prev <-> next
[2011-02-27 11:46:25] - Anyone planning on playing Dragon Age II when it comes out in a week or two? - Stephen
[2011-02-27 11:23:47] - aaron: Good stuff. I was highly amused by the Cinderella one. Even though that's likely to get me in trouble. -- Xpovos
[2011-02-27 02:02:53] - http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/ft5xy/if_you_watch_127_hours_backwards_its_a_lovely/ if you watch Jaws backwards, it's about a shark that throws up so many people that they have to open a beach - aaron
[2011-02-27 01:34:01] - ...system rather than anything environmental. but yeah for a lot of stuff like that, it's important to get it diagnosed early before it spreads to other parts of the respiratory system. - aaron
[2011-02-27 01:32:59] - amy: http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/fkdrs/i_found_this_on_my_bathroom_ceiling_this_morning/ this is the thread that initially freaked me out but, reading more about it it seems like the most serious things people are talking about like fungal menengitis or fungal sinus/throat infections are like, pretty rare and more likely associated with a weak immune... - aaron
[2011-02-25 16:23:34] - Xpovos: Well, I assume I could (in theory) get another Verizon modem/router (if that is what it is), but I just don't want to have to rent a router if I could buy a cheap one to do the same thing. -Paul
[2011-02-25 15:41:06] - If I'm reading between your lines correctly the device has already broken the fiber down into coax (television signal) and 10-T (internet signal). If you only have coax upstairs, I'm unaware of anything you can do to get internet out of the TV signal. You could try a cable modem, but I doubt it would work. -- Xpovos
[2011-02-25 15:39:37] - Paul: I'm not familiar enough with FiOS to get specific, but somewhere you have a device that should break the fiber/coax down to 10-T. That's your modem. It may also be serving as a router, yes, but you can hook a router into a router. But that may not do what you need it to do. -- Xpovos
[2011-02-25 15:27:27] - Xpovos: I guess that's the problem. I assume the Verizon provided router doubles as the modem? Or is it the device next to my circuit breaker with the battery backup? I've got the coaxial cable split before the router, so if it doubles as the modem, I guess I am SOL. -Paul
[2011-02-25 11:22:58] - Paul: Once you get past the modem, any kind of router should suffice. -- Xpovos
[2011-02-25 10:49:02] - Does anybody here know if any kind of router can be used with FiOS, or if it has to be a Verizon supplied one? I have FiOS running up to the top floor of my house in the form of coax cable, and I was hoping to set up a router up there so I can run some ethernet cables to my computer and other devices. -Paul
[2011-02-25 09:57:18] - mig: I definitely agree with you. I am not a fan of the trade, because I think they might've been the favorite to win before it. -Paul
[2011-02-25 09:50:43] - I understand the potential of letting Perkins walk because they couldn't pay them, but given that Celtics are in "must win now" mode it's still a very weird move. - mig
[2011-02-25 09:46:14] - daniel: yeah, that's an awfuly big gamble to take though. It's just perplexing to me because it seemed that the celtics were openly griping about how Perkin's injury cost them the NBA championship last year, and now they just trade him. - mig
[2011-02-25 09:45:07] - mig: I definitely don't like the trade, but apparently it was because they didn't know if they could re-sign Perkins after this year, and Green helps them go small and could help replace one of their aging stars in the future. -Paul
[2011-02-25 09:42:44] - mig: they got back some decent players from OKC, and I think they are hoping shaq can help plug the middle. Whether it was smart or not depends on how shaq does in the playoffs. -Daniel
[2011-02-25 09:41:45] - xpovos: no that was a separate deal with cleveland, apparently. - mig
[2011-02-25 09:28:51] - mig: Is he one of the guys they got a future second round pick for? -- Xpovos
[2011-02-25 09:08:27] - has anyone been able to make any sense out of the celtics dealing Kendrick Perkins away? - mig
[2011-02-24 12:46:50] - http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/frizo/i_visited_north_korea_in_2008_ama/ i thought this was an interesting reddit thread on what a typical visit to north korea is like. i had heard something kind of like it on NPR about 3 weeks ago too. - aaron
[2011-02-24 12:42:37] - and what incentive would politicians have to ever be hardasses? times were good, and at the end of the day it's not their money that's paying for their concessions to unions, it's taxpayer money. - mig
[2011-02-24 12:39:00] - daniel: possibly because there isn't much faith that there will be enough politicians who will be hardasses in bargaining, becuase up until now, traditionally politicians of all stripes rarely, if ever, stood up to any public sector union (which tends to happen when you're a big national special interest group). - mig
[2011-02-24 11:12:18] - I think rather than pass a bill that limits what they can negotiate on why not just be a bigger hardass in bargaining? They are trying to negotiate for more stuff and just say no dice, feel free to strike. Make them the badguys who aren't working for an extra two vacation days or whatever. -Daniel
[2011-02-24 11:09:44] - WI bill would allow them to only collectively bargain on the issue of wages, nothing else. However the article also had the sentence,"still lets workers collectively bargain their wages as long as they are below inflation" which seems to qualify their ability to bargain on wages so I'm not sure. -Daniel
[2011-02-24 11:04:40] - unions w/o CBA's seem more like a trade organization
I hadn't seen anything that said it was limited, just stuff that said they wouldn't be able to CBA so maybe I'll try to look into that. -Daniel[2011-02-24 11:00:14] - and that's still not the same thing as saying "unions are illegal". I dunno, maybe it does make being in a union pointless without the ability to do a CBA, then you've got a point I guess. - mig
[2011-02-24 10:57:10] - daniel: yes, but not entirely. They can still collectively bargain, it's just very, very limited. - mig
[2011-02-24 10:54:56] - as an interesting aside, the "factoid" blog post previously linked here on the message board seems to have dissappeared ... - mig
[2011-02-24 10:54:42] - mig: Maybe I missed the boat but I thought the entire point of the deal in WI was that the bill the gov wanted to pass would remove their ability to make a CBA? -Daniel
[2011-02-24 10:42:10] - daniel: true, people should be allowed to form unions but that's not the issue in WI. There's nothing in the WI plan that makes unions illegal, just less powerful. Of course the union could be "busted" if all state workers decide to opt out of one, but if it came to that, would it really be such a bad thing, then? - mig
