search results matching tag: shortest

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (62)     Sift Talk (2)     Blogs (18)     Comments (131)   

deputydog (Member Profile)

Unsifted, default layout... Do you have a preference? (Sift Talk Post)

Zifnab says...

I'm not a big fan the new default as it currently stands.

When I look at the current list the first Video has 9 Votes on 46 Views which to me would give it a votes to views ratio of 0.196 (9/46). The fourth video has 7 Votes on 24 Views for a votes to views ratio of 0.292 and then further down there is a video with 6 votes on 11 views for a ratio of 0.545.

If I sort by most votes I then see a bunch of other vids with 9 votes, with what I would consider better votes-to-views ratios, that I didn't even see in the best votes-to-views ratio view (which I find even more confusing).

It looks like time in the queue and total votes play a role in the calculation somehow as all the 9 vote vids are first, then 8, then 7, and so on. Then in those sub-groups it sorts them with the videos that have been in the queue for the shortest time at the top.

In my opinon, if we are going to use the Votes-to-views ratio sort it should be just that, votes-to-views. Time in the queue should not play a part. That would mean new sifts with 1 vote and 1 view would normally be at the top and then fall down as people watched them and did not vote, or stay near the top if they watched and voted.

If I want to see the vids that have the most votes I'll use most votes sort option. As it stands now I'd rather go back to the old default. It would be very nice if there was an option either via a cookie or in a persons profile that could be used to set a personal default sort.

Well that's my $0.02 take it for what it's worth

Bugs in v3.0 (Sift Talk Post)

sometimes says...

Even if the votes/views ratio thing ever gets fixed, can it simply be set so you automatically vote for the video you submitted? Why would someone NOT vote for their own video?

the best votes/view ratio seems to be labelled wrong, but at least consistent, in that it is most votes/shortest-time-in-queue. the least votes/ratio is all weird. posts with 0 votes at the top, then posts listed oldest-to-newest.

Pedestrian Crossing: Breeders Cup

WTC remains molten iron beams cut in an angle

Par says...

From the second quotation, one might well be forgiven for assuming that the paper in question drew stronger conclusions than it actually did. In reality, it was far more reserved. Here are some further quotations qualifying the issue:

Despite the views expressed by the popular media, leading academics, and option market professionals, there is reason to question the decisiveness of the evidence that terrorists traded in the option market ahead of the September 11 attacks...

On the basis of the statements made about the links between option market activity and terrorism shortly after September 11, it would have been tempting to infer from this put-call ratio that terrorism probably was the cause of the November 12 crash. Subsequently, however, terrorism was all but ruled out...

[T]he article notes that the heaviest trading in the AMR options did not occur in the cheapest, shortest-dated puts, which would have provided the largest profits to someone who knew of the coming attacks. Furthermore, an analyst had issued a "sell" recommendation on AMR during the previous week, which may have led investors to buy AMR puts. Similarly, the stock price of UAL had recently declined enough to concern technical traders who may have increased their put buying, and UAL options are heavily traded by institutions hedging their stock positions. Finally, traders making markets in the options did not raise the ask price at the time the orders arrived as they would have if they believed that the orders were based on adverse nonpublic information.
(I'm limited as to how much I can post here, but I recommend reading the entire passage.)

Further, even if it turned out that some foreknowledge-based trading did occur, it wouldn't establish the existence of a conspiracy.

Jim Carrey - 1999 mtv movie awards

Quboid says...

Uh, Courtney my dear, I don't think you're one of the fine looking pu ... uh, girls that he was referring too. And put some clothes on, dear.

I take it they don't usually get that long to do their speech? The director probably saw (or already knew) what was happening and thought hey, it's Carrey, let's go with it. Who are the two presenters? The guy looks like Mike Myers but if so, she must be the world's shortest woman!

Murtha discusses Iraq Accountability Act

theo47 says...

I understand your point, joe - it's just a gross oversimplification; no one is prepared to take the step of cutting off funding yet.

The spending package has the rider attached that the troops would have to be out some time next year, which may not seem like much to you - but politically, it's huge - even though Bush will certainly veto it if the House version gets to his desk. It's the first time such a move has been made by the Congress, and the dominoes will finally begin to fall in ending this thing.

If it isn't completely obvious yet, this thing will not end until Bush is out of office - so Democrats have to play it smart to make sure they do get the White House back so they CAN end the war when he/she is sworn in...and Bush is leaving things in such a mess, it's making it very difficult for even the best Republican candidate to win.

I know the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but it just doesn't work that way in government. Progress is slow - and believe it or not, the Democrats are playing the game correctly.

Ralph Wiggum is a Unitard

AIseek Intia Processor Tank Demo

yaroslavvb says...

I wonder if such a processor would be useful for AI. Real life applications of AI like the system used by banks to recognize checks use general purpose computers (http://yann.lecun.com/). They did mention that this processor has dedicated path-finding built in, but with modified Dijkstra algorithm, you can find shortest path to every point in the graph in O(V lg V) time where v is the number of possible locations. This is as fast as sorting, and we don't see people proposing specialized chips for sorting.

Neil Young - "Wonderin'"

SnakePlissken says...

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody's_Rockin'

Everybody's Rockin' is a 1983 album by Neil Young. The album was recorded with the Shocking Pinks (a band made up just for the occasion), and features a selection of rockabilly songs (both covers and original material.) Running less than a half of an hour, the music is unlike anything else in Young's career. However, Everybody's Rockin' is typical of his 1980s period in that it bears little (or no) resemblance to the album released before it (Trans (1982), a synth-heavy, electro-rock album), nor the one released after it (Old Ways (1985), which is pure country.)

Everybody's Rockin' is Neil Young's shortest album, clocking in at under 25 minutes. In a 1995 interview with MOJO, Young said that the album was supposed to have included the songs Get Gone and Don't Take Your Love Away From Me (which later appeared on Lucky Thirteen), but that Geffen, his record company, cancelled the recording sessions. [1]

The following year, Geffen sued Young for making "uncharacteristic, uncommercial records", because of this record and its predecessor. In the Mojo interview Young says "R.E.M. were going to go with Geffen, then they heard I was being sued and everything, they just dropped all contact with Geffen and signed with Warner Bros instead. Geffen actually lost R.E.M. simply for suing me over Everybody's Rockin'!"

Young wrote the song "Wonderin'" long before the sessions for Everybody's Rockin'. It dates from at least the After the Goldrush era, and was part of his setlist at solo acoustic shows in 1970.

Minor detained for publicy displaying a %$*& Bush sign

KaiEr says...

I hate it when people become completely retarded to try to prove a point that was insane to begin with.

The Constitution does garantee freedom of speech, however, there are limits to that speech.

Billboards for adult entertainment do not show nudity... why?
You won't hear someone say "Fu*k Bush!" on national TV... why?
"The Who" is not going to start a concert in your neighbors yard... why?
You are not going to stay on a plane very long after yelling "I love terrorists!"... why?

The kid was on the side of a road, not private property. He had a sign using profanity. He argued with the police.

Bottom line, police were right, kid and moron followers were wrong.

The shortest Amendment to the Constitution states "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Try standing on the side of the road waving a gun around. Same principle.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon