Duverger's law. Up until the point where you replace the second largest party, you will only hurt your own interests more and more the larger your party gets.
There are two parties that have a shot at power. You can try to influence the parties so their policies align more with your own (but that was true in most of the communist states to some degree), but you exercise power by voting for them or not.
Gore didn't lose because people voted for Ralph Nader. He lost because people didn't vote for him. Since the effect of voting for Ralph Nader could be perfectly duplicated by writing in Donald Duck, turn your ballot into a lace card, or not bother to show up at all, it's wrong to give him either blame or credit for what happened.
Interpretive choices and abilities are what really make the music great, and I just can't see a budget pick-up orchestra led by a rent-a-conductor doing a good job.
The project initiator did a listening test. Most people couldn't tell any difference. I could, I noticed that the first recording had better sound quality and a nice woodwind character that I like. The second had slighly poorer audio quality, but if you listened carefully you could hear the conductors random sharp intakes of breath and grunting. I figured that had to be the less-known orchestra, for what serious professionals would have done that?
I was wrong. The last recording was by a very famous conductor conducting the LSO.
I should have known, really. Celebrities are the only ones that get away with such BS. In my defense, the majority agreed with me that the first recording was better. (Prague philharmonic. I've heard them live before, and they are fantastic. Especially the woodwind. They're still a low-cost/little known orchestra)
Classical musicians are struggling to distinguish themselves from hordes of competitors. That goes for conductors, instrumentalists and singers. 19 times out of 20 what they do to set themselves apart makes the result worse, and the record-buying public are lousy at finding that one who deviates in a neutral or positive way.
And people still continue to say we can blow up the world.
No, they don't. At least not if you mean "blow up the planet". But if you're content with killing every human on it, and scorching every populated area, there's all those nuclear weapons. Although most of us prefer not to think or talk of them, they're still there.
Same thing with any pollution.
Oh sure, life will go on, in some form or another. But I'm kind of sentimental about stuff like, I don't know, mammals, which are certainly not capable of dealing with anything we can throw on them/us.
You "remember" stuff to suit you. I remember it too, although I was very young back then. My parents didn't panic, as I dare say they would if they thought "the cloud of radioactive death would sweep up to kill us all, and lay the land bare".
My understanding was that the point of this article was that this was not evolution, or at most an evolutionary switch-on of a feature that evolved long ago.
When plants reach for the light, it's not because they are evolving into a new organism on the spot. Rather, they have long ago evolved to dynamically adapt to lighting conditions. What TFA is proposing is that plants dynamically adapt to ionizing radiation as well, and they have had that capability for some time, it's just that we haven't been in a position to observe it.
As to the rest of your comment: If you think "environmentalists are always predicting some kind of terrible apocalypse withing the next couple of decades" and cite "global cooling" as an example - maybe you're not an AGW denialist, but you have apparently picked up some of their rhetoric style.
If you are playing rock/paper/scissors no rating would be sufficient to predict the outcome of a tournament.
That's true, but that's not because of intransitivities in the game, it's because there's so little difference between human players. Just because there's intransitivities in the game doesn't mean there's intransitivity in the rankings - Starcraft is built around intransitivities, but the rankings work just fine.
There have been attempts to improve Elo over the years as well. Glicko and TrueSkill (from Microsoft reseach, used on the Xbox) are the most commonly mentioned. Also, a lot of game sites have developed variants on decayed history Elo by trial and error. The one at KGS, for instance, is pretty impressive. There's also less known academic research, such as Remi Coulom's paper on Whole History Rating.
Deciding which is the better chess player from what they've won in the past is also a far simpler problem than predicting someone's tastes based on what he's liked in the past. Intransitivities are probably neglible. Data mining is probably overkill.
Glicko isn't designed to take advantage of all the information that's available in this competition. To calculate your new Glicko rating, you just need the Glicko ratings of both players + the result. I bet all serious contenders in the competition use the whole history somehow. (I talked with one who uses a decayed history scheme; he beats Glicko).
As to the leaderboard, it's really not so clear. Almost certainly, some of the contenders are accidentally overfitting to the leaderboard test data.
