Yep. There's also EarthBound which breaks the fourth wall as part of the plot. The dialogue in the game makes it entirely clear that you are not Ness, which this article would claim never happens.
I'm surprised that a game designer for GAMBIT would make such an easily-refutable statement. I'd say that the weaker thesis of the article -- that breaking the fourth wall doesn't actually harm gameplay -- is reasonable, on the other hand.
Open Mind Common Sense. A project at the MIT Media Lab to collect an open ontology of general knowledge.
One non-obvious cool aspect of the site is that if you create an account, it will ask you questions that are intended to fill in gaps in its knowledge.
I hadn't heard of it before, either. Now I'm wondering: what additional power does this agreement give them? Presumably everyone already has the right to fork Qt.
Using the Intrade data is interesting, so it's too bad that the author then just throws out the probabilities. He just counts the higher-probability outcome in each state as if it's certain to happen.
The result is that the map is telling us the maximum-likelihood outcome in terms of which states go to who. This one outcome happens to be one that Obama wins. But it doesn't tell us the probability of Obama winning over all outcomes.
What I'd like to see is this data fed into a model that simulates many possible elections, like the one at fivethirtyeight.com.
Dear god, they're still using the fish thing? I remember that from 2002. At least then, it had requirements that made no sense implemented with code that didn't quite do what they said it did, and that's the code you had to work with on the exam.
I think the course kind of needed to die. The way APCS AB was generally taught would get you nowhere in college. APCS A is about basic program control structures and doesn't claim to be about anything else, and now high schools that can afford to have a class beyond that can come up with course material that actually teaches something.
Matthew 27 has a bit of zombie action in it, even if it's not Jesus:
27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
Not sure if they hungered for flesh, but these are still dead bodies of saints walking around and freaking people out. Surprising that anyone noticed Jesus with everything else going on.
1. Evolution. Animals that can think eat the ones that can't. 2. Evolution. Populations of moral animals survive better than populations of immoral ones. 3. You can't model the Big Bang with Newton's Third Law, so don't try. And since "time" and "cause and effect" are aspects of this universe, it doesn't make sense to ask what happened "before" the Universe or what "caused" it. 4. Hopefully, the fact that you love your family manifests itself in observable facts about the real world, something that religious statements usually lack.
If you're looking for a "proof", you don't know what science is. There are no proofs, only well-tested theories.
Also, Newtonian mechanics is not "trash", and you can't use that argument to say that evolution is. Newtonian mechanics was the correct theory for the experimental results of the time, and is still an excellent approximation.
So, in your "new processing paradigm" a computer would be able to know what "an amusing image you might like" is. Or to recognize the meaning of a natural-language sentence and synthesize one of its own in response. Nothing to it!
Those are all considered AI-complete problems. Your new processing paradigm is better known as "strong AI".
I don't like Bush either, and I'd very much like to see what the result of this recount is, but you're making some pretty extreme statements based on unfounded assumptions. Particularly the one about the polls -- "margin of error" doesn't mean what you think it means, and exit polls are certainly far more inaccurate than elections.
Also, this should go without saying, but Americans shouldn't be hanged over a political vengeance.
You realize that AOL owned Mozilla before it spun off as a non-profit, right? They've had more direct contact with Mozilla than they're going to get from 5% of a company that's vaguely interested in Firefox, and still they use IE.
In the 90s you would have complained about 90s music in the same way, and only listened to 80s music.
It's not something inherently wrong with popular musiic right now. What's going on is this: music gets filtered over time, and the songs that still get played after 10 years are the ones that are interesting, unique, and have long-lasting popularity.
You're seeing the same thing with games. You can find good old games more easily than good new games, because you've had the time to find out that they're good, and all the really bad games from a few years ago aren't talked about anymore.
I'm not saying you're wrong for preferring old stuff. You hear better music that way, because you're not listening to things that are only popular due to the random whims of pop culture. Do you think anyone will listen to "Hollaback Girl" in 2015?
