And just so this isn't a "me too!" post, I found this tidbit from the article somewhat irritating:
“Last night, Alaska lost a hero and I lost a dear friend,” Senator Murkowski said in a statement. “The thought of losing Ted Stevens, a man who was known to business and community leaders, Native chiefs and everyday Alaskans as ‘Uncle Ted,’ is too difficult to fathom. His entire life was dedicated to public service — from his days as a pilot in World War II to his four decades of service in the United States Senate. He truly was the greatest of the ‘Greatest Generation.’ ”
Never too late for a good discussion! Who cares if we have no audience?
Elo is predictive in terms of tournament standings (as long as we're talking established ratings. Any kind of provisional rating and... well it's better than nothing, but Elo felt that provisional ratings were only accurate to within 20 or so points). My point though was that when you're talking specifically head to head they are much less so.
Styles make fights in boxing and the same seems to be largely true in chess
I will happily concede that Elo is imperfect and that there are factors such as style that it won't adequately account for. Given that, I believe that if you take a pool of non-provisionally Elo ranked players and randomly pit them against each other, picking the winner based on who has the higher rank will perform better than a coin toss with statistical significance. On this basis I submit that Elo is predictive, albeit with flaws.
In order to apply this analysis to the space of solutions of random constraint satisfaction problems, we utilize... random ensembles
So... Gary Coleman, Katie Holmes, Edward James Olmos, Mr. T, Marcia Cross and James Spader? How's that for a random ensemble?
Seriously though, I had never heard of random ensembles before this article, and my google-fu was not quite up to finding a page that could offer a good basic description of them.
Well, I'm off to infringe the GPL as it's not bad to do that apparently.
I've heard this argument a few times, and while it's not completely wrong, it does oversimplify.
The focus is more around for profit vs not for profit activity, and the scale of the individual activity. Very few people here will defend someone who runs a commercial scale piracy ring, copying movies or whatever, pressing the CDs and DVDs en masse and selling them on street corners for $5 each. And in reverse, there won't be much uproar over a guy who stole some GPL code and sold it to two friends for all of $30 profit. When both scale and motive combine in the wrong way -- essentially, profiting off of someone else's work repeatedly, no one sticks up for the offender.
all I'm saying is that there's no contradiction in supporting your government spying on other countries but being angry at other governments spying on you.
But there is. Either spying is an acceptable thing for governments to do, or it isn't. I can understand being angry about successful spying by another nation. I can understand the necessity in severely punishing foreign spies while still supporting your own. But anger or outrage that another nation would try to spy on us while being okay with us spying on others isn't logically consistent. It's sort of like invading another country and then being offended that they shoot back.
Much as my lower UID implies this comment should be more valuable than your high UID comment.
I used to think of myself as having a particularly high UID... until I realized that mine is actually lower than a majority of the total UIDs. Weirded me out a little. There are UIDs that are farther from the 1,000,000 mark than I am from Taco.
Since the Elo system is not designed to predict future performance (it's designed to capture current relative rankings), then is it really surprising that programs designed to predict future performance are better at it?
And if my current relative rank is higher than yours, doesn't that imply that if we play each other I should win? If not, what purpose does the rank serve?
I once came upon a neighborhood where the intersections had been signed with 4 way yield signs. I ended up treating them like stops signs are supposed to be treated (rather than how they ARE treated by almost everyone, including me) out of the fear that someone else would see their yield sign as permission to go barreling through the intersection without pausing.
It suggests character so I might friend you but I'm not going to read too much into it and offer you my daughter.
Okay, points for saying "up yours" with style.
But more to the point, my own observations (anecdotal! I know) have been that most people just shake hands the same way all the time, basically the way they were sort of taught to as kids. It sounded like you were taking that position at the beginning and then took a 180 and described what all the handshakes meant. So I'll give my own counter list of the same:
A wet handshake indicates that someone perspires at a lower temperature than others. A weak handshake indicates that someone hates physical contact with others. A firm handshake suggests your dad coached football.
