then you could have many ontologies, which will gradually converge over time. I'm talking long-term, of course. The annotation part could also require consensus, or vetting, by multiple recognized entities. All in all, the result would still be more or less a fluid body, but then so is everything around us, as the only constant in our world is that everything is changing.

And I agree with you that ML and annotation/classification & co. are complimentary tools. And it will take a lot of work to have end users semantically enrich their output.

Where I disagree is in your definition of a model, which is not necessarily an incorrect representation. It's just a representation, the level of detail varies from use-case to use-case.

So anyway, the big question is how to get there...

Comment: Re:It's just hard work and machine learning (Score 1) 68

by qpqp (#49333613) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Happened To Semantic Publishing?

And if I've misrepresented rockmuelle, or misunderstood your question, qpqp, it's because I don't have an exact model of what you're saying.

Come now, don't blame everything on me!

What I meant by exact model is of course a predictable, and in a sense deterministic process; inasmuch as that is possible for the given case.
Even with machine learning you create a representation of the surveyed system, but this model will (currently, and in most cases) always be an approximation.
By mapping concepts, their (often ambiguous) meanings, usage scenarios and other relations from different areas to each other, supported by these approximations, it should in time be possible to avoid the issues related to the fuzziness and create a truly smart and adaptive system.

Of course, our universe (as far as we know) is (inherently?) non-deterministic. And obviously, if that is so, you'd have to somehow cheat (e.g. be able to observe our universe from more than the 4 dimensions we can perceive) to get a truly exact model, assuming that some (reachable) abstraction point is deterministic.
What I'm suggesting is that with some effort it should be possible for us to come up with something with the ability to understand something (like you did with my question, despite lacking an exact model;) ). And while ML is quite crude and more like a sledgehammer, an accurate definition is more like a chisel. At least with respect to the model(s).
Assuming such a system is created, it will have similar limitations like humans with regard to the ability to understand something, as we do not know everything as far as I am aware.

But anyway, the librarians didn't have the technical capability to create such a multi-dimensional mess like we currently can, so maybe these things we're talking about just have their own math that we just need to understand the proper rules for. It's all metadata anyway, but currently, I guess the closest we have to an exact model is in the hands of the NSA...

Comment: Re:I hope "semantic" != "annoying popups" (Score 1) 68

by qpqp (#49332497) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Happened To Semantic Publishing?

I'm not sure I really follow your argument

Well the other services (except for email, obviously) are largely run by volunteers and don't even have ads (spam notwithstanding).

Quality in the things that are not important to contributors, but are important to many of the people who do not contribute? Not so high.

Now I'm not sure that I follow. Sure, there's lots of stuff that lacks the polish of countless missing man-hours, but we've all come a really long way since the 80s/90s. I'm sure we'll get there if we don't fuck up before that.
I've also seen lots of examples of features that were unimportant to the contributors, but since there was an itch to scratch e.g. in getting recognition from their users, a similar level of rigor was applied to satisfy them.
(Certainly, there's lots of negative examples too, but the point stands, that there was little "physical" value that some devs received for their work and yet still the projects thrive(d). I was, of course, assuming that you meant money when you said "paying for things" in your original post.)

Comment: Re:It's just hard work and machine learning (Score 1) 68

by qpqp (#49332419) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Happened To Semantic Publishing?
I agree that the tools are currently insufficient (though quite powerful, e.g. Protege), but I also believe that it's quite possible to achieve a high level of accuracy by combining better tools, dividing the problem space and working on killer features that require this higher level of abstraction.
Ideally, people (at first for industrial applications) would recognize the need for a proper machine-readable representation of the different states of a specific environment, so that eventually the different ontologies could be mapped to each other.
An exhausting (i.e. universal) categorization of all possible states (of everything) is largely unnecessary, as even now, when we communicate with each other, use the respective vocabulary of the specific topic/area/system and only (comparatively) rarely need to "interface" or interesect with other areas/vocabularies, e.g. when we want to draw parallels to a similar concept in a different system. With time, I'm sure we'll could even get to a meta-ontology and evolve our language and understanding accordingly.

Nothing happens.

Working...