• To: "Chris Burdess" <d09@h...>,"Peter Hunsberger" <peter.hunsberger@g...>
• Subject: RE: Mailmen, POST, Intent, and Duck Typing
• From: "Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:40:47 -0600
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcY5d3vYUyVkylgnRWShLcPITHPBLwAAiWfQ
• Thread-topic: Mailmen, POST, Intent, and Duck Typing

If I make a bet on the cat being dead, does that 
alter the probability, the fact, or in any way 
change the need to open the box and look?

On the other hand, if I am making a bet on 
spam, my risks are lower than the cat betting 
that I am going to open the box.

Given the frequency of spam, the occasional 
misclassification is a low cost event, strictly 
speaking although there is a probability that 
I will miss something important.

Pragmatic systems are learning systems.

len


From: Chris Burdess [mailto:d09@h...]

The fact that "dumb" Bayesian  
networks with no semantic formalisms have been much more successful  
than expert systems in classifying spam, and therefore much more  
useful to real people, is perhaps a beacon in this regard.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Mailmen, POST, Intent, and Duck Typing
    • From: adasal <adam.saltiel@g...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Did Documents Win? No. Objects Just Couldn't GetTheir Act Together.
• Next by Date: Re: xml xsl web architecture
• Previous by thread: RE: Mailmen, Post, intent, and Duck Typing
• Next by thread: Re: Mailmen, POST, Intent, and Duck Typing
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread