Description The Goal Of This Intensive: Fill & Download for Free

Excellent question.I was the lead of eBay's Search team from 2001 to 2004, worked for Google from 2006-2008, and ran a machine learning consultancy from 2008-2011.First, the goals are entirely different. In Web Search, the goal is to sift out the most relevant documents. In Product Search, the goal is optimizing for profit. As such, the challenges of writing a good Product Search engine are much more intensive and involve many more factors that effect the bottom line.Second, Web Search is largely unstructured. Any structure is implied by HTML markup, but the semantics may change from document to document and author to author, making it difficult to infer any useful structure in web pages. As such, solving the challenges of parsing natural language in a meaningful way is more critical.Product Search is far more structured than Web Search. For example, given a product manufacturer, model name, or UPC code, a great deal of additional data can be associated with the product. In addition, specific features of a product can be searched for on a structured basis. Product Search may also include some unstructured data, such as product descriptions, reviews, and question/answer fields.Both types of Search pose interesting challenges, and the capabilities of an organization to solve these problems will continue to be a deciding factor in business success.

This is kind of a tough question to quantify, but because I've dealt with more recruiters than most people have (did a lot of comparison shopping before I enlisted), I think I can answer it as well as anyone who's privy to the system.Recruiters have a different truth paradigm than maybe your mom or your wife or your rabbi might. But for the most part it's consistent, and that (at least to my mind) is its own brand of honest.For instance. If, in a moment of youthful indiscretion, you smoked a bagful of cheap Mexican shwag at your senior party, a recruiter might ask you "are you sure?" And if you say "yes, I'm absolutely sure", the recruiter might say "because I hear a lot of times cheap Mexican shwag is nothing more than overpriced oregano and mouse turds. Is it possible that you just smoked something from your mom's spice cabinet?" And you'd say "nope, it was definitely shwag." And the recruiter might say "But I hear that people who are actually high have bad memories, and since your memory of this is so clear, you couldn't possibly have been high. Therefore I'm convinced what you actually smoked was oregano." And if you continue to argue or insist, the recruiter will take a long deep sigh, call up his or her boss, and start the process for a waiver, which is something the recruiter would rather not do, because there's nothing a recruiter (or any military member) hates more than unnecessary paperwork.* But if you eventually buckle and say "OK, sure, it coulda been oregano, I guess", the recruiter will say "Oh, I'm so relieved. You look like a nice kid to me. I knew you couldn't possibly be one of those awful drug fiends. Let's get you a nice pee-in-a-cup test just here for this office to see whether you're likely to pass at MEPS." And if by chance you fail that test, they roll their eyes, throw the results in the trash, and say "drink a lot of water and come back in 2 weeks." All of this, for better or worse, is part of their job description. Their objective is to get everyone into the military that they possibly can, by hook or by crook.A recruiter will intensely call into question your recollection of anything that might disqualify you from military service or delay your enlistment. All recruiters do this. Is this "telling someone to lie?" I don't know for sure that it is, strictly speaking. But it's something. The good news is, it harms nothing to be as honest with your recruiter as you know how to be, and have them interpret the facts back to you in "recruiter-ese". "Oh, so you have flat feet? Are you sure your feet aren't just super relaxed? I think you look like you have relaxed feet." "Oh, so you weigh 15 pounds more than regs allow? Are you sure you're not actually 6'9 and just slouching a lot? Your posture looks awful to me. Work on it."Will a recruiter lie to you? Maybe. My recruiters didn't lie to me, but that didn't make me trust them any more. I did my own research, talked to many recruiters and cross-checked statements, just to make sure I wasn't getting the short end of the stick. I never caught any recruiter in what I'd call a bald-faced lie.There's a few fail safes at MEPS, too. When I went through MEPS I got taken aside by some officers who (with a great look of concern on their faces) asked me whether I knew that I could be a Navy officer because of my college (I was on the cusp of a degree at the time), rather than being a lowly enlistee. They were worried that my recruiter was leading me astray. I told them no, I knew what I was getting into.You know who does lie? Fucking detailers! Be watchful and vigilant around them. They can cause a lot of problems, and you'll run into them many times if you stay in the service. But recruiters, in my book, are pretty OK. They're definitely on your team, as long as the goal of your team is to enlist with as few hindrances as possible.That being said, there were a few (2-3) people who got kicked out of my boot camp division the first week because of outstanding warrants. I don't know if they lied to their recruiters, or if they got the warrants between their last day at MEPS and their first day at boot camp, or if their recruiters really did try to slip one under the rug. But they definitely got sent home on a Greyhound. Do not under any circumstances attempt to skip bail and end up in boot camp. If there's a paper trail of court docs, you'll be caught and there's no way to talk your way out of it, and your recruiter can't help.*I imagine the conversation between the recruiter and the recruiter's boss going something like this:[Boss] "A waiver??? Really??? Did you forget to ask that idiot kid about the oregano and mouse turds?"[Recruiter] "I sure as hell did tell that idiot kid about the oregano and mouse turds, but s/he insisted on getting a waiver."[Boss] *sigh* "Cancel my lunch plans, YN1. Another idiot kid wants an oregano waiver."

Our current understanding of the Universe is incomplete. The Standard Model of particles and forces summarizes our present knowledge of particle physics. The Standard Model has been tested by various experiments and it has proven particularly successful in anticipating the existence of previously undiscovered particles. However, it leaves many unsolved questions, which the LHC will help to answer.The Standard Model does not explain the origin of mass, nor why some particles are very heavy while others have no mass at all. The answer may be the so-called Higgs Mechanism. According to the theory of the Higgs mechanism, the whole of space is filled with a ‘Higgs field’, and by interacting with this field, particles acquire their masses. Particles that interact intensely with the Higgs field are heavy, while those that have feeble interactions are light. The Higgs field has at least one new particle associated with it, the Higgs boson. If such a particle exists, experiments at the LHC will be able to detect it.The Standard Model does not offer a unified description of all the fundamental forces, as it remains difficult to construct a theory of gravity similar to those for the other forces. Super-symmetry— a theory that hypothesizes the existence of more massive partners of the standard particle— could facilitate the unification of fundamental forces. If super-symmetry is right, then the lightest super-symmetric particles should be found at the LHC.Cosmological and astrophysical observations have shown that all of the visible matter accounts for only 4% of the Universe. The search is open for particles or phenomena responsible for dark matter (23%) and dark energy (73%). A very popular idea is that dark matter is made of neutral — but still undiscovered super symmetric particles.The LHC will also help to investigate the mystery of antimatter. Matter and antimatter must have been produced in the same amounts at the time of the Big Bang, but from what is observed so far, is that the Universe is made only of matter. Why? The LHC could help to provide an answer.