*backup=[...snipped...]

There's the whole temporal aspect of the issue. Who knows how long we'll be using electromagnetic radiation for communication. Perhaps in like, 100 to 1000 years we'll have invented some new method. Maybe we'll have changed so much by then that our current conceptions of technology and existence won't even be relevant anymore.

Say there's been, like, 1000 intelligent, space-faring species throughout our galaxy since the beginning of the universe. If we assume it took them roughly as long to evolve as it took to get complex life here on earth, we can assume that the first intelligent aliens took flight perhaps a billion years ago. And then, at even intervals a new species develops a technological society. Even with 1000 intelligent, technological species in our galaxy alone, there'd be like, on average, a million years between them. Chances of two of them evolving at the same time are relatively small. And even if they used radio-signals for like 10,000 years, before becoming something that we can't even conceive, or destroying themselves, that would still be an average of 990,000 years of radio-silence per 1,000,000 years. Thus, if we stick around even for thousands of years, we still only have a tiny, tiny chance of ever picking up a radio-signal from another intelligent species.

Some of the stuff here looks a little arbitrary - what's the point of the kicks in between the weighted squats for example - but upvote for interval training. Also, this is clearly meant to be a part of a very varied training regimen, and not getting stuck in a routine is probably the single best idea for functional training I can imagine.

BTW, baryons aside... The fact that superposition and duality are a common theme in underlying physics really screams at me that the theories we have now are wrong purely because of how we see it.

If the Universe doesn't have an aspect of "time" as we know it (two measurements with an interval), then that solves a lot of problems. We create the mystifying part and need to somehow shift our perspective.

Don't ask me how. I have no idea how to figure out a puzzle without looking at it, unless we can get an "outside" or non-entangled view of the physics. Only problem is that as soon as you mess with something you're now entangled...

they're not even the same intervals. it's the same key and that's about it.

@bmacs27, sounds like you want DeLong-care.

It sounds like a viable enough alternative to me too, though I'm not sure what would prevent doctors from trying to sell you on tests & procedures you don't need. Presumably patient sticker shock, but that seems like you're pushing the decision point onto the patient, who's going to make the call on largely economic grounds.

It seems better to me if we have doctors be the ones who have strong positive incentives for quality of care, and weak incentives to control costs. IMO, patients shouldn't have to factor costs into their medical decisions, since they aren't really trained to understand where they can and cannot cut corners on their health, and doctors with bad incentives can't be relied upon to provide unbiased counsel.

It seems like most countries solve this by having fixed, national prices for procedures that are negotiated at regular intervals by the government and the providers/insurance companies.

We're ideologically fixated though, and refuse to engage in something like this. Well, unless you're 65 and older, then we do it all the time.

>> ^Krupo:
I got ME1 for five bucks on sale through Steam. You have all confirmed I might as well wait for ME2's five buck sale as well - at least I'll feel like I'm getting my money's worth.


Just to clarify, I think ME2 is a great game, and a must-buy for anyone who liked the first one.

I'm mostly expressing my disappointment that it didn't meet my outlandishly high expectations for it, and that I personally preferred the story elements and nearly linear progression of the first game.

The combat mechanics are vastly improved -- it's now basically on par with a real 3rd person cover-based shooter, and that's a plus. They've ditched a lot of the RPG elements (no inventory, and no base weapon skills to level), but I found that to be a plus as well. I hated inventory management in the first one, and hate needing to level up a skill to make my aim steady with weapons. They do still have some decisions to make as far as which of your skills you level, but it's basically a base +dmg +health skill, or one of your activatable powers.

The classes also all got revamped to make them more unique and distinctive, and having tried a Soldier & Vanguard I can say that they've definitely succeeded on that front.

They ditched the Mako, but now the exploration missions are actually interesting, instead of being bland and somewhat pointless. They also went from the 4 multi-hour missions of the first game to literally 30+ sub-hour missions that you could do in almost any order (or not do if you so choose), punctuated with 3 or 4 mandatory missions at certain intervals to move the main plot along. Supposedly they'll be releasing a hovertank as DLC, but I have no idea how that will work.

I haven't played with how many ending scenarios there are yet, but I'll mention as a minor spoiler that I'm essentially certain that every single member of your team can die in the last mission, including Sheppard himself...or you can come away without losing anyone.

I personally felt the story wasn't up to the standard set by the first game, but it was a joy to play, and I'm already well into my second playthrough, and I think I'll probably do a third run -- I wanna try out the new Infiltrator class!

A tubby Jamiroquai sound-alike side-stepping the difficult intervals.

>> ^nibiyabi:
Was there a rally race going on that included publicly-available roads that were not blocked off? Is this some extremely amateur event or something?


