I agree with you, but I still think accuracy for streaming recommendations can be pretty important. If it takes you five recommendations on average to find one show you like, chances are your faith in the recommendation is lower than say if it only took you one to three (on average). This in turn lowers the value of their recommendation system, which lowers the value of their service.
I'm sure the Engineers that came up with the Machine learning algorithm don't give 2 damns if Netflix used their algorithm, since they got paid.
What's interesting about this is that their suggestion system for streaming videos still affects the company's value prop. And the whole point of the machine learning algorithm is that based on a sample set of millions of input data, they can extrapolate a rating system that holds true for billions of future cases (at least better than their current system).
What I'm saying is they have even more data now, and they could probably pay some engineers to build a new machine learning algorithm for streaming videos, with a very good chance of making a much more accurate system. I'd rather see them spend money on that then trying to launch their own cable channel.
Ahh, an allusion to the wild west internet. Hard to buy your argument when you misrepresent the situation.
Seeing as they just passed a law in Arizona that makes it illegal to use offensive language on the internet, I'd say the pendulum is swinging in the wrong direction.
But hell, I guess their intentions were good. That's what matters right? Cyber-bullies beware!!!
Google? The company that is pretty much building a fiber optic network out of pocket in Kansas City with an almost guarantee to not make money off of it? The company that is constantly upgrading and providing new (Drive) free services? I think you are confusing Google with Apple (they actually have more money than they know what to do with).
Your speculations are uninformed and baseless, devoid of any sort of reasoning or backing except for perhaps your 'gut feeling'.
Feel free to update your speculations with *any* supporting material.
"This just shows the US's general and total lack of understanding of cultures of other nations. Free Speech in something Americans use as a shield to hide behind, and as an excuse to allow hate and racism."
Is that a fact? We get that you don't like America, but arguments aiming towards eliminating racist speech that are loaded with racism / stereotypes seem fundamentally flawed.
Your laws do nothing to reduce racism. If the reason you don't say hateful things or discriminate against a particular race is because of fear of legal retribution, you are in fact still racist. Though maybe a more careful racist.
I don't think anyone cares about the idea of .music. Innovative companies will stay clear of it because of the additional regulation / enforcement.
It's not like kids will be like "I can't find pirated music on these .music sites. What now!?"
It's much more likely that the people that only pirate will start filtering out those sites either through self-conditioning or using software tools.
Most likely the next step in the RIAA's argument is to force these shitty sites to the top of Google's search results, since they are the authentic source of .whatever, and then complain / sue because they don't understand how google's search algorithm works.
People who rely on the "news" to "get [your] news and form views" without any skepticism are already screwed.
While I feel that Daisey should have been clear on the dramatic liberties he took with his piece, I do feel like This American Life is ultimately responsible for what it's showing. Either more fact checking should have been done, or they have to accept the risk they took running a story they weren't sure was true, and with it the (most likely minimal) backlash they will receive over the fabricated parts.
Human contribution (non exclusive) to global warming is accepted by over 90% of the scientific community, iirc. What that means for the environment / climate change is pretty highly debated though.
"authority is hereby given for the printing, publishing or importation..."
How could emailing a picture of a dollar be counterfeiting? What kind of idiot thinks he can spend an image of a dollar on his screen? It's not printed on paper, so clearly the laws pertaining to importation/printing/publishing do not apply, moron. Keep making shit up, you nasty dickhead.
No, you clearly stand on a warped moral high ground where you think people should be imprisoned for victim-less crimes.
Hell, you can call it whatever you want. You are entitled to incorrectly think whatever you want. If you think the world is made of peach jam, that's all you. It's not an opinion, it's wrong.
Wait, so you think IP-related "stealing" is victim-less, but you think the offenders should be imprisoned?
W T F? Are you kidding me? Name one victim-less crime where the offenders penalty is jail time.
Also, IP-related stealing sounds stupid as hell. This could be on the level of corporate patent infringement, which is in some cases legitimately illegal. Get off your (incorrectly) moral high ground.
I've had quite a few arguments over sampling / covering / "stealing" from other artists, and almost always at the end of the argument we both agree that little to no harm is ever done to the original artists. If anything, value is added.
On the post: Why Netflix Never Implemented The Algorithm That Won The Netflix $1 Million Challenge
Re: Sure there's a difference
On the post: Why Netflix Never Implemented The Algorithm That Won The Netflix $1 Million Challenge
Re:
What's interesting about this is that their suggestion system for streaming videos still affects the company's value prop. And the whole point of the machine learning algorithm is that based on a sample set of millions of input data, they can extrapolate a rating system that holds true for billions of future cases (at least better than their current system).