You're right about Chomsky holding back linguistics. (There are all kinds of counterarguments against his Universal Grammar, but people defend it because Chomsky Is Always Right, and Chomsky himself defends it with vitriolic, circular arguments that sound alarmingly like he believes in intelligent design.)
And I agree that this algorithm doesn't seem that it would be entirely successful in learning grammar. But this is not because it's statistical. I don't understand how you can look at something as complicated as the human brain and say "statistics does not come in at all".
If this algorithm worked, then it could be statistical, symbolic, Chomskyan, or magic voodoo and I wouldn't care. There's no reason that computers have to do things the same way the brain does, and I doubt they'll have enough computational power to do so for a long time anyway.
No, the flaws in this algorithm are that it is greedy (so a grammar rule it discovers can never be falsified by new evidence), and it seems not to discover recursive rules, which are a critical part of grammar. Perhaps it's learning a better approximation to a grammar than we've seen before, but it's not really doing the amazing, adaptive, recursive thing we call language.
You lose the scrollbar if you've installed a funky theme that doesn't work with OS X. (It doesn't matter if you're using the theme, unfortunately, just that it's installed.) So try uninstalling your themes.
That explains a lot, particularly why some Slashdotters are seeing it and others aren't.
The first place I saw this trick used was as a gag in Strong Bad's "virus" e-mail. I was both impressed and frightened that the Homestar Runner people had managed to make a popup window in Firefox.
Slashdot Mirror
The official version: Wikimedia Founding Principles
The shouting-in-your-face version: WIKIPEDIA IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA
We can use clean coal, appreciate what it really is
... dirty?
Yep. There's also EarthBound which breaks the fourth wall as part of the plot. The dialogue in the game makes it entirely clear that you are not Ness, which this article would claim never happens.
I'm surprised that a game designer for GAMBIT would make such an easily-refutable statement. I'd say that the weaker thesis of the article -- that breaking the fourth wall doesn't actually harm gameplay -- is reasonable, on the other hand.
The only exception is EMI? What about the MP3s you can buy from Amazon?
Your definition of "precise" seems to actually be a definition of "accurate". In fact, you're asking for accuracy at the expense of precision.
Open Mind Common Sense. A project at the MIT Media Lab to collect an open ontology of general knowledge.
One non-obvious cool aspect of the site is that if you create an account, it will ask you questions that are intended to fill in gaps in its knowledge.
Google knows all. KDE Free Qt Foundation
I hadn't heard of it before, either. Now I'm wondering: what additional power does this agreement give them? Presumably everyone already has the right to fork Qt.
Huh? He wrote a whole book about his lousy Scheme function, and you can in fact try out the code.
Using the Intrade data is interesting, so it's too bad that the author then just throws out the probabilities. He just counts the higher-probability outcome in each state as if it's certain to happen.
The result is that the map is telling us the maximum-likelihood outcome in terms of which states go to who. This one outcome happens to be one that Obama wins. But it doesn't tell us the probability of Obama winning over all outcomes.
What I'd like to see is this data fed into a model that simulates many possible elections, like the one at fivethirtyeight.com.
Dear god, they're still using the fish thing? I remember that from 2002. At least then, it had requirements that made no sense implemented with code that didn't quite do what they said it did, and that's the code you had to work with on the exam.
I think the course kind of needed to die. The way APCS AB was generally taught would get you nowhere in college. APCS A is about basic program control structures and doesn't claim to be about anything else, and now high schools that can afford to have a class beyond that can come up with course material that actually teaches something.
Matthew 27 has a bit of zombie action in it, even if it's not Jesus:
27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
Not sure if they hungered for flesh, but these are still dead bodies of saints walking around and freaking people out. Surprising that anyone noticed Jesus with everything else going on.
What, campaigning for Mike freaking Huckabee isn't "dark side" enough for you?
1. Evolution. Animals that can think eat the ones that can't.
2. Evolution. Populations of moral animals survive better than populations of immoral ones.
3. You can't model the Big Bang with Newton's Third Law, so don't try. And since "time" and "cause and effect" are aspects of this universe, it doesn't make sense to ask what happened "before" the Universe or what "caused" it.
