IBM’s Watson has parleyed its overwhelming victory in this week’s “Jeopardy!” challenge into a job developing smart applications for the health care industry.

IBM said it will team Watson’s Deep Question Answering, Natural Language Processing, and Machine Learning capabilities with Nuance Communications’ speech recognition and Clinical Language Understanding package to diagnose and offer treatment plans for patients that will let hospitals, physicians and payers access critical and timely information. As part of the agreement, IBM has licensed access to the Watson technology to Nuance which makes a variety of intelligent software packages for business and health care communities. The two companies expect the first commercial offerings from their relationship to be available in 18-24 months, IBM stated.

IBM’s Watson has parleyed its overwhelming victory in this week’s “Jeopardy!” challenge into a job developing smart applications for the health care industry.

IBM said it will team Watson’s Deep Question Answering, Natural Language Processing, and Machine Learning capabilities with Nuance Communications’ speech recognition and Clinical Language Understanding package to diagnose and offer treatment plans for patients that will let hospitals, physicians and payers access critical and timely information. As part of the agreement, IBM has licensed access to the Watson technology to Nuance which makes a variety of intelligent software packages for business and health care communities. The two companies expect the first commercial offerings from their relationship to be available in 18-24 months, IBM stated.

According to IBM there will be others contributing to the health care relationship. Columbia University Medical Center and the University of Maryland School of Medicine are contributing their medical expertise and research to the collaborative effort. Physicians at Columbia University are helping identify critical issues in the practice of medicine where the Watson technology may be able to contribute, and physicians at the University of Maryland are working to identify the best way that a technology like Watson could interact with medical practitioners to provide the maximum assistance, IBM stated.

Watson’s ability to analyze the meaning and context of human language, and quickly process information to find precise answers, can assist decision makers such as physicians and nurses, unlock important knowledge and facts buried within huge volumes of information, and offer answers they may not have considered to help validate their own ideas or hypotheses, IBM stated.

From IBM: “… a doctor considering a patient’s diagnosis could use Watson’s analytics technology, in conjunction with Nuance’s voice and clinical language understanding solutions, to rapidly consider all the related texts, reference materials, prior cases, and latest knowledge in journals and medical literature to gain evidence from many more potential sources than previously possible. This could help medical professionals confidently determine the most likely diagnosis and treatment options.”

In case you missed it, Watson finished a three-day stint on the game show “Jeopardy!” by trouncing his human opponents. From an IDG News Service story: In the final episode of the prerecorded two-game, three-night match, Watson had trounced the competition, amassing $77,147 in winnings over the two “Jeopardy!” champions it played, Brad Rutter and Ken Jennings. Rutter scored $21,600 and Jennings scored $24,000. Watson also took the $1 million champion prize, which IBM will donate to charity.

IBM researchers spent four years building Watson. The machine is capable of processing 80 trillion operations (teraflops) per second. It runs about 2,800 IBM Power7 processor cores and has 16 terabytes of working memory.

In building Watson, IBM employed technology research from MIT, University of Texas, University of Southern California, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, University at Albany, University of Trento, the University of Massachusetts, and Carnegie Mellon University. All contributed to help advance Watson’s ability to understand industries such as health care, banking, government and more.
[Source: NetworkWorld ]

The “Jeopardy!” King? If the preliminary test rounds are any indication, the IBM natural language supercomputer known as Watson will give former “Jeopardy!” human champions Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter a serious run for their money this week. Watson, named after IBM founder Thomas J. Watson, is programmed to rival the human ability to answer questions posed in natural language with speed and accuracy. Watson’s software runs on IBM POWER7 servers optimized to handle the massive number of tasks it must perform at rapid speeds to analyze complex language and deliver correct responses to “Jeopardy!” clues. IBM has been prepping Watson for the show by playing more than 50 “sparring games” against former “Jeopardy!” Tournament of Champions contestants and Watson has passed the same “Jeopardy!” contestant test that humans take to qualify to play on the show. “Jeopardy!” requires forms of reasoning that are quite sophisticated, using metaphors, puns and puzzles that go beyond basic understanding of the language. As a challenge problem, “Jeopardy!” will stretch the state of the art, IBM stated.

