Slashdot Mirror
Netflix Prize Competitor Already Beats Netflix
Baldrson writes "Within the first week of the announcement of The Netflix Prize a team has already beaten Netflix's own movie recommendation algorithm. This is pretty impressive given the previously quoted researcher who said: 'You're competing with 15 years of really smart people banging away at the problem.' The team is WXYZConsulting.com apparently registered by a data mining professor named Yi Zhang. Congratulations are in order for Netflix and Prof. Zhang's team who are demonstrating, yet again, the power of prizes to accelerate progress."
Just join our new subscription service, NetFux. Our online site allows you to chose from a vast array of first- and second-run girlfriends, and we have a growing selection of indy and foreign options as well. Prioritize your choices in our easy-to-use queueing system, and as each selection becomes available we'll ship her to you overnight. Date your choice as long as you like and as often as you like. When you're finished, send her back in the prepaid shipping container, and we'll promptly ship you the next selection in your queue. When you return a choice, you'll also be given the option to rate her on a Tivo®-inspired "thumbs-up/thumbs-down" basis. Over time, our patented algorithms will work out your preferences, and will start making recommendations for future selections.
Note: The basic service only provides for a single selection to be "checked out" at any given time. A premium "3 At A Time" service is available for high-volume customers for a modest increase in the subscription price.
Note: NetFux reserves the right to delay shipments or terminate your account if we determine that you are abusing the service. Determination of "abuse" is at our sole discretion and may include (but is not limited to) returning products in poor condition, excessive returns, or reading SlashDot.
Note: Avoid covering up the airholes on the return shipping container - the necrophylia market is much smaller than many people believe, and additions to this section of our service must be carefully controlled.
Note: No, senator, for the last time - we do not have a "children's section".
A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
And how does this one guy's wrongdoing implicate the party?
I have plenty of reason to be displeased with the Republicans, and sexual impropriety on the part of individuals is one thing - this behavior is not limited to members of one party.
As an example, in 1983 Gerry Studds (D) did exactly he same thing - except he refused to resign!
Studds, however, refused to apologize and even turned his back and ignored the censure being read to him. He called a press conference with the former page, in which both stated that they were consenting adults at the time of the relationship (the page was 17 at the time) and that it was therefore not the business of others to censure them for their private ephebophilic relationship, and he continued to be reelected until his retirement in 1996.
What about Barney Frank allowing a prostitution ring to be run from his house for a year and a half! He was censured for his behavior, and got away with fixing 33 parking tickets for his lover, and lied to get him probation.
The point is that the Democrats have always been lax about punishment for sexual impropriety, and for them to make accusations about Republicans for DOING EXACLY WHAT THEY HAVE DONE is ludicrous.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
1. Please define homophobe. I just want to make sure that we're meaning the same things by the terms that we use.
Adults on equal footing are free to do whatever they like in privacy. For what it's worth, regardless of sexual preference I tend to believe that most people live in sexual immorality. In a free society, it's my obligation to tolerate their behavior, as it is theirs to tolerate mine. We need not agree, we merely need to tolerate each other's views. And their right to hold their view is every bit as valid as mine.
2. Homosexuality aside, "between consenting adults" is relevant how? Despite the fact that legally the age of consent in Massachusetts was apparently 16, they were hardly on equal footing. At the time, Studds was 46 years old - 29 years the senior of his sex partner. The elder was a congressman, the younger was his employee. For what it's worth, Studds apparently said he demonstrated "a very serious error in judgement." because "it had been inappropriate to engage in a relationship with a subordinate"
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Just because one person is a hypocrite doesn't make the whole platform unstable.
For that matter - there are Democrats who think that abortion and homosexuality are wrong. Does that make them hypocrites? Does that make the platform of the Democrats invalid?
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?