This was most probably not originally intended to be so utterly surreal as it turned out to be. As a comment puts it, "David Lynch would love this."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOg2wL9W_Vs
(And I bet none of you knew the song is that old.)
I don't see what's this discrimination you talk about.
What kind of employee would you prefer? Someone with a great curriculum but a sociopath, or someone with an average curriculum but a pleasant personality?
Political correctness always overrides practicality, efficiency and common sense.
Now that the awards voting is open, it raises the question if the authors should be allowed to vote for themselves and on their own movies...
(OTOH, I think that in most democracies candidates retain their constitutional right to vote and are hence allowed to vote, and it's actually implicitly expected that they vote for themselves, so perhaps this isn't such a horrible thing.)
This is an especially hard category to vote. If you appreciate the awesomeness of the SM64 run and the amount of work put into it, who of the different authors should one vote for? Or should one vote for every one of them? If you also like the awesome OoT run, should you also vote for the author too? In which case you basically would vote for every single nominee, making your vote useless because it doesn't affect the end result.
What a dilemma...
I am thinking about implementing approval voting - this could easily be done by the time the polls open at the end of the week. This would be done by allowing voters the option of selecting several nominees instead of just one - the winner would be the nominee with the most votes, i.e. liked by the largest proportion of voters.
Thoughts?
twingalaxies is certainly *not* the "official" score-keeper of anything. In fact they are nothing but a bunch of whining babies and it makes me kinda angry that anyone would give them any credit for anything at all, let alone calling then "the official" anything. For actual verifiable scores, see speeddemosarchive.com. /rant
Guinness World Records seems to consider them a reliable source of information... If that's not "official", I don't know what is.
Also, true that everything starts from assumptions. For whatever experience or observation we witness, we can only build theories upon assumptions on what it means.
Just because our senses are limited and we have to always make assumptions doesn't mean that all assumptions are equally valid. Some assumptions are more justified than others.
A credible assumption is one which, above all else, behaves consistently and can be verified/repeated by independent parties, all of who get the same results. Consistency also means that you can build a model which describes the phenomenon and makes (correct) predictions about its behavior. Likewise if it can be measured and tested by something else than people with their fallible senses (iow. machines).
If a claim cannot be verified, measured and independently tested (always giving consistent results), and is inconsistent or self-contradictory, it diminishes its credibility.
I was, rather obviously, talking about confirming a prediction that hasn't been confirmed experimentally before.
That's a nebulous concept. What counts as a prediction which hasn't been confirmed experimentally before?
I just dropped a piece of toast weighing exactly 82.569321 g on the floor. It hit the ground. That confirms a prediction of gravity which has never been confirmed before.
Even you ought to acknowledge that there's a very substantial difference between the two-slit and the three-slit experiments, compared to dropping different objects whose masses differ in some micrograms. The two-slit experiment has been performed to death in numerous different variations (eg. trying to measure which slit the particle goes through, the quantum eraser variation, the delayed choice quantum eraser variation, and so on, all of which give interesting results), but doing it with three slits to confirm a theoretical prediction is a significant step.
I know next to nothing about quantum mechanics, but I find it curious and interesting why the particle behaves like it passed through two of the slits even if there are more available. As I mentioned earlier, there's this interpretation of quantum mechanics where the particle takes "all possible" paths from the emitter to the receiver, and that's the reason for the interference pattern. However, to my layman mind, that seems contradictory with the concept that the particle behaves like going only through two slits regardless of how many there are, which would indicate that the particle does not take all possible paths. It's more like the particle takes two paths through two random slits. I'm wondering if I could understand why particles behave like that.
One would think that an experiment that confirms a prediction made by a scientific theory is extremely interesting and useful.
I just dropped some toast on the floor. That confirms a prediction of gravity. When do I get my PhD?
I was, rather obviously, talking about confirming a prediction that hasn't been confirmed experimentally before.
marzojr wrote:
doing an experiment whose result is expected to be a null result is uninteresting to the person doing it -- it is harder to get grants for it for one -- unless the results turn out to not be null. Science thrives on new things.
I still have hard time understanding or accepting that notion. Imagine General Relativity predicting light bending when passing close to massive objects or the perihelion of the orbit of mercury precessing (in a non-newtonian way) or time changes caused by gravity wells, and nobody bothering to actually check if those are true by actual measurements in 80+ years because it would just confirm the prediction and hence it would be extremely boring and uninteresting. I just don't buy that.
So, the total complexity of the algorithm is O(n d log d + n^2 d)
Nitpicking, but "n2 * d" grows asymptotically faster than "n * d * log d", and hence the latter is extraneous in the computational complexity notation, and hence the algorithm is O(n2 * d).
I don't rate my own movies. However, as an example, it bugs me to see technical ratings as low as 7 on my my Kid Niki movie, though I know it can only be improved by 2~6 frames. It was one of the movies I optimized to death.
It seems to still be a rather common misconception that the "technical rating" is a synonym for "frame perfection". It isn't, and it shouldn't. Frame perfection is only a small part of it.
http://tasvideos.org/VotingGuidelines.html
(Note that I'm not saying that 7 is a proper rating for your movie even by those standards. Just wanted to, once again, clear up the confusion.)
Not before someone makes an actual game out of it, presumably. Despite the name it is merely a simulation / sandbox right now, which doesn't really lend itself to anything beyond playarounds.
I will have to read the article before I can give any reasonable reply; but at least for (2), the authors were also stunned to find out no one had done it before. My guess is that everyone was going for more interesting experiments instead of one that would almost assuredly give a null result as this one does -- null results are generally uninteresting.
One would think that an experiment that confirms a prediction made by a scientific theory is extremely interesting and useful. And reading articles about the experiment seems to confirm that its result are considered interesting, even if expected.
The official encode got nearly 25,000 views and over 60 comments in less than a day from being shared by someone over at Joystiq.
And once again people fail completely to understand that games have programming errors in them which can be exploited, that the feats are not achieved by hacking the game or changing RAM values by using the emulator. I wonder what's so hard to understand in this. Everybody knows that programs can have programming errors (ie bugs) yet they still fail to understand that these games have them too, and that's what's being exploited.
there's a financial incentive to seed misinformation about climate change
Like what? And even if there is, is it the best possible financial course of action? People wanting to make money want to maximize profits, and a scheme that does not maximize profits is foolish. Why would someone promote a program which might bring a moderate amount of money, when the complete opposite program would bring a whole lot more money?
It still sounds to me that even if there's something to profit from the climate change, that's not the original source and reason for the claim, because it's a relatively poor way of getting profit. Hence if someone is attempting to profit from it, he's simply taking advantage of the phenomenon, rather than starting it.
A lot of the media influence comes from either generating fear or exaggerating people's natural concerns. The hysteria over H5N1, or even later the H1N1 scare is a classic example of this fear being used to manipulate people into behaving in a desired manner.
Just because some unscrupulous people take advantage of a potential catastrophe for their own benefit doesn't necessarily mean that the original concerns are invalid and invented out of malice and greed.
Likewise if the catastrophe didn't happen after all, it doesn't mean that the concerns were not valid and the possibility of a catastrophe real.
You don't put railings on ledges because else people will inevitably fall. You put them because someone might fall, and averting the risk is worth the effort.