[2011-02-24 10:38:20] - Yeah not being able to fire dumb people is definitely a problem in unions. Although it can be hard to fire somone from anywhere if there is enough paperwork involved to make it obnoxious. I'm not super pro union I just think taking away the ability to form one is bad. Telling them how it is and getting them to back down is fine though. -Daniel
[2011-02-24 10:28:50] - daniel: well, not entirely drifted off, it's hard to fire bad cops, too. - mig
[2011-02-24 10:19:40] - paul: yeah that "only 5% took the SAT" debunking was the one i heard. it also supposedly strongly affects louisiana, where most students attend in-state universities and don't bother with the SAT - aaron
[2011-02-24 09:55:01] - I haven't been following this conversation much, so sorry if this is no longer relevant, but it sounds like the stat about VA being ranked 44th might be wrong. -Paul
[2011-02-23 17:03:53] - Well, teachers are generally going to be the largest source of employees for a government union, at least at the state level. -- Xpovos
[2011-02-23 16:57:35] - Daniel: Survey-based. Specifically they poll the principals and teachers. That doesn't convince me of much. -- Xpovos
[2011-02-23 16:56:28] - Though we (I) seem to have drifted off gov workers in general to teachers which is a related but probably different can of worms. -Daniel
[2011-02-23 16:55:13] - As a point to the downsides of unions: http://www.uschamber.com/reportcard/state-profiles In particular the ability to get rid of ineffective teachers. -Daniel
[2011-02-23 16:49:43] - Honestly, though, I have major issues with the SAT in general, so any metrics based on that aren't really going to hold much weight for me. - mig
[2011-02-23 16:47:53] - I took the ACT in 8th grade, but not in 12th. I took the SATs then. I wonder if my ACT score in 8th grade got factored into any bigger aggregate statistic for VA. If so, I probably pulled the numbers up even then. I have it scanned into a file on my thumb drive (digitizing is the way to get rid of clutter) so I can compare, I guess. -- Xpovos
[2011-02-23 16:42:02] - I'm not sure I think the %'s are going to be wildly different across states but I guess some variation in the results could occur if it was weighted. -Daniel
[2011-02-23 16:41:28] - so if oregon had 99% of its students take the ACT it should be rated higher than 10th? maybe i guess so. -Daniel
[2011-02-23 16:40:58] - mig: you think the contributing part of the score should be weighted based on the % of students that took that test? -Daniel
[2011-02-23 16:39:08] - mig: I think his math is ok, there doesn't need to be a 50/50 split for him to add the two scores together. He took the average SAT and teh average ACT and added them to make one score. That doesn't seem that bad to me? -Daniel
[2011-02-23 16:35:26] - Take for example, Oregon, ranked 25th in SAT scores, 3rd in ACT scores, and 10th overall. Depending on the splits of students taking one or the other, scoring it this way makes oregon appear either better or worse than it really is. - mig
[2011-02-23 16:31:38] - daniel: if i'm reading this person's data correctly, I do take major exception to the way the person has "scored" each state. the split of people taking the ACT vs. the SAT is not 50/50 in each individual state. You can't just take the 2 individual rankings and make them a composite ranking that way as if they were both equivalent metrics. - mig
[2011-02-23 16:31:07] - http://www.act.org/news/data/10/states.html this page fits in better with my personal biases. the other data is supposedly from 1999 and flawed for other reasons, idk - aaron
[2011-02-23 16:24:55] - it's probably me being closed-minded and ignorant but i guess i assumed the states with the poorest education systems would also be the states that turned up in the news for trying to print special state-approved editions of biology and history textbooks, and i don't recall virginia doing stuff like that - aaron
[2011-02-23 16:19:21] - (says something non-inflammatory) - aaron
[2011-02-23 16:19:13] - xpovos: yeah could just be goofy statistics munging i guess. i'm really surprised virginia would place that low; i know fairfax county is an outlier, but i assumed the lowest SAT scores would come from states with the lowest enrollment rates, or states like kansas and louisiana which are known for being really ahhhh.... i don't know - aaron
[2011-02-23 16:12:34] - link doesn't work for me ? even stoping at the '>'
[2011-02-23 16:07:08] - Lies, damned lies, and statistic. Also, I really need to go back to remedial HTML class or something, it seems. -- Xpovos
[2011-02-23 16:06:31] - Daniel: That's interesting. Particularly since I feel VA does a pretty good job of education in general (though I'm obviously biased by my sample knowledge). Also interesting in that that article points to WI at 2nd on these scores and yet <a href="http://cnsnews.com/news/article/two-thirds-wisconsin-public-school-8th-g>DOE findings</a> are hardly impressive. -- Xpovos
[2011-02-23 16:06:29] - wow virginia is ranked 44th in SAT scores? i know i pulled like a 1500 which of you guys pulled virginia down into the 12th percentile? not cool guys - aaron
[2011-02-23 16:04:27] - daniel: although assuming my giraffe hypothesis is incorrect, it seems like pretty damning evidence - aaron
[2011-02-23 16:04:03] - daniel: yeah, could definitely be that the teachers in those areas are giraffes (giraffes make bad teachers, and also lack the cognitive ability necessary to facilitate collective bargaining) - aaron
[2011-02-23 16:00:38] - No studies to prove causation but it is interesting to see that info. -Daniel
[2011-02-23 15:59:55] - A rebuttal perhaps? http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2011/02/22/no-strong-teacher-unions-lower-satact-scores-any-correlation/ -Daniel
[2011-02-23 14:15:27] - stephen: that is interesting, certainly a facet of the argument that I hadn't considered. Strange though, that the articles I see about this topic never mention the VA or NC situation. - mig
[2011-02-23 14:03:18] - Daniel: I can't find any evidence that he mentioned CBA on the campaign trail, no. But he did vow to slash WI gov't employee wages. -- Xpovos
[2011-02-23 14:02:23] - FDR has been quoted a lot recently. He was a major advocate against CBA rights in government workers, apparently. -- Xpovos
[2011-02-23 13:32:00] - mig: And that question has been answered differently in different parts of the country. One of the arguments I found fairly compelling was that VA and NC government workers lack the ability to bargain collectively, but they aren't really worse off than workers elsewhere. - Stephen
[2011-02-23 13:28:14] - available in the private sector (more job security, other benefits, etc). The main question seems to be whether being able to collectively bargain should be one of those tradeoffs. - mig
[2011-02-23 13:27:12] - Well the "right to collectively bargain" is a rather too broad a term to put it, since we are talking exclusively about people employed by the government here (at least to my understanding, unless there is something more sweeping hidden in this bill). In theory, government workers are supposed to make some tradeoffs in exchange for things that aren't normally ...
