Well ratings on submissions are transferred to the published videos (from what I understand) so it would just be unnecessarily complicated to have different rating scales on the published movies and the submissions.
In that sense maybe it makes sense. OTOH I still think it's a bit of an overkill if we look it exclusively as a submission voting system... :)
(Edit: The repetition of the word "sense" above was completely unintentional and not intended as any kind of pun... :P )
Is the 100-value vote really necessary with *submissions*? I understand why they are desirable with published movies, but do submission really need that degree of accuracy? After all, we had a 3-value vote system for years and it worked acceptably well. An increase in accuracy of almost two orders of magnitude feels a bit like overkill.
I'm not saying it should be reverted to the 10-value scale, I'm just wondering.
That cannot be the original code either -- because nested functions are not supported in C.
If your compiler supports it, weird. I thought you said you used GCC, and to my knowledge, GCC doesn't support them.
unsigned int fib(unsigned int n){
if (n < 2)
return n;
else
return fib(n - 1) + fib(n - 2);
}
I borrowed it for use in my own code.
You shouldn't, because that's the most inefficient possible way of calculating fibonacci numbers. It's a classical example of using complex recursion (ie. more complicated than simple tail recursion), but also a classical example of where a recursive solution can lead to extremely inefficient results.
A much more efficient way of calculating fibonacci numbers is to use a simple loop.
int main()
{
int fib(int x)
{
if x<2
return 1;
else
return fib(x-1)+fib(x-2);
}
int n;
printf("Integer goes here, yo: ");
scanf("%i", &n);
printf("\nThe Fibbonacci number of %i is %i", n, fib(n));
return 0;
}
The program fails when trying to print the numbers. Why?
Because you are not printing a "\n" at the end, and your shell prompt is probably overwriting what it is printing.
Isn't it quite arrogant to claim to have a greater understanding of a supreme being then another just-as-lowly person? Of course, arrogance is quite a big part of most major religions, but just because the teachings are hypocritical shouldn't mean all the followers should be so eager to follow suit.
This is exactly the type of text which always follows from discussions about religion, which is exactly the reason why I have always protested against discussing about the subject here. It's beating a dead horse. There's *nothing* positive that anyone can get from it. It saddens me that even this forum cannot be free from this. I have pleaded in the past (in this very same thread, if I remember correctly) that people would just skip this subject. But I suppose that's a hopeless wish.
Well, whatever. If you want to beat the dead horse, then go ahead. Who am I to protest?
Yeah, like with software development versions:
- Alpha: Unfinished test product.
- Beta: Complete product, but lacking testing/optimizations/improvements.
- Release candidate: Should be the final release version, unless some last-minute bugs are found.
- Gold: Public release.
I wouldn't say that the rating system itself if flawed. If anything is flawed, it's the perception people have about the meaning of "average quality". And by this I don't mean it's *wrong*. What I mean is that it's *biased* (and I'm not using that word in the negative sense, but in the completely neutral sense).
I think people probably tend to think about "average" (ie. rating 5) to be on the weaker side of the scale, rather than exactly in the middle, even if they aren't consciously aware of that. What I think is happening is that people are probably taking 7.5 as the true "average" rather than 5. In other words, from the "good" movies, about half are over 7.5 and the other half under 7.5. Ratings under 5 are reserved in their minds for the really bad ones.
Again, I'm not saying this in a negative way, just stating what I think is happening.
Adding the decimal to the ratings could perhaps be a good idea to widen that 5-10 scale.
http://bisqbot.stc.cx/kjvquote/mat26:36-44.php?hl=39,42 Presumably*, God[the Father]'s will was done like Jesus prayed. So God's will was that some dudes murder an innocent man. Murdering an innocent man is a sin. God's will was that some dudes sin.
I have to admit that's the most ingenuous and obnoxious distortion of the Bible I have seen in a long time. You probably broke a record here. (Although I would bet that was actually not your invention but you copied that idea from somewhere.)
I don't know which "Lord of the Rings" movie you are talking about, as you seem to talk about it as if it was a single 3-hour movie, but at least I have watched the entire extended trilogy as a marathon a couple of times. Yes, that's right, about 11 hours straight, from beginning to end. And I still enjoy it.
Yeah, exactly...
Christian people have a weird judging system: all you have to do is repent, accept Jesus and blah blah blah and you just booked your room in heaven... regardless of anything you've done!
BUT you don't believe in God? Hah, to hell with you, infidel!
This is exactly the kind of argumentative nature I was talking about in my earlier post. This is not a conversation about what people believe in, this is just an argument about what "makes sense" and what doesn't.
This subject is boring. I regret I got lured into participating in it.
I'm just going to pop in here and say that you're painting with an awfully broad brush here, Warp. There are plenty of atheists who don't behave the way you're saying atheists behave.