How about a nice game of chess? In what was certainly one of the most celebrated chess matches of all time, IBM’s Deep Blue computer beat world champ Garry Kasparov for the first time in 1996. The IBM machine was able to calculate 200 million chess moves per second, IBM claimed. According to Computerworld: “Deep Blue’s tour de force was the culmination of an eight-year, multimillion-dollar research project at IBM that led directly to advances in chip design, parallel-processing techniques and algorithms. That research continues as part of IBM’s $100 million Blue Gene project, which during the next decade will build a machine operating at 1 quadrillion floating-point operations per second (1 petaFLOPS) to attack problems such as protein folding, molecular dynamics and drug design.” Kasparov famously came back to win the best of the six-game match. In 2003 Kasparov and the IBM Deep Junior computer played to a draw in a $1 million International Chess Federation match.

Poker face: In 2007 researchers from the University of Alberta played their Polaris poker system against poker professionals Phil Laak and Ali Eslami at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Vancouver, B.C. The competition consisted of four duplicate matches, with 500 hands per match. In each duplicate match, the same cards were dealt to both pairs of players, human and bot, but with the seating reversed. After 16 hours of play over two days, Polaris tied the first round, won the second and lost the last two. At the time, Jonathan Schaeffer, leader of the computer science team that created Polaris, said: “We have developed a format that has helped us factor out luck and make it into a scientific experiment to determine how good humans are relative to the best program in the world.” It was actually the second time Laak had faced a University of Alberta poker program. In a 2005 match in Las Vegas, Laak beat Vexbot, a predecessor of Polaris, partly because he played better, but also because he had far more luck that day, as Laak stated.

Checkers, perhaps? Maybe it was something in the water, because University of Alberta’s Schaeffer and many others also developed a checkers playing program that the university ultimately retired because it was unbeatable. According to the university’s Web site, the Chinook project began in 1989 with the goal of developing a program capable of defeating the human World Checkers Champion. In 1990, Chinook became the first program in any game to win the right to play for a human world championship. The program lost the championship match in 1992, but became champion in 1994. By 1996, it became clear that the program was much stronger than any human, and Chinook was retired. Chinook won the World Man-Machine Championship (three years before the Deep Blue chess match) and in 1996 the Guinness Book of World Records recognized Chinook as the first program to win a human world championship, the university stated.

Your move: According to the Backgammon.net Web site, a programmer by the name of Hans Berliner developed a backgammon program known as BKG that beat then world champion Luigi Villa. It won the match, 7-1, becoming the first computer program to defeat a world champion in any game, although this was mostly a matter of luck, as the computer happened to get better dice rolls than its opponent did in that match. According to the Web site, in the 1980s creators of backgammon-playing software began to have even more success with a neural network approach. TD-Gammon, developed by Gerald Tesauro of IBM, was the first of these computer programs to play at or close to the expert level. This program’s neural network was trained using Temporal Difference learning applied to data generated from self-play. “This line of research has resulted in two modern commercial programs, Jellyfish and Snowie, the shareware BGBlitz, and the free software GNU Backgammon, that play on a par with the best human backgammon players in the world. It is worth noting that without their associated ‘weights’ tables, which represent hours or even months of tedious neural net training, these programs play no better than a human child would.”

I can’t let you do that, really: It would be tough to find a more infamous computer than the HAL 9000 of “2001: A Space Odyssey.” The soft-spoken, ill-willed computer was in fact named the 13th greatest film villain by the American Film Institute, beating out another more in-your-face computer villain, the T-800 in the “Terminator” film. From the Carnegie Mellon Robot Hall of Fame entry: “HAL (Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer) is capable of speech recognition, natural language understanding, lip reading, and thinking well enough to beat humans at chess. Along with all these capabilities comes the capacity for malevolence. HAL kills its astronaut crew. The audience is left wondering whether HAL is right, wrong, evil, or mad. An astronaut decides to shut down HAL 9000′s higher cognitive functions, an experience equivalent to death for HAL. HAL’s central core is depicted as a room full of brightly lit computer modules mounted in arrays from which they can be inserted or removed. As the astronaut removes the modules, HAL’s intelligence degrades. HAL has had a lasting effect not only on fiction, but also on the real world. It has inspired astronauts, scientists and philosophers. Scientists ask how its capabilities can be duplicated and philosophers have asked whether HAL was responsible for the murders of the astronauts. All of us ask whether we want to create intelligent machines that may someday endanger us.”