[2011-02-23 13:15:44] - I'm with Miguel, though - I found the comparisons of Walker to Mubarak to be downright demeaning to Egyptians. I don't think the right to collective bargaining ranks as highly as the right to free speech, the right to vote, the right to a fair trial, etc. - Stephen
[2011-02-23 13:14:14] - Xpovos: Keeping the budget balanced by making cuts to public sector employees is one thing, but taking away collective bargaining is more about power than finances (and an issue that I am agnostic about). - Stephen
[2011-02-23 13:13:56] - rid*
[2011-02-23 13:13:50] - I didn't pay any attention to the WI gov race but its hard to believe he ran on getting ride of the ability to CBA. I suppose its true though that he ran on tax cuts and still got elected. -Daniel
[2011-02-23 13:05:14] - But in short, he's allocating funds exactly as he said he would when campaigning. You can argue that campaigning on tax cuts is demagoguing, but it worked and he's following through and attempting to keep the budget balanced by making the cuts he said he would make. Obviously the unions opposed him during the election too. They lost. -- Xpovos
[2011-02-23 13:03:38] - Daniel: I've heard enough from other sources to figure out the point of the article: in short because he approved a tax cut, he's responsible for the deficit and it trying to take it out of the hide of less well politically connected (this cycle) unions. It's hard to argue that's not partially true. -- Xpovos
[2011-02-23 12:47:59] - That article isn't exactly bias free but it does provide enough quotes that I'm willing to believe the numbers. -Daniel
[2011-02-23 12:47:09] - I agree that things need to happen to fix the budget and that may include things that make unions unhappy but its hard to think it all has to come from the unions. Especially when the Gov created part of the problem: http://www.onewisconsinnow.org/press/walker-concocts-scoop-and-toss-borrowing-scheme-to-pay-for-140-million-in-special-interest-spending.html -Daniel
[2011-02-23 12:18:27] - So, I'm in a strange place of supporting what the union says they want, but being totally willing to destroy the union. Hate the union, love CBA. So, ultimately, I side with the governor, I think. Particularly since if CBA is as I feel more 'right'-ish than 'priveledge'-ish, it'll work itself back. And in the meantime the budget will get fixed and the union gets busted
[2011-02-23 12:14:52] - I feel pretty strongly about CBA in general, I'm inclined to even call it a right, which is something pretty extreme for me. But on the other hand, it's obvious that the union is, for lack of better words, fucked up. They've a history of bargaining in bad faith, and almost everything the (WI) governor has said with respect to them is true. -- Xpovos
[2011-02-23 11:42:57] - I think there is some argument to be made for restricting CBA bargaining due to the fact that States governments, becuase their money is ultimately derived from taxpayers to be given some flexibility in dealing with things like compensation and pensions/etc. This isn't the same deal as the private sector were all parties involved 100% consent to some agreement. - mig
[2011-02-23 11:35:19] - http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/22/wisconson-gov-scott-walker-on a link to a video with an interview with walker. One interesting thing I did note from it is his mentioning that most public employees in WI are by state law required to pay union dues, and the claim is that porential revenue loss for unions is what really has them riled up. - mig
[2011-02-23 11:33:39] - daniel: i find the koch brother conspiracy theories to be around the same level of credibility as conservative complaints of george soros. - mig
[2011-02-23 11:26:26] - ... the Koch bro's helped get the new Gov and other R's elected. Seems a bit conspiracy theory but the peices are all there I believe. -Daniel
[2011-02-23 11:25:52] - Anyone else see a story talking about how the CBA is a front to keep the focus off of another part of the budget that says the state can sell their power companies in a closed bid (some term there were they don't have to get competing bids) to whoever. The theory goes that WI would then sell their power plants to the Koch brothers to further make them rich because...
[2011-02-23 11:24:03] - I think allowing CBA is fine. I think without it people at the top generally pay attention to those at the bottom less. However that doesn't mean that unions don't act stupid sometimes. Anybody who gets too single minded and focused on only benefits for one part of a whole is going to have to be balanced out.. Signs with targets definitely not needed. -Danie
[2011-02-23 11:02:18] - Someone even had a sign of him with a bullseye targeting his head (ummm, yeah, definitely "too soon"). - mig
[2011-02-23 11:01:57] - I can see some of the objections to restricting CBA rights, which the unions claim this is really why they are protesting (though I'm not convinced that's their only motivation). I was very amused though by all the Walker = Hitler, Walker = Mubarak and the various nazi references some protestors are making. - mig
[2011-02-23 10:47:53] - Public employee unions? State deficits? Collective bargaining rights? State senators breaking the law by refusing to participate in a vote they'll lose? Commentary? -- Xpovos
[2011-02-22 16:10:03] - http://tobytripp.github.com/meeting-ticker/ a useful tool for making sure your bosses hate you more than they hate your coworkers - aaron
[2011-02-22 15:23:59] - aaron: Right. I think the pressure may be fairly common, at least from parents in some cases, but I think acquiescing to that pressure is pretty uncommon. I can see some people objecting to #4 for religious and/or anti-religious reasons, but, I don't think most people feel that way. -- Xpovos
[2011-02-22 15:03:59] - xpovos: no, i agree. in retrospect i don't think they're worthy of objection; kind of like daniel, i had been clouding the question with my preconceptions as to what it meant to be "pressured by friends" or "pressured by family" when really, there's nothing inherently wrong with those scenarios - aaron
[2011-02-22 14:31:00] - gurkie: Ah, well, to answer aaron's question, I'd probably order it 1,2,3,5,4; though I could see 3 and 5 being reversed. It's complicated because as has been noted most of them aren't worth of objection. And obviously I find 4 to be completely without objection almost by definition. -- Xpovos
[2011-02-22 14:09:41] - xpovos/aaron: yea I thought you were saying "did you mean to have kids?" "yes" ~gurkie
[2011-02-22 13:50:06] - http://i.imgur.com/Xjgbb.jpg wait when you beat the level don't you get a second, more robust set of lungs? - aaron
