syllogism

69 ms·

661.
by syllogism 16y ago
It's nice that they've done this, because it makes powerful data operations available to non-programmers. I'll be sticking with my Unix command line tools, though.
662.
by syllogism 16y ago
Scientists can't tell you how to define morality, but much of moral reasoning starts from a shared set of premises that establish an ethical framework, and from there it's about empirical questions. In this case the moral axiom would be tha
663.
by syllogism 16y ago
I considered this, but if you assume that the scientists don't benefit from science functioning properly, then they're playing a zero sum game with other scientists --- they're simply competing with each other for a fixed pool of resources.
664.
by syllogism 16y ago
It's a simple matter of incentives. We all want scientists to share their code because that's the positive sum action. But individual scientists aren't paid based on how well the scientific community is doing. They're awarded positions, gra
665.
by syllogism 16y ago
I agree with your post but there's a detail you have wrong. > Then, sew buttons in China? Sure, if the Chinese women had 20 fingers on each hand. But they don't. You're talking about _advantage_. The economists are talking about _compar
666.
by syllogism 16y ago
I spent about a week there for a conference. Yeah there's definitely the gleaming bits, but the city also has little India, and the Arab district. They're a bit more teeming and chaotic, I found. Overall the place was definitely a touch sou
667.
by syllogism 16y ago
I would advise against buying into a large framework too much, because in my experience they aren't very performant, and you usually do need to care about speed here. I think you're better off taking the modules you need from open source li
668.
by syllogism 16y ago
Yeah, it's nice when a paper boils down a task into the best bang-for-buck approach you should take. A recent such paper I'm excited about is this one on coreference resolution from EMNLP 2010: http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D/D10/D10-104
669.
by syllogism 16y ago
I might also answer some questions here. I'm a post-doc in NLP, but more from the linguistics side of things --- less business focussed, and less of a hacker. (Hi Joseph --- we met briefly at ACL. I was one of James Curran's students. My na
670.
by syllogism 16y ago
If you're considering implementing a tagger, then I think this is a good paper to read for approaches that will improve your results in a developer time efficient way: http://l2r.cs.uiuc.edu/~danr/Papers/RatinovRo09.pdf
671.
by syllogism 16y ago
Yeah the key for me is to think about what's being said and question it or relate it to things I know. Integrate it into the knowledge network with as many links as possible. "Yes, of course, because...", or "Hmm, but doesn't this implicati
672.
by syllogism 16y ago
It's Go on Android that I want...
673.
by syllogism 16y ago
As I'd define things, if you're using something for query refinement, then it's part of your IR system. How would you use POS tagging for query refinement though? You can hardly expect to POS tag the user's query, since it's unlikely to be
674.
by syllogism 16y ago
I'd be interested in working on this project --- it's a problem I've come across quite a bit. There's even an academic contest for it, called CLEANEVAL, although the way they set up the problem was arguably not quite right.
675.
by syllogism 16y ago
I think you're just not using sites where this is a problem. Any site that currently pre-moderates comments is a potential customer to a service such as this. For instance, websites of dead tree media must defend their brand vigorously, as
676.
by syllogism 16y ago
I'm skeptical of that. So far things like POS tagging have not demonstrated any benefit in academic information retrieval results, to my knowledge. Granted this is an "absence of evidence" argument, and maybe that shouldn't be taken too ser
677.
by syllogism 16y ago
Yeah, it's really a jumble of ideas. I'm a postdoc doing research on syntactic parsing, and I'm very sure that Google doesn't currently use a syntactic parser. Parsers are currently either too inefficient or too inaccurate to use at web sca
678.
by syllogism 16y ago
Yeah, that problem is a real pain. As I mentioned in my post it's the bit I'm not happy with. I wonder how the readability tool does it; that seems to do a very good job. It seems that OTS uses a word frequency strategy, so the algorithm is
679.
by syllogism 16y ago
Do you want to talk about the summarisation algorithm at all? I wrote a little blog post about a trivial extractive summarisation system a while ago ( http://honnibal.wordpress.com/ ), and there's a long literature on summarisation in NLP