Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
James Tauber
Is this you? Claim Profile »
7 months ago
in AI Strategies, the iPhone, and Go on More Like This Web Log
As I suggested a few months ago in http://jtauber.com/blog/2008/07/07/turing_chess/ I'm surprised there hasn't been more effort put in to making Chess or Go programs that attempt to pass a Turing test rather than simply beat humans.
11 months ago
in Reusable applications and tests - Officially Lucky, a blog by Clint Ecker on Officially Lucky
If you're interested in the whole question of testing within the app versus testing a project that the app is in: we're facing that question with Pinax now. Given I'd like to include your apps in Pinax, perhaps we can address your question and ours together.
1 year ago
in Aspect in the past on Pandammonium
I commented before reading Crystal. I guess he gives some more examples. For me, burnt/burned is the clearest, though.
1 year ago
in Aspect in the past on Pandammonium
I hadn't thought about the burnt/burned distinction but it certainly works for me.
I'm struggling, though, to find another example where a -t/-ed alternation is used to contrast perfective and imperfective.
Is there a semantic difference between "the house burned for hours" and "the house was burning for hours"? They are both imperfective in aspect but perhaps the latter is more marked for past tense.
For me, at least, only the -t form can be used adjectivally; i.e. "the burnt toast" vs "*the burned toast".
What's really interesting, though, is that the ability to distinguish -t from -ed is both morphologically and phonologically conditioned. The verb has to be a weak verb and has to phonologically allow for the -t/-ed alternation.
Weird. It's these kinds of things that make linguistics fascinating and frustrating at the same time :-)
I'm struggling, though, to find another example where a -t/-ed alternation is used to contrast perfective and imperfective.
Is there a semantic difference between "the house burned for hours" and "the house was burning for hours"? They are both imperfective in aspect but perhaps the latter is more marked for past tense.
For me, at least, only the -t form can be used adjectivally; i.e. "the burnt toast" vs "*the burned toast".
What's really interesting, though, is that the ability to distinguish -t from -ed is both morphologically and phonologically conditioned. The verb has to be a weak verb and has to phonologically allow for the -t/-ed alternation.
Weird. It's these kinds of things that make linguistics fascinating and frustrating at the same time :-)
2 years ago
in Lynx on Pandammonium
Back in 1993, Lynx was the only way I could access the nascent WWW as my only Internet connection was via dialup dumb terminal. Didn't seem a limitation at the time, though, as everything was text-only and suitable for dumb terminals (elm and pine, tin and nn, archie, ftp, gopher)
Then along came Mosaic. I remember the first website I saw in Mosaic that had images. It was a guide from students at MIT on how to pick locks and it included diagrams! Diagrams on the Internet! It was a watershed moment for me.
That said, Lynx was for a long time (and probably still is, really) the best way to check the true accessibility of the content on your website.
Then along came Mosaic. I remember the first website I saw in Mosaic that had images. It was a guide from students at MIT on how to pick locks and it included diagrams! Diagrams on the Internet! It was a watershed moment for me.
That said, Lynx was for a long time (and probably still is, really) the best way to check the true accessibility of the content on your website.
4 years ago
in folksonomy and *structured* metadata? on Phil Dawes' Stuff
I had some thoughts related to this in my post Tag the Tags.
4 years ago
in Time to deprecate RDF/XML? on Phil Dawes' Stuff
Agreed. See my blog and More on XML and RDF in particular for more thoughts.