[2011-02-22 12:48:03] - gurkie: xpovos was talking about emoticons, not pregnancy. although it's very funny how his response can apply to both - aaron
[2011-02-22 12:47:50] - Daniel: Nope, sorry. I think I would probably only recognize about 10 class of '98 TJ grads. -Paul
[2011-02-22 12:47:07] - gurkie: yeah i agree, which is why i changed my answer. it totally depends on the nature of the pressure and how you're responding to the pressure. if your best friend is like, "i'll bet you $5 you won't have kids in the next year", or if your friends like "guilt you into it" for example that's bad. but the example you gave is fine - aaron
[2011-02-22 12:43:19] - hey TJ folk, do any of you know a Nicholas Johnson? He went to TJ class of '98 (I think) if that helps. -Daniel
[2011-02-22 11:39:35] - gurkie: The way I think? -- Xpovos
[2011-02-22 11:02:31] - xpovos: I like the way you think
~gurkie[2011-02-22 11:02:00] - Having children who like hanging out with each other make it much more fun for parents (assuming the parents like hanging out together)... In my neighborhood growing up there were about 8 kids my age, 2 the year above me, and 4 or 5 a year younger than me... We had a lot of fun playing together. ~gurkie
[2011-02-22 11:00:26] - aaron: eh, if you want kids I dont think its at all objectionable to time having them with when your friends also want to have them... I wouldn't have kids JUST cause my friends want me to but if I want to have a child in the next 3 years and some of my friends also want to then I think having them at the same time is great. ~gurkie
[2011-02-22 10:45:57] - daniel: actually the more i think about the two scenarios, the more i think i probably wouldn't differentiate between them either. i think caving to external pressure in both cases just really depends on the nature of the pressure; not who's providing it - aaron
[2011-02-22 10:40:53] - aaron: "Did you mean to?" "Yes". -- Xpovos
[2011-02-22 10:40:14] - daniel: well but you're assuming different kinds of pressure in those cases. what if #5 and #4 were both to "get your friends/parents off your back"? or what if #5 and #4 were both, "it's more convenient because our friends/parents will be help take care of kid-related stuff." - aaron
[2011-02-22 10:19:27] - ... could be friends and have playdates or whatever together and that makes it slightly better in my head. I agree that 4 and 5 are pretty non objectionable as well. -Daniel
[2011-02-22 10:18:46] - aaron: Yeah I think I can see parents annoying their kids about not having kids (or even married to have kids) and that being a really bad reason to have a kid just to get them off your back. I think having kids because a friend wanted you to isn't hte best plan either but like if another couple is pregnant too I could see a case for like if you got pregnant our kids...
[2011-02-22 10:16:04] - daniel: i honestly didn't think much about the ranking of #5 and #4 i think they're both totally acceptable. but you think people caving to parental pressure is more objectionable? i mean, i think it's a little slimy for someone to be like, "i want (more) grandchildren, you should have (more) kids", but i think the fault is more on the parent than the child - aaron
[2011-02-22 10:07:40] - aaron: I would go 2,1,3,5,4 so similar but switching both edge sets. -Daniel
[2011-02-22 10:04:43] - for the record that's, i think, how i would rank them. although i don't really find some of those reasons objectionable at all - aaron
[2011-02-22 10:03:58] - so if someone told you "we're had our baby because x..." how would you rank these reasons from most objectionable to least objectionable? "our friends wanted us to", "our parents wanted us to", "we forgot to use contraception", "we choose never to use contraception", "our contraception failed" - aaron
[2011-02-22 10:03:02] - gurkie: You could all enter this and have them decide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toddlers_%26_Tiaras -Daniel
[2011-02-22 09:56:41] - although I think its probably best if we dont actually end up proclaiming a winner... somethings just are not meant to be competitions... (Cant believe I said that)~gurkie
[2011-02-22 09:55:45] - stephen: I had trouble replying yesterday from my phone but I was going to say that in my impartial opinion mine will be the cutest... ~gurkie
[2011-02-21 21:12:39] - xpovos: but then how would i post my "man walking on a reflective lake" emoticon... o+<i>+o - aaron
[2011-02-21 21:10:56] - Wow... that was bad. I wan't aaron's "You fucked up some HTML in that post, did you mean to" script now. -- Xpovos
[2011-02-21 21:10:10] - Stephen: totally mine because they exist more than <i>in potentia</a> -- Xpovos
[2011-02-21 10:49:46] - So whose baby is going to be the cutest? - Stephen
[2011-02-20 13:18:00] - this is just a ploy to trick our friends who like board games into reading about starcraft
~a[2011-02-20 12:09:06] - reading up on BGG it seems like it has a big following and a lot of replayability, and you guys had the right strategy; using things like "gem to gemonade" to deter all early attacks, build up to 4-gems and "double crashes" and send a huge attack. but unlike dominion, there's no mechanic to force stupid players to eventually end the game themselves
- aaron[2011-02-20 12:07:34] - amy: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/the-interconnected-systems-of-puzzle-strike.html this is a really thorough article on the game designer who did puzzle strike, and all the balancing that went on. i thought it was cool to read how much thought went into the relatively simple mechanics of the game - aaron
[2011-02-18 16:01:45] - mig: if you went 12-pool (with the extractor cancel) I think your pool would be about 2/3 finished when the lings arrived. if you went 14 or 15 pool, your pool would probably just be going down. it's pretty cruel. - aaron
[2011-02-18 16:01:25] - mig: I'm not sure, honestly, but I've had games where I've had to take out the first wave of zerglings with drones before my spawning pool even pops, which means my zerglings usually don't pop until the second wave of zerglings is in my base. -Paul
[2011-02-18 15:47:26] - paul: what is the timing that you'd normally be at when the first 6 zerglings arrive? The fastest that i've seen zerglings come out is when a 12-supply barracks is just about to finish, or I have 1 zealot and my cybernetics is building. What stage would a "normal" zerg build be at? - mig
[2011-02-18 14:47:08] - Aaron: Yeah, since I often play zerg 1v1, I struggle with the 6-pool in all types of games. I've probably won more than I've lost, but it's still majorly annoying every time I do lose to it. -Paul
[2011-02-18 14:37:53] - Stephen: A great example of why Democracy is for the dogs.