The french computer scientist Remi Coulom, well-known for the pioneering computer go program Crazy Stone, has published some very interesting research on this issue. He claims not only to beat Elo, but also Glicko, Microsoft's TrueSkill and decayed-history approaches.
I was going to see if I could implement his ideas for the competition, since he's not going to participate himself. But it doesn't look like I have time for it.
Here's the paper in case anyone wants to give it a try. I suspect the approach is a bit more solid than the ad-hoc approaches of the quants.
If you're generous and count "semites" as one civilization, I suppose they can be credited with founding three world religions. Oh, and India has two if you count hinduism as a world religion (Civ4 did, so why not?)
I didn't like Civ2 much. It had isometric graphics, but I felt they were uglier. It also had basically the same tech tree, with some things grafted on in unconvincing places.
Why are they imitating that instead of Civ 1? Not to speak of Master of Magic. Best Civ1-engine game ever.
Here's the core of the issue, I think. See, we feel that the government by and large submits to us. We can maybe not trust them as much as a well-trained dog, but enough not to try to engage in an arms race with them.
But I can actually understand that Americans don't trust their government. It seems to be somewhere between a cat and a hyena when it comes to trustability.
Little Green Footballs has had an impressive outbreak of common sense compared to the shit that used to be going on there. I suspect they have lost their "anti-jihadist" credentials a bit with their old core audience.
There's no reason to suspect majority A wasn't present and willing to screw minority B at the time the paper was written.
Constitutions aren't apolitical documents. They can protect a certain status quo if people choose to respect them, but they're no more likely to protect a good status quo than a bad one.
I use iGoogle too, but from work I've had occasion to use the instant search for a while. It really is useful in my experience. It sort of feels like the autoprediction has made a big leap forward (although that could just be the perception).
I've been trying to use 64-bit Linux as my desktop for 5 years now.
You have more patience than me. I tried it, now that I have enough memory that there's actually a reason for it, but I had to throw in the towel very quickly. Got Flash to work, but only very poorly (in particular fullscreen video was useless). Thought I'd use it to host a 32-bit system to do the stuff that was most practical in that, but I quickly realized I wouldn't get 3d acceleration then.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you mean double-assed.
Duverger's law. Up until the point where you replace the second largest party, you will only hurt your own interests more and more the larger your party gets.
There are two parties that have a shot at power. You can try to influence the parties so their policies align more with your own (but that was true in most of the communist states to some degree), but you exercise power by voting for them or not.
Gore didn't lose because people voted for Ralph Nader. He lost because people didn't vote for him. Since the effect of voting for Ralph Nader could be perfectly duplicated by writing in Donald Duck, turn your ballot into a lace card, or not bother to show up at all, it's wrong to give him either blame or credit for what happened.
The project initiator did a listening test. Most people couldn't tell any difference. I could, I noticed that the first recording had better sound quality and a nice woodwind character that I like. The second had slighly poorer audio quality, but if you listened carefully you could hear the conductors random sharp intakes of breath and grunting. I figured that had to be the less-known orchestra, for what serious professionals would have done that?
I was wrong. The last recording was by a very famous conductor conducting the LSO.
I should have known, really. Celebrities are the only ones that get away with such BS. In my defense, the majority agreed with me that the first recording was better. (Prague philharmonic. I've heard them live before, and they are fantastic. Especially the woodwind. They're still a low-cost/little known orchestra)
Classical musicians are struggling to distinguish themselves from hordes of competitors. That goes for conductors, instrumentalists and singers. 19 times out of 20 what they do to set themselves apart makes the result worse, and the record-buying public are lousy at finding that one who deviates in a neutral or positive way.
No, they don't. At least not if you mean "blow up the planet". But if you're content with killing every human on it, and scorching every populated area, there's all those nuclear weapons. Although most of us prefer not to think or talk of them, they're still there.
Oh sure, life will go on, in some form or another. But I'm kind of sentimental about stuff like, I don't know, mammals, which are certainly not capable of dealing with anything we can throw on them/us.
You "remember" stuff to suit you. I remember it too, although I was very young back then. My parents didn't panic, as I dare say they would if they thought "the cloud of radioactive death would sweep up to kill us all, and lay the land bare".
