Question: all of the regions on that map (even when zooming in) appear to be either average or above-average. What's the average calibrated against if there aren't any below-average data points? Is the rest of London really slightly-below-average enough to counterbalance the mess in the middle?

If you remember the blatant IBM marketing material that was interspersed with the Jeopardy episodes, they had planned from the start for Watson to be scalable (one of the first applications was medical literature search)—and if you remember the episodes themselves, you'd realise that it's a tad silly to suggest it couldn't handle cases with zero or multiple answers, since it performs Bayesian reasoning on a huge pool of possible hits and simply announced the best one.

But Watson isn't, wasn't, and would never make sense as a simple search engine like Google; it's more like Ask Jeeves in its intended use; the internet is its source text. And do keep in mind that TFS even suggests performing a Google-style search as a fallback mode. (You did actually read something about this before posting, right?)

More importantly, was this headline conceived specifically to foil machine-learning methods for inferring meaning from context? This seems profound in its poignancy.

So... blame it on Bush, again? What relevance does that have? Even if he personally tanked the economy, is this to be an excuse for the entire failure of the various Congresses and the President over the last 5 years?

There was no surplus. The social security contributions were counted in the general fund, which is either correct (which means the "trust fund" is a lie) or incorrect (which means we did not have a surplus and Clinton lied... again).

Don't let the fact that everything you just said is a lie stop you from posting more rants in the future.

The GOP is willing to pass a budget immediately as long as Obama waives the individual mandate-- just like he waived the mandate for employers-- for 2014. It's come to that, but the Fascists in the Senate do not wish to compromise and have said so.

It's time people like you let go of your cognitive dissonance and help us solve our problems.

Actually, no, it's not efficient at all. The bigger the organization, the MORE loss to bureaucracy and corruption. The idea of a benevolent government makes no sense when we in the same breath complain that individuals are not charitable enough.

I sympathize with your situation, but you must be aware that the House passed at least three different bills that would fund the ENTIRE government except Obamacare. They're even willing to fund it if Obama would sign a waiver of the individual mandate for just one year. That means Obamacare, in all its hideousness, would still go into effect for 2015. But Harry Reid, Obama, and their lackeys refuse to compromise, after years of criticizing their opponents for not compromising enough with their demands on other issues.

So I ask you: who are the real villains? And a second question: where are you getting your news? Because you are clearly not well informed.

Someone decided we needed another Jon Katz.

I'm appalled that someone would write such a lengthy article about rights without cracking a history book to find out where the 5th amendment came from. In common law, confessions via torture were admissible. Even when torture was outlawed, it continued to be done in secret as defendants could still be compelled to testify against themselves. The only way to rectify this to a great degree is to give the defendant the option of remaining silent. This way, if he is coerced and thus blabs to avoid torture, it will raise questions. The small potential benefit to the prosecution is not worth the high risk of being caught torturing people.

we do need a baseline measurement.

Certainly. Then, and only then, will measurement of volume and rate acquire meaning. In the interim, statements like:

Even if it isn't a new development,

...and...

could be destabilising parts of the Antarctic ice shelf immediately around them and speeding up melting

...are no more than alarmist bullshit.

Now, next year (and years), when they measure those streams, if the aggregate volume is up, I'll nod in agreement when someone says "this could be a result of warming." Even more meaningful, if the trend continues upwards, we have an actual indicator. But right now we have the equivalent of "hey, here's a traffic signal" with absolutely no indication of if it's red, green, or broken.

> Both, equally.

Exactly ... well, perhaps not exactly equally, but that's part of the problem. People think that because their particular politicritters are fractionally better on some things, that makes the other party a true Crowd of Hoodlums.

Both parties may have different policies and beliefs and different strategies for firing up their base(s) and winning elections, but anyone who thinks that either party is for the "common guy," they are delusional. Simply delusional.

The attempt by both parties to blame this current shutdown on the other would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Of course, it's wrong.

It's basically like asking Google to set the evil bit when they poll your data. I am mesmerized that the MIT Media Lab would turn out something so obviously incapable of disrupting the current ecosystem.

Facebook makes about $16/year/user in English-speaking North America—and it's believed that about 10% of all web traffic is ad-blocked. I'm guessing there are some other people at Facebook who are aware of this situation!