-Paul[2011-02-18 14:09:33] - paul: husky broadcast a high level ZvP where the zerg 6-pooled (sending his drones as well) and the protoss almost made a micro mistake that would have cost him the game. but as long as the protoss knows about the gateway/zealot wall-in trick, and doesn't screw up micro... but yeah, 6-pool is totally viable in lower levels, it seems hard for Z or P to stop - aaron
[2011-02-18 14:08:19] - paul: yeah, in 2v2 or 3v3 i definitely believe that. in 1v1 i don't see it working in TvZ very well. but in ZvZ, or ZvP, i've seen it almost work, even in pro-level diamond games.... - aaron
[2011-02-18 13:46:20] - Haha: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/18/AR2011021803522.html?wprss=rss_metro - Stephen
[2011-02-18 13:26:03] - mig: I've read claims from people who said they were able to 6 pool all the way to diamond. Not sure if I believe that, but I wouldn't be surprised if it worked up to platinum. It's something that can still catch me off guard. -Paul
[2011-02-18 13:09:30] - those seem to go off a little quicker. - mig
[2011-02-18 13:08:28] - mig: Demotions too?
[2011-02-18 13:00:15] - One thing that is constant from my observations (and complaints on the forums) is that promotions take a really long while. - mig
[2011-02-18 12:55:56] - there was also a zerg I played a few days ago (who was plat) who tried to 6-pool me. That was really amusing. - mig
[2011-02-18 12:54:33] - and yeah that guy was plat. - mig
[2011-02-18 12:54:19] - paul: well you could argue that he's on his way down to gold. Some platimums are bad. I played a zerg player yesterday who didn't expand until well after I did. - mig
[2011-02-18 12:26:14] - a: Well, I was more going on the fact that it considered me "even" with a platinum player AND I beat him. I've been beating platinum players for a while (but occasionally losing to gold players). -Paul
[2011-02-18 11:39:58] - you beat one platinum person? i hope that's not all it takes for you to get to platinum.
i've been ranked #5 in gold for like six months. ~a[2011-02-18 11:26:32] - gurkie: You should definitely read it. It's light and easy and a pretty good book. -- Xpovos
[2011-02-18 11:04:55] - a: Remember the 1v1 game against the Protoss on scrap station that I played after our games last night? Battle.net told me we were even and when I checked his profile after I beat him, he was platinum 1v1. Platinum league, here I come (again)! -Paul
[2011-02-18 10:56:58] - xpovos: its on amazon too (http://www.amazon.com/Little-Fuzzy-ebook/dp/B002RKROIM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1298044681&sr=1-1) and apparently I have it on my kindle... ~gurkie
[2011-02-18 10:39:01] - Hah, I'd forgotten that Piper's stuff all fell out of copyright. That's a rarity. But in case you wanted to read Little Fuzzy and hadn't, here's freely available copies at Gutenberg. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18137 -- Xpovos
[2011-02-18 10:12:16] - Daniel: I think it's all tied into the 4 levels of dreams (or however many it was) for me. It felt really unecessary, and I noticed many times when somebody on a higher level dream should've woken up, and I felt like the whole "we have to kill him in order to save him" thing was contrived and made no sense. -Paul
[2011-02-18 09:58:31] - Paul: I didn't find Inception confusing at all. But then, I've watched and enjoyed a large number of pre-requisite movies for the style. If you've already spent a lot of time deconstructing Brazil and Dark City, Inception falls neatly into place. Well, maybe not neatly, but certainly without confusion. -- Xpovos
[2011-02-18 09:57:04] - paul: Confusing perhaps, rambling and inconsistent though? I'm sure I came away from it with those impressions. -Daniel
[2011-02-18 09:47:04] - Daniel: Main character was definitely an idiot, but frankly so were most of the characters in the movie. I'm not sure why inception was considered such a great movie. It seemed very rambling and inconsistent and unecessarily confusing. -Paul
[2011-02-18 09:36:44] - I'm not sure I enjoyed Kick-Ass. I definitely enjoyed Inception. I think they were both good and important films, but the enjoyment factor enters into it for me if I'm going to have to compare them. -- Xpovos
[2011-02-18 09:31:01] - re: if it quacks like a duck... has anyone else here read "Little Fuzzy" and/or sequels? -- Xpovos
[2011-02-18 09:30:50] - Its been awhile since I saw Inception but I'm pretty confident that I would rate it well ahead of Kick-Ass. Kick-Ass was interesting but I thought the main character was kind of an idiot. -Daniel
[2011-02-18 09:12:37] - Daniel: Not one of, but THE top movie of 2010. I was fairly disappointed by Inception, which I saw recently. -Paul
[2011-02-18 08:37:24] - I saw Kick-Ass last night. It was interesting but I'm not sure I liked it as much as Paul who had it as one of his top 2010 movies I think. -Daniel
[2011-02-17 20:22:34] - a: yeah, i agree. there's a lot of other similar analogies regarding "does this count as sentience/intelligence" and for the most part i fall on the part of "yeah that's sentience/intelligence". if it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. - aaron
[2011-02-17 18:47:40] - if we define "understand" to mean, say . . . i understand you, if i can build upon what you have said to make ever increasing complex and correct statements. i think computers will be able to do that. ~a
[2011-02-17 18:45:03] - "If you can carry on an intelligent conversation using pieces of paper slid under a door, does this imply that someone or something inside the room understands what you are saying?" i think . . . that depends. depends on your definition of "understands". for many definitions of "understands" i think a computer can understand in the same way a child can "understand". ~a
[2011-02-17 18:16:09] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room this article came up in a few discussions with regards to watson and A.I; i hadn't heard it before. - aaron
[2011-02-17 16:28:14] - a: Cool, I should be able to show up for about an hour or so. -Paul
[2011-02-17 15:43:30] - yes, ultimate is on. ~a
[2011-02-17 15:26:18] - a: Ok, I might see if my parents mind doing dinner later that day so I could show up for at least an hour, if you think it's likely to happen. -Paul
[2011-02-17 15:12:50] - 7 yesses. though glen and mark responded twice so maybe i should count them four times? ~a
[2011-02-17 14:22:30] - a: Is it looking like you're going to have enough people for frisbee on Sunday afternoon? -Paul
[2011-02-17 13:12:48] - aaron: I agree, fixing the buzzer rhythm issue would most likely alienate viewers. It's quite frustrating, though, when you know that you are losing because you can't accurately predict when a human will decide Trebek has finished reading a question. - Stephen