I’ll be bach, again and again: Now that his human side has been released from the California governorship, it is possible we may see Arnold Schwarzenegger playing the almighty T-800 Terminator. From the IMDB Web site: “The Terminator, specifically the T-800 Series Model 101, is a cybernetic organism sent back in time from a post-apocalyptic future in an effort to carry out its mission of either protection or assassination. It is living tissue such as skin, hair, eyes, and fingernails growing over a seemingly indestructible metal that acts as a skeleton and CPU. In times of extreme combat the metal skeleton can be seen where patches of skin have been destroyed. The T-800 has been sent back from a future where machines became artificially intelligent. A program of A.I .was developed by Cyberdine systems, and was incorporated into a United States military program known as Skynet.”

Do you want to play a game? The War Operation Plan Response (WOPR) computer from the film “Wargames” was really the opposite of HAL. Really all WOPR wanted was to saddle up next to you and play games. It was the humans who misinterpreted his intentions to start a war (or was it?). According to its Wikipedia entry: “The WOPR computer as seen in the film was a prop created in Culver City, Calif., by members of the International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees Local 44. It was designed by production designer Geoffrey Kirkland based on some pictures he had of early tabulating machines, and metal furniture, consoles, and cabinets used particularly in the U.S. military in the 1940s and 50s.” Interesting list of fictional computers here.
[SOURCE: NetworkWorld] 

[SOURCE: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/132 ]

[SOURCE: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/131 ]

One of the latest releases of Gigabyte Motherboards based on the Intel P965 Chipset. Its supports Core-2 Processor and incorporates an All-Solid Capacitor Motherboard Design to enhance durability.

“To ensure a longer lifespan for systems in daily operation while boosting system stability under extreme conditions, the GIGABYTE Durability Enhanced platform adopts cutting-edge Conductive Polymer Aluminum Solid Capacitors from the world’s leading vendors. With these high-quality components, users can take advantage of better electronic conductivity and excellent heat resistance for enhanced system durability.”

[SOURCE: http://www.gigabyte.us/FileList/NewTech/2006_motherboard_newtech/tech_20060605_features-6quad.htm]

An interesting concept using blank keys.

“Like on a piano, since there are no keys to look at when typing, your brain will quickly adapt and memorize the key positions. Within a few short weeks users increase their typing accuracy and find themselves typing up to 100% faster.”

[SOURCE: http://www.daskeyboard.com/ ]

The Dvorak keyboard is an ergonomic alternative to the layout commonly found on typewriters and computers known as “Qwerty”. The Qwerty keyboard was designed in the 1870s to accommodate the slow mechanical movement of early typewriters. When it was designed, touch typing literally hadn’t even been thought of yet! It’s hardly an efficient design for today’s use. By contrast, the Dvorak (pronounced “duh-VOR-ack”, not like the Czech composer!) keyboard was designed with emphasis on typist comfort, high productivity and ease of learning — it’s much easier to learn! There were several variations in the Dvorak’s design in its first few decades, but these were settled when the American National Standards Institute approved a standard for the layout of the Dvorak in 1982. The diagram above shows the standard layout as adapted for PC use.

Because computers weren’t even a researcher’s dream in the late 1920s and 30s, the Dvorak design took about 12 years to perfect, and included extensive study of languages using the Roman alphabet (mostly English), the physiology of the hand, and practical studies. Dr. Dvorak (Univ. of Washington, Seattle; b.1894, d.1975) used his research to design two other keyboards specifically for people with only one hand (one each for the right and left), which allow people with the use of just one hand to type very easily and efficiently — at speeds up to 50 wpm. 

