|
Anyone interested in computers will be buying there stuff online. I haven't bought a book in a store in years. (My wife has, which annoys me since it's almost always cheaper online.)
|
|
|
|
|
What Is IBM's Watson?[^]
IBM has put together a supercomputer that parses natural English language and can answer questions -- even difficult word puns like those on the gameshow Jeopardy. Quite a feat if you ask me. The makers of the Jeopardy have agreed to let the machine compete on the show later this fall.
IMO, this is a far greater feat than Deep Blue. And the commercial applications are enormous. Will be interested to see where this goes...and how it performs on Jeopardy this fall. 
Religiously blogging on the intarwebs since the early 21st century: Kineti L'Tziyon
Judah Himango
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, it doesn't. Whereas making a computer understand and respond in natural language has untold usefulness and application, actually programming it in a natural, and therefore ambiguous, language is totally pointless.
|
|
|
|
|
J4amieC wrote: actually programming it in a natural, and therefore ambiguous, language is totally pointless.
Ah, that explains why the program never does what the customer wants it to do.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
J4amieC wrote: a natural, and therefore ambiguous, language is totally pointless
Wasn't that Osmo's big claim? That it was pointerless.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
|
|
|
|
|
J4amieC wrote: programming it in a natural, and therefore ambiguous, language is totally pointless.
Hardly.
If it's advanced enough to understand natural language, it's advanced enough to ask for clarification if there's ambiguity ("Are you sure you want to do that, Dave?")
This would, however, make us pointless, because it means that people without degrees for programming languages will be able to tell their computers what they want them to do -- without paying us to implement it for them.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Much as in DIY plumbing, they'll pay us oodles to come fix the mess they just narrated.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Wallace wrote: This would, however, make us pointless, because it means that people without degrees for programming languages will be able to tell their computers what they want them to do -- without paying us to implement it for them.
Kind of what has been happening with WYSIWYG. 
|
|
|
|
|
Alex: "Please phrase your responses in the form of an answer"
Watson: "I'm afraid I can't do that Dave"
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
That's awesome! It brings back the heydays of Deep Blue. This is just the sort of thing that restores my faith in old timey flashy science when it wanes.
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better.
- Poul Anderson
|
|
|
|
|
Judah Himango wrote: And the commercial applications are enormous.
A an answering machine robot that can tell when you're being sarcastic?
|
|
|
|
|
anyone experienced a problem doing such?
----------------------------------------------------------
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
|
|
|
|
|
Nope.
me, me, me
"The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!"
Larry Niven
nils illegitimus carborundum
|
|
|
|
|
Only an insane person would do this.
Two heads are better than one.
|
|
|
|
|
Not really. Sometimes you leave the old versions installed for older projects that were never converted (for whatever reason). Still 4 versions is unusual. But 2 versions is quite common, and even 3 wouldn't be that unheard of.
|
|
|
|
|
I have VS2008, VS2005 and VS2003 + vc6 installed on the work machine. The reason is I have C++ projects (100K + lines each) in each version and porting old code to newer compilers takes time.
John
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, but 4 versions would put you in a very small minority. Now you'd probably have VS 2010 too - making that 5 versions. 
|
|
|
|
|
I will have that in Q4 when we renew our academic licences. I am not sure I will use it for any project though. I am just trying to find time for one of my programmers to port a major project from VS2005 to VS2008 because VS2005 does not play well (crashes about every 3 compiles) with my Windows7 64 bit i7 box.
John
|
|
|
|
|
I wish that were the case then I would know what was wrong with me...
But I'm forced to have a simialr set-up, because we have old legacy apps to support that aren't worth updating...
|
|
|
|
|
I would create a virtual machine and reinstall old versions in it, and that would leave just one version on your main desktop, thus enforcing your hatred of the legacy apps that you have to maintain.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: reinstall old versions
Someone is going to need extra time.
|
|
|
|
|
I have yet to see a VM perform in any way near native performance meaning compiles take 2 to 10 times as long in a VM and this is annoying for tools that take 1 hour to build on a native i7 system.
John
|
|
|
|
|
Are there any VM players that behave nicely with multiple monitors? I have an MSVPC for XP stuff but being trapped on a single screen is unacceptable these days.
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
RDP can handle multiple monitors nowadays. Fire up the VM, but instead of logging in using VPC (or whatever), log into it via RDP.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