[2011-02-17 12:03:13] - daniel: lol, "Karma is a bitch. Unless you can't say "bitch" in the Washington Post, in which case karma is, uh, a fickle strumpet or something." - aaron
[2011-02-17 11:56:00] - a: it would be difficult to do that in a way that wouldn't alienate viewers. but there's a lot of other quiz show formats that address the issue; like how final jeopardy is organized, there's no buzzer element there... - aaron
[2011-02-17 11:41:28] - "On any given night, nearly all the contestants know nearly all the answers, so it's just a matter of who masters buzzer rhythm the best." that's an easy problem to fix, shouldn't they just make the questions harder? ~a
[2011-02-17 11:32:31] - Aaron: Yeah, I wish it wasn't about buzzer speed, because that doesn't seem to be what Jeopardy should be all about. -Paul
[2011-02-17 11:21:18] - daniel: i was amused by his simpsons reference in his final jeopardy answer. i also appreciate his point that really, jeopardy is all about buzzer speed so it's unfair to cripple watson by forcing him to buzz in late. - aaron
[2011-02-17 11:04:12] - Daniel: Yeah, I remember reading about his personality when he was on his streak so many years ago. He sounded like a pretty funny guy to hang out with. -Paul
[2011-02-17 10:29:05] - Apparently Ken is a funny guy. Who knew -Daniel
[2011-02-17 10:23:25] - Q&A with Ken Jennings - he touches on the buzzer speed issue - http://live.washingtonpost.com/jeopardy-ken-jennings.html?hpid=talkbox1 -Daniel
[2011-02-16 16:20:46] - vinnie: thats very noble of you, giving up you last day fantasy so everyone else can have theirs... ~gurkie
[2011-02-16 16:19:50] - http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2011/02/creators-watson-has-no-speed-advantage-as-it-crushes-humans-in-jeopardy.ars "Welty also commented on Watson's seemingly scattershot process of selecting squares on the board, saying it is similar to Jennings' approach of Daily Double-hunting." -Paul
[2011-02-16 16:10:50] - gurkie: I have changed my mind. I wouldn't go on a murderous rampage anymore. it's not nice to the other people who are living out their last-day fantasies - vinnie
[2011-02-16 16:08:12] - vinnie: robot and human might take it too far... ~gurkie
[2011-02-16 16:07:38] - vinnie: what would you do if you knew the world were going to end tomorrow? (daniel's question about the robot reminded me) ~gurkie
[2011-02-16 16:05:43] - aaron/vinnie: The idea of that show is hilaroius though. As long as when the robot finds out its a robot it doesn't go on a murderous rampage or commit suicide on camera or something tragic. That would ruin the vibe. -Daniel
[2011-02-16 16:04:43] - aaron: perhaps the basics boil down to disney robots but I think its the masterful application that it would take to do well on SYTYCD/LCS/Amer. Idol type shows is what would seperate it. Sure you could have a robot mirror a motion cap dancer the same way watson could have just answered what someone else typed in, the point would be a robot that didn't need that. -Daniel
[2011-02-16 16:03:50] - aaron: I think animatronics is certainly a large part of it, but really only the baseline. Yours requires an almost android-level of anamatronics. Mine is more doable with less. But in both cases, the software is where the innovation has to be. True Eliza-bot+ human style interactions or programming a sense of humor? -- Xpovos
[2011-02-16 15:56:34] - xpovos: last comic standing could be really great, oh man. although a lot of these ideas just boil down to the simple kinds of robots that disney engineers already do for their parks... - aaron
[2011-02-16 15:55:47] - aaron: we'll call it "Joe Robot". also, since it'll be in a house like every reality show, it'd be funny if one of the contestants had sex with the robot - vinnie
[2011-02-16 15:55:37] - gurkie: a one-week getaway at the south point hotel casino and spa in las vegas!! whaaaat!!! come on find that counterfeit penny! - aaron
[2011-02-16 15:51:34] - Although aaron's show sounds fantastic. -- Xpovos
[2011-02-16 15:49:51] - How about "Last Comic Standing"? I'd be excited to watch a machine try that. -- Xpovos
[2011-02-16 15:47:19] - aaron: if the robot new a super technical way would he want to pretend not to be a robot and try to do it the "human" way instead? I mean where would my incentive be to do well, if I do it quick people will think I am the robot and vote me off ~gurkie
[2011-02-16 15:46:16] - vinnie/aaron: lets watch it! ~gurkie
[2011-02-16 15:41:56] - vinnie: and how about along the way, they have various challenges - like, sort this pile of newspapers from oldest to newest! or, figure out which one of these 1,000 pennies is counterfeit using a scale! and everyone had to figure out who's using "human" algorithms - aaron
[2011-02-16 15:38:06] - vinnie: twist ending: nobody is a robot and nobody gets any money! ahhahahhahahaha okay i really want to be a TV producer now - aaron
[2011-02-16 15:37:37] - i can just picture the eighth week, and there's two contestants left vying for $8,000, and they're both like - wait... i REALLY don't think i'm a robot!! are you sure you're not a robot? oh no! - aaron
[2011-02-16 15:35:58] - vinnie: oh that sounds awesome!!! and every week they vote someone off; and if they vote off the robot, the remaining contestants split $2m... but each week they're wrong, the pot of money gets cut in half... - aaron
[2011-02-16 15:34:48] - daniel: can't you just have a humanoid robot programmed with a dance which was done by a mocap dancer? obviously it would be really really hard though! still very cool - aaron
[2011-02-16 15:34:35] - yeah how about a reality show where there are nine humans and one robot who looks human and has been programmed to think they are a human. and the group have to figure out which one of them is the robot. even the robot is surprised in the end! sounds like good fun - vinnie
[2011-02-16 15:30:40] - Daniel: if it was a cylon (sp) type robot that looks like a person it might... That would be awesome if IBM or someone entered a robot into the contest without revealing which contestant it was! ~gurkie
[2011-02-16 15:27:31] - Though I wonder if a robot could do a dance that would amke people cry. Like if you magically had a robot that could compete on sytycd would people simply not cry because its a robot so it doesn't have its own emotions? Or would it still be able to move people to tears. Interesting... -Daniel
[2011-02-16 15:26:21] - aaron: Thats the point! Something they are terrible at now that we just assume they couldn't do. Then its that much more impressive when a robot belts out Sweet Child of Mine with all the right emotion and what not. Or dances a song about breast cancer that makes people cry. Quite a challenge for a robot. -Daniel
[2011-02-16 15:24:12] - Daniel: SYTYCD would give him the Robot each time...