The Dvorak has the most-used consonants on the right side of the home row, and the vowels on the left side of the home row. Among other design features, it is set up to facilitate keying in a back-and-forth motion — (right hand, then left hand, then right, etc.) When the same hand has to be used for more than one letter in a row (e.g., the common t-h), it is designed not only to use different fingers when possible (to make keying quicker and easier), but also to progress from the outer fingers to the inner fingers (“inboard stroke flow”) — it’s easier to drum your fingers this way (try it on the tabletop). The back-and-forth flow obviously makes typing quicker and easier: try typing the word “minimum” on the Qwerty keyboard, then look how you’d type it on Dvorak. The design puts fully 70 percent of all English keystrokes on the home row (only 32 percent of Qwerty’s are on the home row), making Dvorak much easier, faster, and — probably (no formal studies have been done as yet) — less likely to result in carpal tunnel syndrome and other repetitive motion injuries.

Remember when you took typing classes, probably in high school? You got to do drills with such words as “fff”, “jjj”, “jkl;”. Added to the awkward physical motions Qwerty requires, these “nonsense words” are counter-intuitive, making Qwerty very hard to learn. On Dvorak, the keys on the home row make up literally thousands of words (we have a list of nearly 5000 from one electronic dictionary alone!), meaning you could have typed real words on your first day of typing class… if you had learned on a Dvorak keyboard.

The row above the top row contains the next-most-used letters and punctuation. Why? Because it is easier for your fingers to reach up on the keyboard than down. The least-used keys are on the bottom row.

Even if you don’t want to switch (it’s actually fairly easy — Randy Cassingham did it, and his typing speed went from 50 WPM to over 100), why the heck are we forcing children to learn the draconian ergonomic failure “Qwerty” when there’s a such a good alternative available? Why teach kids for weeks and weeks and weeks to master a complex skill when in two or three weeks they could learn Dvorak and then get on with what they’re at the keyboard to do! Writing, programming …creating!

If it’s so good, why isn’t everyone using it? Clearly, a good question. There are a lot of reasons for it, and they are too numerous and complicated to explain fully here (they are fully explained in the book The Dvorak Keyboard). Mainly, the Qwerty keyboard became entrenched in tradition. By the time Dr. Dvorak came up with his design, there were hundreds of thousands of typewriters, and it would have cost millions to convert them all over. The switch was just about to be made, but then World War II broke out, and the War Dept. ordered all typewriter keyboards be set to the most-common standard — Qwerty — and typewriter manufacturers retooled to produce small arms. By the end of the war, Qwerty was cast in concrete.

There are other reasons, too. Unbelieveably, there are people with personal vendettas against the Dvorak. In 1956, a U.S. government researcher published an astoundingly biased “study” that railed against the Dvorak layout. When other researchers found the conclusions suspicious, they asked to see the raw data — but the government researcher had destroyed it all! Yet the anti-Dvorak still point to the “study” by the General Services Administration as “proof” that there’s something wrong with the Dvorak. But their “evidence” doesn’t even exist. Such vendettas exist now, too. The most commonly quoted anti-Dvorak screed over the past few years is one by Stan Liebowitz and Stephen Margolis. Randy responded to that one way back in 1995 (copy of that here).

Certainly, people are using it. How many? Who knows — unlike typewriters, which needed precision mechanical work to convert them, computers are by their nature programmable, and it’s a cinch to convert them to Dvorak. So how many people have actually done it? The only way to really find out is to do an expensive controlled survey, and no one is rushing forth with the money to fund such a study.

To learn more about the Dvorak layout, we recommend two levels of information. Freelance Communications is the exclusive distributor of Typewriting Behavior, Dr. Dvorak’s 546-page book on the keyboard’s research and design — it’s a classic! The book was printed in 1936, and there will never be any more. For a less technical overview of the Dvorak layout, Randy Cassingham’s 1986 book The Dvorak Keyboard clearly explains what’s “wrong” with Qwerty and what’s “right” about the Dvorak, gives a nice overview on how the Dvorak layout was designed, including its evolution since 1936, and contains an overview of the one-handed layouts.

By Randy Cassingham

[SOURCE: http://dvorak-keyboard.com/index.html]

Click here to watch event.

[Googlevideo=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-3258368851377796496]