4. Hopefully, the fact that you love your family manifests itself in observable facts about the real world, something that religious statements usually lack.
You're welcome.
That analogy certainly doesn't fit very well. After all, the consumer paid for a bag of flaming shit, and not an Apple.
If you're looking for a "proof", you don't know what science is. There are no proofs, only well-tested theories.
Also, Newtonian mechanics is not "trash", and you can't use that argument to say that evolution is. Newtonian mechanics was the correct theory for the experimental results of the time, and is still an excellent approximation.
Because humans are adapted to be good at learning language. That doesn't mean they have to be born having already learned it in their genes somehow.
Ad hominem attacks are a really great way to make a scientific point, by the way.
So, in your "new processing paradigm" a computer would be able to know what "an amusing image you might like" is. Or to recognize the meaning of a natural-language sentence and synthesize one of its own in response. Nothing to it!
Those are all considered AI-complete problems. Your new processing paradigm is better known as "strong AI".
I don't like Bush either, and I'd very much like to see what the result of this recount is, but you're making some pretty extreme statements based on unfounded assumptions. Particularly the one about the polls -- "margin of error" doesn't mean what you think it means, and exit polls are certainly far more inaccurate than elections.
Also, this should go without saying, but Americans shouldn't be hanged over a political vengeance.
You realize that AOL owned Mozilla before it spun off as a non-profit, right? They've had more direct contact with Mozilla than they're going to get from 5% of a company that's vaguely interested in Firefox, and still they use IE.
In the 90s you would have complained about 90s music in the same way, and only listened to 80s music.
It's not something inherently wrong with popular musiic right now. What's going on is this: music gets filtered over time, and the songs that still get played after 10 years are the ones that are interesting, unique, and have long-lasting popularity.
You're seeing the same thing with games. You can find good old games more easily than good new games, because you've had the time to find out that they're good, and all the really bad games from a few years ago aren't talked about anymore.
I'm not saying you're wrong for preferring old stuff. You hear better music that way, because you're not listening to things that are only popular due to the random whims of pop culture. Do you think anyone will listen to "Hollaback Girl" in 2015?
I think someone's having a bit of fun with the map. I got a spot smack in the middle of Greenland, with this message:
Subject: Um, the brochure said it was GREEN here
IP address: 1.2.3.4
DNS Name: greenland.aintgreen.com
Location: Greenland
Emails: lots
Geoffrey Sampson is good at giving overviews of the points against nativism. See his page on the topic.
You're right about Chomsky holding back linguistics. (There are all kinds of counterarguments against his Universal Grammar, but people defend it because Chomsky Is Always Right, and Chomsky himself defends it with vitriolic, circular arguments that sound alarmingly like he believes in intelligent design.)
And I agree that this algorithm doesn't seem that it would be entirely successful in learning grammar. But this is not because it's statistical. I don't understand how you can look at something as complicated as the human brain and say "statistics does not come in at all".
If this algorithm worked, then it could be statistical, symbolic, Chomskyan, or magic voodoo and I wouldn't care. There's no reason that computers have to do things the same way the brain does, and I doubt they'll have enough computational power to do so for a long time anyway.
No, the flaws in this algorithm are that it is greedy (so a grammar rule it discovers can never be falsified by new evidence), and it seems not to discover recursive rules, which are a critical part of grammar. Perhaps it's learning a better approximation to a grammar than we've seen before, but it's not really doing the amazing, adaptive, recursive thing we call language.
You lose the scrollbar if you've installed a funky theme that doesn't work with OS X. (It doesn't matter if you're using the theme, unfortunately, just that it's installed.) So try uninstalling your themes.
That explains a lot, particularly why some Slashdotters are seeing it and others aren't.
The first place I saw this trick used was as a gag in Strong Bad's "virus" e-mail. I was both impressed and frightened that the Homestar Runner people had managed to make a popup window in Firefox.