Pathetic earthlings. Hurling your bodies out into the void, without the slightest inkling of who or what is out here. If you had known anything about the true nature of the universe, anything at all, you would've hidden from it in terror. -- Ming the Merciless
And of course, the true nature is that the episodes of the TV show "Earth" are 27 million years long. Since the episodes are designed to be standalones rather than a story arc, they hit the magic reset button at the end of each one.
At my university, in scenic New Jersey, we had an Honor Code that we had to sign after every exam; saying that I didn't cheat. I felt proud signing that, and believe that most of the other students felt the same.
I've encountered similar things in the past. They usually left me with two questions:
1. Does my signing this change anything? 2. What happens if I don't sign it?
Though I didn't cheat, I would daydream up conversations like "Son, we caught you cheating" Me: "No, no, it's okay, I didn't sign the honor code."
I viewed pieces of paper like that as irritating bureaucratic hoops that I had to jump through to move on.
Slashdot Mirror
You are not alone in that reaction.
And just so this isn't a "me too!" post, I found this tidbit from the article somewhat irritating:
“Last night, Alaska lost a hero and I lost a dear friend,” Senator Murkowski said in a statement. “The thought of losing Ted Stevens, a man who was known to business and community leaders, Native chiefs and everyday Alaskans as ‘Uncle Ted,’ is too difficult to fathom. His entire life was dedicated to public service — from his days as a pilot in World War II to his four decades of service in the United States Senate. He truly was the greatest of the ‘Greatest Generation.’ ”
Not quite the Ted Stevens I'm familiar with...
Probably too late but ...
Never too late for a good discussion! Who cares if we have no audience?
Elo is predictive in terms of tournament standings (as long as we're talking established ratings. Any kind of provisional rating and ... well it's better than nothing, but Elo felt that provisional ratings were only accurate to within 20 or so points). My point though was that when you're talking specifically head to head they are much less so.
Styles make fights in boxing and the same seems to be largely true in chess
I will happily concede that Elo is imperfect and that there are factors such as style that it won't adequately account for. Given that, I believe that if you take a pool of non-provisionally Elo ranked players and randomly pit them against each other, picking the winner based on who has the higher rank will perform better than a coin toss with statistical significance. On this basis I submit that Elo is predictive, albeit with flaws.
Next you'll tell me that MTV generation didn't understand how a CRT worked
Oddly enough, the first explanation I ever got on how a CRT worked was from a guest VJ on Headbanger's Ball.
I was kind of trying to imply that the hypothetical guy wasn't living up to the distribution end of the agreement.
In order to apply this analysis to the space of solutions of random constraint satisfaction problems, we utilize ... random ensembles
So... Gary Coleman, Katie Holmes, Edward James Olmos, Mr. T, Marcia Cross and James Spader? How's that for a random ensemble?
Seriously though, I had never heard of random ensembles before this article, and my google-fu was not quite up to finding a page that could offer a good basic description of them.
Follow the logic...
Piracy = !Bad
Piracy = Copyright Infringement
GPL = Copyright
GPL Infringment = !Bad
Well, I'm off to infringe the GPL as it's not bad to do that apparently.
I've heard this argument a few times, and while it's not completely wrong, it does oversimplify.
The focus is more around for profit vs not for profit activity, and the scale of the individual activity. Very few people here will defend someone who runs a commercial scale piracy ring, copying movies or whatever, pressing the CDs and DVDs en masse and selling them on street corners for $5 each. And in reverse, there won't be much uproar over a guy who stole some GPL code and sold it to two friends for all of $30 profit. When both scale and motive combine in the wrong way -- essentially, profiting off of someone else's work repeatedly, no one sticks up for the offender.
My main point though was that Elo is actually predictive. Not that it's perfect.