What I'm saying is they have even more data now, and they could probably pay some engineers to build a new machine learning algorithm for streaming videos, with a very good chance of making a much more accurate system. I'd rather see them spend money on that then trying to launch their own cable channel.
On the post: CISPA Is A Really Bad Bill, And Here's Why
Re:
On the post: Did Congress Really Not Pay Attention To What Happened With SOPA? CISPA Ignorance Is Astounding
Re:
Seeing as they just passed a law in Arizona that makes it illegal to use offensive language on the internet, I'd say the pendulum is swinging in the wrong direction.
But hell, I guess their intentions were good. That's what matters right? Cyber-bullies beware!!!
On the post: No, Netflix Has NOT Formed A Pro-SOPA SuperPAC
Re:
On the post: Forced MPAA Filter On IsoHunt Means Legitimate Content Is Being Censored
Re:
On the post: Supreme Court Says You Can Be Strip Searched When Admitted To Jails For Any Offense
Re: Um...
On the post: Organization Overseeing Six Strikes Agreement Between Labels And ISPs Includes Advisory Board To Try To Keep Tech Folks Happy
Re:
Your speculations are uninformed and baseless, devoid of any sort of reasoning or backing except for perhaps your 'gut feeling'.
Feel free to update your speculations with *any* supporting material.
On the post: White House's New Report On Intellectual Property Enforcement Should Get A Copyright As A Creative Work Of Fiction
Re: Re: Opacity
Stop trying to save me.
On the post: In The UK They Jail People For Being Obnoxious Jerks On Twitter?
Re:
"This just shows the US's general and total lack of understanding of cultures of other nations. Free Speech in something Americans use as a shield to hide behind, and as an excuse to allow hate and racism."
Is that a fact? We get that you don't like America, but arguments aiming towards eliminating racist speech that are loaded with racism / stereotypes seem fundamentally flawed.
Your laws do nothing to reduce racism. If the reason you don't say hateful things or discriminate against a particular race is because of fear of legal retribution, you are in fact still racist. Though maybe a more careful racist.
On the post: In The UK They Jail People For Being Obnoxious Jerks On Twitter?
The only hatred or violence being stirred up by Stacey...
What's next, the thought police?
On the post: Yet Another Attempt To Place Warning Labels On Video Games Based On Zero Evidence
Re: This has nothing to do with 'protecting children'
On the post: Fear-Induced Foolishness: Entertainment Industry Thinks Controls On New TLDs Will Actually Impact Piracy
Re: Re: Re:
It's not like kids will be like "I can't find pirated music on these .music sites. What now!?"
It's much more likely that the people that only pirate will start filtering out those sites either through self-conditioning or using software tools.
Most likely the next step in the RIAA's argument is to force these shitty sites to the top of Google's search results, since they are the authentic source of .whatever, and then complain / sue because they don't understand how google's search algorithm works.
On the post: This American Life Retracts Entire Episode About Apple Factories After Mike Daisey Admits To Fabricating Parts Of The Story
Re:
While I feel that Daisey should have been clear on the dramatic liberties he took with his piece, I do feel like This American Life is ultimately responsible for what it's showing. Either more fact checking should have been done, or they have to accept the risk they took running a story they weren't sure was true, and with it the (most likely minimal) backlash they will receive over the fabricated parts.
On the post: No, Saying Musicians Must 'Add Value' Does Not Mean Music Has No Value
Re:
On the post: Since The RIAA & MPAA Say That A Copy Is Just As Valuable As The Original, Send Them A Copy Of Money
Re: Re:
How could emailing a picture of a dollar be counterfeiting? What kind of idiot thinks he can spend an image of a dollar on his screen? It's not printed on paper, so clearly the laws pertaining to importation/printing/publishing do not apply, moron. Keep making shit up, you nasty dickhead.
On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing
Re: Re: Re: It can be.
Hell, you can call it whatever you want. You are entitled to incorrectly think whatever you want. If you think the world is made of peach jam, that's all you. It's not an opinion, it's wrong.
On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing
Re: Re: Re: It can be.
W T F? Are you kidding me? Name one victim-less crime where the offenders penalty is jail time.
Also, IP-related stealing sounds stupid as hell. This could be on the level of corporate patent infringement, which is in some cases legitimately illegal. Get off your (incorrectly) moral high ground.
On the post: Michael Jackson, Pirate Remixer
Daryl Hall is a badass
I've had quite a few arguments over sampling / covering / "stealing" from other artists, and almost always at the end of the argument we both agree that little to no harm is ever done to the original artists. If anything, value is added.
On the post: How Big Music Companies Are Stealing Hundreds Of Millions In Royalties From Artists
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>