~gurkie[2011-02-16 15:23:34] - aaron: Minute to Win It or Ninja Warrior
~gurkie[2011-02-16 15:21:31] - daniel: blech. i've seen videos of vocal-chord emulating robots and it's nasty looking! vocal chords are gross - aaron
[2011-02-16 15:03:32] - Dancing with the Stars? So you think you can Dance? American Idol? Something along those lines would be impressive. -Daniel
[2011-02-16 15:02:38] - They seem to be motivated by things that people just assume a computer couldn't do. So what do we assume a computer couldn't do? -Daniel
[2011-02-16 15:01:17] - aaron: Most Extreme Challenge! -Daniel
[2011-02-16 15:00:02] - personally i'd love seeing a team of 5 watsons take on family feud, especially if they were trained on different data sets - aaron
[2011-02-16 14:59:25] - what game show do you guys think IBM will take on now that they've solved jeopardy? - aaron
[2011-02-16 14:36:42] - then, task completed, it's into the garbage pile for him! - vinnie
[2011-02-16 14:02:32] - gurkie: I think tonight is watson's last night. -Daniel
[2011-02-16 13:43:24] - So is Watson going to play until he loses? ~gurkie
[2011-02-16 12:02:28] - http://www.explosm.net/comics/897/ ooh a guitar. can you play me something? - aaron
[2011-02-16 10:16:59] - vinnie: I don't think it was me. It is distracting for the players, too! That said, it's a good strategy for players to use if they know they are ok with it. - Stephen
[2011-02-16 09:59:08] - yesterday my DVR deleted all my shows and cancelled all my recordings so i didn't catch jeopardy. bad DVR! - aaron
[2011-02-16 09:58:18] - a: yeah alright, the last one looks a little like him. i agree though, it's funny when you eat good food for awhile and then eat something greasy, and how crappy it makes you feel - aaron
[2011-02-16 09:52:53] - and actually, I was confused by Watson's jumping! I missed New Zealand's second biggest city because I forgot what the category was - vinnie
[2011-02-16 09:51:12] - nina mentioned yesterday that daily doubles are almost always in the 600s and 800s - vinnie
[2011-02-16 09:48:55] - someone told me (either Stephen, Meg, or a friend at work who went on Jeopardy) that they ask the contestants not to jump around categories too much because it is more distracting for the home audience. guess nobody told watson - vinnie
[2011-02-16 09:23:37] - Xpovos: I can see that too but he doesn't start at the low or high values, he picks all through the middle first. Then once both daily doubles were found it shifted to picking the low values in each category. -Daniel
[2011-02-16 09:15:45] - Daniel: Aaron's previous link also suggested that topic jumping created mental dissonance in humans but not for a machine obviously, so gives him an advantage. -- Xpovos
[2011-02-15 22:46:20] - der 100 or 1000*
[2011-02-15 22:46:10] - a: Do they have daily doubles in the 100 or 100 categories? he seems to pick all the 800 / 600 clues first. My guess is his "experience" has taught it those are where the daily doubles are more likely to be. -Daniel
[2011-02-15 21:39:19] - daniel: how does he "hunt" for them? aren't they placed randomly? ~a
[2011-02-15 20:39:50] - aaron: you might have mentioned this earlier today but after watching watson tonight i'm pretty sure he goes daily double hunting until they are both gone. -Daniel
[2011-02-15 20:27:23] - following from aaron's link, "Eating crappy food is not a reward--it's a punishment" interesting story at the very end of the article. ~a
[2011-02-15 20:23:26] - wow me neither. except in the last one. you agree the last one looks like him, right? ~a
[2011-02-15 19:14:52] - not saying he looks better, or worse, just that my facial/human being recognition system is totally whacked and i don't see his face anymore - aaron
[2011-02-15 19:14:07] - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/drew-carey-pretends-to-ea_n_676454.html i cannot recognize drew carey in these photos. i know it's him, but i can't recognize him at all. - aaron
[2011-02-15 15:55:34] - daniel: yes, i agree! it's really cool. i'm not meaning to downplay watson's achievement, i think it's amazing. - aaron
[2011-02-15 15:21:53] - Of limited interest to most here, I figure, but, "Wow". Eagles franchise-tagged Michael Vick. -- Xpovos
[2011-02-15 14:54:00] - aaron: I agree that within the 2-3 seconds while Alex is reading the question we don't know who came up with the answer first. For me that Watson is able to come up with the answer in that time regardless of whether he was first or not is still impressive. -Daniel
[2011-02-15 14:38:12] - Blah, I'm getting behind on the conversation and not realizing it. -- Xpovos
[2011-02-15 14:36:59] - aaron: I think there's also an implied correlation between question value and probablity_correct (as well as probability_opponent_correct) which makes the question value a fair approximation for reasonableness of buzzing in sight-unseen. -- Xpovos
[2011-02-15 14:30:53] - aaron: yeah, I wonder how it would play out. if everyone is buzzing in preemptively for every question, or even if one of the three contestants is buzzing in preemptively for any given question (maybe because they know the category well), it's a broken system - vinnie
[2011-02-15 14:26:48] - vinnie: yeah! good call. nobody's knowledge is a flat line, so people would be preemptively buzzing only on lower dollar value questions, or only in categories they were comfortable in. it would still introduce a different kind of metagame, with different tactics. i don't know if it would be more broken or less broken after people figured out optimal strategies - aaron
[2011-02-15 14:19:43] - aaron/vinnie: i'm ignoring you today because my dad recorded the watson episode(s?) and i'm trying to avoid spoilers.