It's not a publically availably road that isn't blocked off. The roads ARE blocked off. The people in the way are other drivers, who set off at timed intervals as stated above me by sir maxx of mad.

>> ^nibiyabi:
Was there a rally race going on that included publicly-available roads that were not blocked off? Is this some extremely amateur event or something?


Nope, rallies are timed events, they set off at timed intervals, some competitors are much faster and have to overtake as they catch up the ones that left first.


*NSFW language

Someone should show this video to Bill O'RLY, so he can see how idyllic his Jesus-topia really would be.

I've given up on public voice channels in games, either everyone gets muted or I open a private channel with my friends, because I simply can't tolerate the rampant adolescent ignorance assaulting my ears.

Between the "adults" shouting "Nigger!" are random intervals, and the squeaky prepubescent boys screeching "faggot" every chance they get, I don't know how anyone can stand having an open comm channel.

>> ^longde:
Nor do they explain how their randomization procedure worked...

It doesn't matter. Statistically speaking, a mail-based poll will not produce a representative sample. I'm surprised they can even assign it a confidence interval (percent error), unless by some chance every person polled returned their results. Such a poll would only count those who feel strongly enough about the issue to spend the time to reply.

Ok... I still see this line as completely arbitrary. How are our actions not "probabilistic events?" The amoeba is operating off the same basic principals. It's exerting energy to maintain certain ion concentrations. It's moving matter in order to seek out food, and even flexing its pseudopods along the shortest path between food sources in proportion to their delivery frequency. There is even a paper showing that it will respond to periodic stimuli (such as cold shocks at particular intervals) with predictive changes of behavior. How is that any different?

Further, comparison and recall? Why is memory necessary for experience? For the successful completion of certain cognitive tasks, sure, but I keep needing to remind you that isn't what we're talking about here. As for comparison, it's happening everywhere all the time. Electrons are "comparing" electric fields when they settle into a state, otherwise they couldn't obey their physical laws. I think the problem here is that your thinking is boxed into the human sensory modalities. As far as I'm concerned an electron is sensing an electrical field in the same way I am sensing visual band EM. It just can't image it as well, and thus can't respond to complex patterns at much distance. Again, not to diminish that extraordinary decrease in entropy, but I don't know why it should be so fundamental.

Also, to be clear, I've never claimed that what I'm looking for is something immaterial. I just believe that consciousness is a fundamental property of matter. Being matter, and conscious, I have no reason to think otherwise. Again, this consciousness is distinct from "thinking". It's the sheer fact that there is a phenomenal experience, not the particular nature of those phenomena. You've presented me no evidence that I should only expect phenomenal experience in a complex organism, as you have no test for phenomenal experience. This is why Chalmers, and others, have argued that consciousness is not necessarily best studied by traditional english empiricism. It's wholly inadequate to investigate the phenomenon. A better solution might draw on Eastern traditions of meditation, for instance. Many monks, including the Dali Llama have been interested in cooperating.

But you have made a claim, that for some particular X, P(X) > P(!X). On the basis of that statement, and the assumption that you are rational, I draw the conclusion that you have some concept of what X is, or at least what its consequences are, otherwise you are making a non-sequitur claim.

I do have some very general concept of what x is, but not such a certain idea that I would ever make a claim like P(X) > P(!X). That is, unless you toe a hard Bayesian line, and accept that my claim is completely a subjective degree of belief. Otherwise, my claim was something like "I believe that P(X) > P(!X)". Something you shouldn't really care to contest, but I'll defend my priors against your priors till you're blue in the face. I won't be bullied by the tyranny of some arbitrary model selection criteria.

Farhad .. that's perfect .. thank you very much!

Croccydile .. I've run into stuff like that from other videos I've converted and then edited but tbh you're talking way over my head. I guess I need to look in VirtualDub and set the i-frame interval lower?

thegrimsleeper .. CCCP looks good but I'm staying away from installing any codecs unless I specifically need one to render something (ie. no "packs"). Right now VLC handles whatever I throw at it.

Just a little insertion of advice, direct stream copy only works on cutting on I-frames, which means that the cut will often not be exactly where you place it. I've read alot of xvid encoder guides that recommend setting the I-frame interval to some ridiculous value like 300 which leaves at least 15-30 second spots where you wont be able to cut without re-encoding. I'm pretty certain if I remember correctly by using the keyframe buttons (the ones with the keys on them, heh) it skips to the nearest I-frame in the video.

I would have recommended the same method though, since virtualdub kicks ass.

Why this is so. P and B frames in a video rely on reference frames next to each other in order to determine what the current frame will look like, and why this sort of compression works so well. I frames are keyframes since they are what succeeding frames are based off of.

(I have been doing video editing for WAY too long)