He did say it was a small map on standard w/ Chieftain difficulty, and he was probably rushing so he could write up a review.
all I'm saying is that there's no contradiction in supporting your government spying on other countries but being angry at other governments spying on you.
But there is. Either spying is an acceptable thing for governments to do, or it isn't. I can understand being angry about successful spying by another nation. I can understand the necessity in severely punishing foreign spies while still supporting your own. But anger or outrage that another nation would try to spy on us while being okay with us spying on others isn't logically consistent. It's sort of like invading another country and then being offended that they shoot back.
Much as my lower UID implies this comment should be more valuable than your high UID comment.
I used to think of myself as having a particularly high UID... until I realized that mine is actually lower than a majority of the total UIDs. Weirded me out a little. There are UIDs that are farther from the 1,000,000 mark than I am from Taco.
Since the Elo system is not designed to predict future performance (it's designed to capture current relative rankings), then is it really surprising that programs designed to predict future performance are better at it?
And if my current relative rank is higher than yours, doesn't that imply that if we play each other I should win? If not, what purpose does the rank serve?
However, it is a big surprise that Elo has been bettered done so quickly!
Absolutely. I can almost guarantee no one thought that Elo would have been bettered done so quickly.
You are not alone. I had a long, confused minute before I realized that they were talking about the company behind Turbo Tax.
Besides, the packaging probably will still say HDMI 1.4 somewhere..?
From the article:
In fact, come November 18 this year those selling cables won't be able to use HDMI 1.4 or HDMI 1.3 to delineate between different products.
Which sounds to me like the HDMI license terms won't allow it to appear on the packaging.
I once came upon a neighborhood where the intersections had been signed with 4 way yield signs. I ended up treating them like stops signs are supposed to be treated (rather than how they ARE treated by almost everyone, including me) out of the fear that someone else would see their yield sign as permission to go barreling through the intersection without pausing.
What makes it even worse is that it's neither a literal nor metaphorical message in a bottle.
It suggests character so I might friend you but I'm not going to read too much into it and offer you my daughter.
Okay, points for saying "up yours" with style.
But more to the point, my own observations (anecdotal! I know) have been that most people just shake hands the same way all the time, basically the way they were sort of taught to as kids. It sounded like you were taking that position at the beginning and then took a 180 and described what all the handshakes meant. So I'll give my own counter list of the same:
A wet handshake indicates that someone perspires at a lower temperature than others.
A weak handshake indicates that someone hates physical contact with others.
A firm handshake suggests your dad coached football.
You shouldn't read too much into it.
Agreed.
A wet handshake or a wipe on the pants indicates...
A weak handshake indicates...
A firm handshake suggests...
Oh wait. You meant a different kind of not reading too much into it than I thought.
Because IKEA is swedish?
But isn't Norway part of Switzerland?
Once I got to that part of the summary I was thinking "Wow, this guy is totally hardcore"
The aliens are stuck on DOS too it would seem.
How do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something is "harmful to minors"?
Quite simple really. Just demonstrate that all the minors who viewed the material are now dead as a direct result.
Pathetic earthlings. Hurling your bodies out into the void, without the slightest inkling of who or what is out here. If you had known anything about the true nature of the universe, anything at all, you would've hidden from it in terror. -- Ming the Merciless
And of course, the true nature is that the episodes of the TV show "Earth" are 27 million years long. Since the episodes are designed to be standalones rather than a story arc, they hit the magic reset button at the end of each one.
I like it.
At my university, in scenic New Jersey, we had an Honor Code that we had to sign after every exam; saying that I didn't cheat. I felt proud signing that, and believe that most of the other students felt the same.
I've encountered similar things in the past. They usually left me with two questions:
1. Does my signing this change anything?
2. What happens if I don't sign it?
Though I didn't cheat, I would daydream up conversations like "Son, we caught you cheating" Me: "No, no, it's okay, I didn't sign the honor code."
I viewed pieces of paper like that as irritating bureaucratic hoops that I had to jump through to move on.