*ban all self-linkers - especially those who try it twice!

I know but it just reminds me of that "say no to drugs" episode of "Saved by the Bell".
In reply to this comment by gorgonheap:
I've always been serious about the self-link rule. Because it's so blatantly obvious that you'd have to be a twit not to see it. We all have pet peeves.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
I like how the heap of gorgon goes from playful jokester to serious rule-adherent member

In reply to this comment by gorgonheap:
Please read the posting guidelines *ban

I've always been serious about the self-link rule. Because it's so blatantly obvious that you'd have to be a twit not to see it. We all have pet peeves.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
I like how the heap of gorgon goes from playful jokester to serious rule-adherent member

In reply to this comment by gorgonheap:
Please read the posting guidelines *ban

I like how the heap of gorgon goes from playful jokester to serious rule-adherent member

In reply to this comment by gorgonheap:
Please read the posting guidelines *ban

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Aaron McDonald, Rubiks Cube, Remember the Name got banned' to 'banned, redacted' - edited by Zifnab

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Aaron McDonald, Rubiks Cube, Remember the Name' to 'Aaron McDonald, Rubiks Cube, Remember the Name got banned' - edited by gorgonheap

What does having star points on a website have to do with someone's intelligence? A dummy is a dummy is a dummy.

In reply to this comment by satterwc:
Firefly, I know you have a high rating, but you really should do your research before you slam someone's creation that they obviously spent a lot of time developing. Check it out at http://daniele.benedettelli.com/LRU.htm

i love this, but one complaint. Whatever algorythm they are using to solve the rubiks cube seems really bad. I've definitely seen much more optimised ones. There is no way you need that many steps to descramble a 3x3.
...
a little searching and i found this:

I generated 1 million random cubes on a 3 GHz Pentium 4 PC, trying to find a cube which was not solvable within 20 moves with the Two-Phase-Algorithm. This cube then would be a test candidate for a position which would need at least 21 moves to be solved with God's Algorithm.

But the Two-Phase-Algorithm solved all generated random positions within 20 moves. More precisely, it solved about 30000 random cubes per hour and the final distribution of the maneuver length was:
13: 4, 14: 18, 15: 81, 16: 609, 17: 3893, 18: 23411, 19: 141366, 20: 830618.

This shows, that the probability to find a random cube position which cannot be solved within 20 moves with the Two-Phase-Algorithm in a reasonable time must be very low or zero.
It also shows: If there are any cube positions which need at least 21 moves to be solved, these positons are very rare and there is almost no chance to find such positions by random.

So yes, there are definitely much, MUCH better ways of solving any given rubik's cube, especially for a computer.

This "two-phase" algorythm may be difficult or impossible for a human to learn, it may involve impractical memorisation, or something, but you can download a version from that site.

So yeah, awesome stuff, but they should implement whatever this "two-phase" business is.

Oh well, at least it was more believeable than this guy - http://www.videosift.com/video/Chinese-Student-solves-Rubiks-Cube-in-165-seconds#75283

http://www.videosift.com/video/How-Michel-Gondry-solved-a-Rubiks-Cube-with-his-feat

ydaerla tuo siht derugif enoyreve <<<
...gnitseretni erom si oediv rehto eht <<<

pealse opts.

(dammit. I never could unscramble the rubiks cube without a flathead screwdriver)

I keep thinking that all of these posts are by westy. ah well . . .

So cool how he does it using one hand only.

Next... Jedi Mind Tricks Rubik Cube Solving.