My understanding was that the point of this article was that this was not evolution, or at most an evolutionary switch-on of a feature that evolved long ago.
When plants reach for the light, it's not because they are evolving into a new organism on the spot. Rather, they have long ago evolved to dynamically adapt to lighting conditions. What TFA is proposing is that plants dynamically adapt to ionizing radiation as well, and they have had that capability for some time, it's just that we haven't been in a position to observe it.
As to the rest of your comment: If you think "environmentalists are always predicting some kind of terrible apocalypse withing the next couple of decades" and cite "global cooling" as an example - maybe you're not an AGW denialist, but you have apparently picked up some of their rhetoric style.
You are positively glowing!
For humans, it isn't. For animals it is, at least if it's reasonably long-term sustainable.
I wouldn't call it very corporation-esque. I don't really see many major corporations pulling a stunt like this.
Most corporation would tell you faking your own bankrupcty would be incredibly stupid and irresponsible. I'm inclined to agree.
That's true, but that's not because of intransitivities in the game, it's because there's so little difference between human players. Just because there's intransitivities in the game doesn't mean there's intransitivity in the rankings - Starcraft is built around intransitivities, but the rankings work just fine.
There have been attempts to improve Elo over the years as well. Glicko and TrueSkill (from Microsoft reseach, used on the Xbox) are the most commonly mentioned. Also, a lot of game sites have developed variants on decayed history Elo by trial and error. The one at KGS, for instance, is pretty impressive. There's also less known academic research, such as Remi Coulom's paper on Whole History Rating.
Deciding which is the better chess player from what they've won in the past is also a far simpler problem than predicting someone's tastes based on what he's liked in the past. Intransitivities are probably neglible. Data mining is probably overkill.
Glicko isn't designed to take advantage of all the information that's available in this competition. To calculate your new Glicko rating, you just need the Glicko ratings of both players + the result. I bet all serious contenders in the competition use the whole history somehow. (I talked with one who uses a decayed history scheme; he beats Glicko).
As to the leaderboard, it's really not so clear. Almost certainly, some of the contenders are accidentally overfitting to the leaderboard test data.
The french computer scientist Remi Coulom, well-known for the pioneering computer go program Crazy Stone, has published some very interesting research on this issue. He claims not only to beat Elo, but also Glicko, Microsoft's TrueSkill and decayed-history approaches.
I was going to see if I could implement his ideas for the competition, since he's not going to participate himself. But it doesn't look like I have time for it.
Here's the paper in case anyone wants to give it a try. I suspect the approach is a bit more solid than the ad-hoc approaches of the quants.
If you're generous and count "semites" as one civilization, I suppose they can be credited with founding three world religions. Oh, and India has two if you count hinduism as a world religion (Civ4 did, so why not?)
I didn't like Civ2 much. It had isometric graphics, but I felt they were uglier. It also had basically the same tech tree, with some things grafted on in unconvincing places.
Why are they imitating that instead of Civ 1? Not to speak of Master of Magic. Best Civ1-engine game ever.
That's a bit like using RMS as an example that not all free software folks have beards and shocking personal habits.
I like his habit of using terms like "keeping the rudder quiet" and "wind in our sails".
Yeah, they carve them into their foreheads and then claim they were assaulted.
Little Green Footballs has had an impressive outbreak of common sense compared to the shit that used to be going on there. I suspect they have lost their "anti-jihadist" credentials a bit with their old core audience.
> Well, to within a constitution,
There's no reason to suspect majority A wasn't present and willing to screw minority B at the time the paper was written.
Constitutions aren't apolitical documents. They can protect a certain status quo if people choose to respect them, but they're no more likely to protect a good status quo than a bad one.
Now try in pirate swedish.
I use iGoogle too, but from work I've had occasion to use the instant search for a while. It really is useful in my experience. It sort of feels like the autoprediction has made a big leap forward (although that could just be the perception).
You have more patience than me. I tried it, now that I have enough memory that there's actually a reason for it, but I had to throw in the towel very quickly. Got Flash to work, but only very poorly (in particular fullscreen video was useless). Thought I'd use it to host a 32-bit system to do the stuff that was most practical in that, but I quickly realized I wouldn't get 3d acceleration then.