~a[2011-02-15 14:15:28] - one funny thing I thought of about my proposed scenario is people buzzing in and having to make a really stupid guess if they don't know. it would make the contestants look dumber
- vinnie[2011-02-15 14:11:14] - the penalty for getting it wrong is higher, I mean. the risk is greater
- vinnie[2011-02-15 14:09:08] - contestants may know 66% of all the answers but would they know 66% of all the high value questions? the difficulty roughly corresponds to the dollar value, which is why I mentioned it. I see contestants being more cautious with those questions, also because the risk of getting it wrong is higher - vinnie
[2011-02-15 14:04:22] - actually playing it out in my head i think it's less than 66% necessary... if you buzz in right away, you'd get two questions right and be at like +2... and then you'd answer wrong and be at +1... your opponent would get (on average) +0.66 points on average... so you'd still come out ahead if all three contestants knew 2/3 of the answers - aaron
[2011-02-15 14:01:24] - so i mean i think the only ways to prevent people from buzzing in preemptively (like, right away) on every question (with a system like you're describing) is to make the questions hard enough that no human can break the 66% threshhold. or, i guess, to increase the penalty for an incorrect answer - aaron
[2011-02-15 14:00:22] - vinnie: well, i don't know if dollar values figure into it, just difficulty of the question. the reward for buzzing in before hearing the question is question value * ((probability_correct - probability_incorrect) - (probability_opponent_correct - probability_opponent_incorrect)) - aaron
[2011-02-15 13:58:12] - would probably not buzz in until they had a decent chance. if there was a surprisingly easy question worth $1000, this would be more about figuring out where Alex is going with the question than mastering the timing. I dunno, it seems more fair to me - vinnie
[2011-02-15 13:56:06] - aaron: I agree that cutting off Alex mid-question is definitely bad. but I don't see letting him finish as being too different from how the game is played now. for the low dollar questions, it plays almost exactly the same. everyone knows the answer and it just comes down to timing, and would remain so. for high dollar questions, people would remain cautious, but...
[2011-02-15 13:52:33] - vinnie: i think the "fairest approach" is for them to interrupt the question; and then maybe to edit it together so that the people at home see the full question? but that could be confusing too. overall it's a hard problem to solve which is why jeopardy seems a little unfair, even if it's really well thought out - aaron
[2011-02-15 13:51:14] - vinnie: right away. from a game theory standpoint, if the odds are 66% or greater that you know an answer (which for most jeopardy pros, it is) then you'd want to buzz early on every question; assuming that the alternative is one of your opponents buzzing in and answering correctly - aaron
[2011-02-15 13:51:12] - aaron: Speaking of...they released an updated version of You Don't Know Jack! - Stephen
[2011-02-15 13:50:30] - vinnie: i played it out in my head. if you interrupt the question (ala You Don't Know Jack) when someone buzzes in, then viewers are annoyed because the show feels "rushed". if you let the full question get read regardless, but allow early buzzing, then it encourages people to guess whether they'll know the answer or not... people might just always buzz in - aaron
[2011-02-15 13:49:17] - Vinnie: I don't understand either. Neither does Meg
- Stephen[2011-02-15 13:48:56] - aaron: I agree, it's impossible to calculate whether Watson figures out the answers before the humans do, since most of the time contestants figure out the answer well before Trebek stops talking. - Stephen
[2011-02-15 13:48:23] - Aaron: I haven't watched the episode yet, but I have it recorded. Might watch it later this week. -Paul
[2011-02-15 13:47:55] - I don't understand why Jeopardy only allows buzzers after the question is fully read. I know originally people could buzz in whenever and Alex wouldn't get a chance to finish the question, but can't they make a queue or something? so that you can buzz in as soon as Alex starts, but he finishes reading the question before calling on people? - vinnie
[2011-02-15 13:28:27] - paul: it also had trouble putting together context from the categories; answer things like "what is maxwell's silver hammer" instead of "who is maxwell" (which was accepted) and "what is harry potter" instead of "who is voldemort" (which was not accepted) - aaron
[2011-02-15 13:26:03] - paul: yeah, i was following along at home and that made my sphere turn orange with embarassment too. poor watson! - aaron
[2011-02-15 13:18:17] - http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2011/02/ibms-watson-tied-for-1st-in-jeopardy-almost-sneaks-wrong-answer-by-trebek.ars I found this a little interesting about how Watson can't hear the other contestants, which led to some interesting situations. -Paul
[2011-02-15 13:15:19] - Without additional delays added (see assumptions), this means Watson must generate answers to a Jeopardy-style question in not more than 10 to 15 seconds. That's a fairly impressive feat. A lot of the complaints against Watson's speed might also work against Jennings. He's a very smart guy, and a good Jeopardy player, but his success was based largely on buzzer speed.
[2011-02-15 13:13:26] - then Watson has a finite amount of time to generate an answer which varies based on the question, but is proportional to the word length of the question in that Trebeck must finish reading the question before anyone can buzz in. After buzzing in, the contestant is given 'a few' seconds to formulate and say their answer. [...] -- Xpovos
[2011-02-15 13:11:29] - aaron: The results are definitely meaningful, but perhaps not as meaningful as in another test. Part of it depends on the delay, which I don't know enough about the setup to comment on. Assuming instantaneous assimilation of the question by Watson, and assuming the standard version of Jeopardy I see on TV [...] -- Xpovos
[2011-02-15 13:04:56] - ...correctly as it can, as quickly as it can, and then its score and time are compared to other contestants... kind of a boring show to watch though
- aaron[2011-02-15 13:04:42] - daniel: you don't know if he's able to come up with the answers just as fast as humans. maybe ken and brad come up with the answer in a half second, and watson takes two seconds. if watson beats them to the buzzer, then that's all that jeopardy cares about. the article i linked points out a "fairer competition", where where Watson answers as many questions... - aaron
[2011-02-15 12:37:17] - aaron: It seems more like you are critical of the Jeopardy format than of anything else. Machines are pretty much always going to be better at mechanical tasks than humans so Watson is always going to have an advantage on the buzzer. The interesting to me part is that he is able to come up with the answers just as fast as the humans. -Daniel
[2011-02-15 12:30:10] - http://www.tnr.com/article/83337/ibm-watson-computer-jeopardy ah here's a better article about the buzzing problem. i guess smarter people than me have already given this a lot of thought - aaron
prev <-> next