You might have missed it, but I was talking exclusively about those videos (and other material) that "atheism activists" have created to directly attack and insult christianity and everyone who believes in it. I was not talking about atheists in general. Moreover, I mentioned in one post that I don't have any problem with atheists in average.
Well, you didn't quote the part of my post that said:
Baxter wrote:
I was also wondering what assumptions about God were made in this movie that you disagree with
There's one fundamental flaw in the argumentation of many anti-christianity people: They seem to think that making good deeds should somehow compensate for your crimes (against God).
Why do they think like that? Not even secular criminal law works like that.
For example, suppose that someone has committed murder and he is (justly) found guilty of it, and sentenced for life to jail. Imagine this person would defend himself with: "But look at all the *good* things I have done! I have donated money to charity, I have helped the poor and needy, I have helped my neighbors when they were in need, I have always cared about my parents, who are old and sick, I have always been good and helpful to my friends in the time of their need, I have never stolen anything, I have made any crime before this... Surely all these good deeds should compensate for this one sin?"
Sure, it's great that he has done all those good deeds, but they don't matter: He still goes to jail. He has committed a crime, and he has to pay for it. That's how criminal law works, and people generally accept that as the way it should be. Nobody expects the murderer to go free if he has done enough good deeds during his life.
Why do they expect God to judge differently than this? Why do they expect that enough good deeds should compensate for their sins? It doesn't work like that in court, and it doesn't work like that with God.
Of course atheists will argument that, in their opinion, they haven't done anything that deserves such a harsh punishment. However, they are driven by their own human conception of what is "morally right" and "fair". They assume that they know what ultimately is morally right, and what deserves harsh punishment and what not. They don't even contemplate the possibility that there might be a bigger picture, that they might be wrong.
Seriously though, I like being able to rate on a scale from 1 to 10, and also that you don't have to vote on Entertainment or Quality if you don't want to.
I also like the ability to change your vote, because I misclicked on 7 instead of 8 on one video.
Yes, these are good improvements. Bisq: Keep up the good work. :)
I don't even know the name of the king of Sweden. Oh, wait, does Sweden have a president today? Well, Norway then. Olaf something? Or Harald?
I had to verify from Wikipedia that Sweden really is still a kingdom (and the king is Carl XVI Gustaf).
I bet you don't know what kind of government Canada has, and who is their top leader. Well, at least most people don't know, for some reason.
I suppose this could be answered by anyone outside of north America, but I was wondering how much people (on an individual scale) from outside this continent care about American politics. I would think very little, but my Aussie pals have made me wonder.
Personally I'm not so much interested in the internal politics or the USA that I would actively read information about current events.
However, I do not have a completely neutral opinion on the USA and Americans. The main reason for this is the overly negative opinion Europeans (and some other people) have had about Americans for the last 6 years. This has, rather ironically, shifted my opinion about Americans towards the positive side. I have been interested in what is *good* about the Americans and their culture (as well as having the opinion that many of the negative views expressed of them are severe exaggerations).
I suppose this is in part because I detest the current America-hating mentality in Europe and want to rebel against it. However, that's only part of it. I do honestly believe that the American culture is *not* as bad as they (ie. Europeans) would like me to believe. Sure, they have their quirks, some even detrimental, but who doesn't? They do have their great aspects too.
Another question: Could you explain a bit the statistics graphic? I'm not sure it's immediately obvious how it should be read. Maybe write a little page about it?
Edit: Damn, Alden beat me to it. :)
Question: Will these submission rating statistics be preserved when the submission is accepted/rejected? In other words, will they be visible in the "Published movies" and "Gruefood" groups? It could be interesting to see the final stats after the publication/rejection.
I know it's not cool, there are many other things out there that are not cool either, but constantly rambling about them won't make them cooler, unfortunately.
*sigh* Constantly? If I remember correctly, I have written about this subject twice in this forum in the past 4 years. I wouldn't call that "constantly".
One idea which could deter scripts having hard-coded data on the run they will be performing: Demand that the script must wait for a random amount of time immediately after resetting, and that it must not "remember" in any way how much time it was (ie. after it has waited for the random amount of time, it must completely forget how much time it was, ie. it must not store it anywhere). This random amount of time could be something short, like 0-60 frames.
This way the script cannot rely on the game behaving always the same way, so it must complete the game purely by heuristics rather than hard-coded data.
Also I fear that showing the minimum and the maximum ratings might cause some controversy, which was the whole reason why the old poll was removed in the first place.
It might be a good idea to just show more "neutral" statistics, ie. average and standard deviation (for those who understand what it means). The first value gives a picture of the overall opinion, and the second one how much people disagree on it.
