If a solution is posted on the internet and everyone calls you an idiot, is it still a solution?

Rick figured that although a nut traveling DDWFTTW might be the simplest form of such a device, replacing the threaded rod with a wheeled vehicle would be more compelling – and possibly even less intuitive. He conceptualized replacing the device’s keel nut with gearing from a drive axle to a propeller shaft that would replicate the kinematic constraint perfectly. With the problem solved as far as he was concerned, he posed the new brainteaser on two internet forums, one for radio controlled helicopter pilots, the other for kitesurfers. Given the solution, Rick imagined people would find this clever.

Instead they considered him an idiot for ever imagining such a thing to be possible.

This is where the pointless brainteaser took on a life of its own. Science, physics and aerodynamics forums exploded. Sailing forums exploded. Flying-related forums exploded. It was silliness traveling at the speed of electrons. Turns out it’s serious business when someone is wrong on the internet, and boy did the internet ever believe Rick was wrong.

One interesting factoid emerged from the chaos. We learned that a Michigan University student posed this same non-problem – and a solution identical to Rick’s — in the 1940s. The student’s paper surfaced at Douglas Aircraft in the 1960s. Apollo M.O. Smith, the company’s chief aerodynamics engineer, and wind tunnel engineer Dr. Andrew Bauer went at it like Rick vs. the Internet. Bauer said it would work. Smith wasn’t convinced. Bauer bet Smith a dollar and went to work.

Read More http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/08/ddwfttw/all/1#ixzz0y2H81thY

@eventualentropy

BTW, I calculated "expected value, E" for both the $200 ticket and each free ticket using your link. Since the "expected value of the profit resulting from an X dollar bet on a single number is the sum of potential net loss times the probability of losing and potential net gain times the probability of winning" (not an exact quote), I calculated E = $51 for the $200 dollar ticket, and E = $250 for each free ticket. Barring some gross conceptual error on my part (likely), the lucky winners' ticket was worth less after he paid for it, and the seller sold it for less than its expected value. However, as soon as he sold it, its expected value plummeted. ????

^You say:

I believe that the difference between the average human being and Stephen Hawking is far larger then the difference between the average human and the chimpanzee.

But that's not true. Like he said, the average human child (and even most stupid ones) can do tasks that are just too complicated even for the smartest chimps. Also, Stephen Hawking is a genius when it comes to astrophysics, but he's not a genius at everything. I'm sure he'd agree with that. Bach was a musical genius, Shakespeare was a literary genius, Kurosawa was a film making genius, etc. But all these geniuses were pretty normal in most other aspects of their intellect. Dr. Tyson is saying, I believe, that aliens who are just 1% more genetically "advanced" (for lack of a better word), would be intellectually superior to us in just about everything. Their grasp of science would be superior, and so would their communications skills, their conceptual skills, and maybe even their art skills. Maybe they could all paint like Michaelangelo, compose like Beethoven, write like Jane Austen, and so on.

It might seem far-fetched, but just because it's hard to imagine doesn't mean it isn't possible. And "intelligent" life might be far more abundant than even the most optimistic scientists predict. So who knows? We know so very little, that it's almost laughable, really.

When people talk about free will as an absolute or black and white concept it confuses me. Our free will is constrained in an infinitesimal number of ways because of the nature of our existence. We cannot move in the 4th dimension for example. Given then that our free will is not in fact unlimited but constrained, there is nothing to stop a supreme being who is infinitely powerful from designing us with the inability to do evil, or the inability to do injustice upon others.

The standard argument to that is that if there is no evil there can be no good. In relative terms and from the perspective of such an existance, perhaps not, but an observer looking in from a world with good and evil would be able to identify this constrained behaviour as good. Should that not be enough? To add to that, given such an existance without the capacity to do evil, it is plausible we could certainly conceptualize evil, just as how we can conceptualise the 4th dimension right now, but it would not be considered an opression of our free expression because of our limited ability to imagine it, and the lack of any such experiences to draw upon. In such an existance, we would spend as much time worrying about the inability to do evil as we do worrying about the inability to move in the 4th dimension in this world.

>> ^westy:


Its such a shame that the word DJ is used for people that can actualy produce music as well as people that can only match the beets up on 2 tracks and then fade between them , ocisoinaly putting in sfx and changing the pitch.


DJing and production are 2 completely different things. a lot of DJs produce and a lot of producers DJ but they're completely different ways of thinking. DJing ≠ production

beatmatch DJing conceptually is quite simple but it's not easy and it's actually very difficult to do well. matching the BPMs and fading between tunes is only the most rudimentary skill and even that is not nearly as easy as it sounds (some people can pick that up really quickly, most can't). keeping a crowd moving, re-contextualizing tunes, creating a story, keeping innovative, and staying on top of the music are some of the more mid level skills and they're very hard/impossible to teach.

This conceptualization of the baby-steps toward some form of efficiency prison of non-human makes one shudder to think of their children born into a future devoid of essence.
Second-life=no life.

I think what escapes everyone here is that advertising clearance processes are many layered, this ad would be conceptualized and sold to the client before any single frame of film would have been shot, there is endless back and forth.

It's clear that they thought either it would be funny or rather would create enough controversy to garner more name recognition, since we are not really attacked KFC in any way just the insensitive nature of the advert.

Am sure this is was deliberate.

Well, no matter the videogame precedent this scene is going to catch a lot of heat - and I figure ActiBlizz likes it that way.

*Spoilers ahead*

*No, I'm serious*

We know the game will be wildly popular. We now know its first level involves the player controlling the shooting of a large number of unarmed civilians running in terror. That combination of popularity and opening-intro-controversy will get the Jack Thompsons of the world back on the news talking about the game which, again, is likely more than just a happy PR coincidence for the publisher. Furthermore, we know the Jack Thompsons of the world don't even need a coherent argument or slice of reality to bash the entire spectrum of videogaming. No matter what artistic statement Infinity Ward is trying to make or no matter how 'normal' such a scene would be in an R-rated movie, they know they're going to be slammed over this.

Anyway:

As a game concept and mechanic, ignoring for the moment the likely upcoming controversy? Not sure if I like it. To me personally there was something deeper about Modern Warfare 1's movement restriction in the 1st level where the player watches a military coup through the eyes of a deposed president. The helplessness in controls reflected the helplessness of the situation and afforded the player more observation; by not having to decide where to walk and being literally taken for a ride, the player was instead able to focus their attention on watching the scene that unfolded. The design choice felt purposeful and, to me, increased the emotional affect.

This issue of control, to me, is a key distinction with the prior title versus the opening of Modern Warfare 2. Modern Warfare 2 allows the player to gun down those civilians and in a sense encourages it by requiring the player to keep up with the other terrorists who perform the same actions. I reserve full opinion since I've only seen the shakycam video, but on a conceptual level it just doesn't seem as purposeful. Being placed into the body of a civilian? That would have been interesting from a design standpoint as well; not necessarily better or worse, but I think you could have conveyed the same gameplay message. To me, the official PR response that "the scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit ... By establishing that evil, it adds to the urgency of the player’s mission to stop them" does not justify the choice from a design standpoint.

Again, clearly this is just ruminating on the designers' decisions without getting deep into the moral or PR aspects of the level. However, I do wonder just how much backlash this is going to get as a result.

TL;DR

>> ^Crake:
"All the other large and small tribes and peoples have the first mission to perish in the revolutionary world storm."
and here's the definition of the verb "zu untergehen" - compare the original German title of the movie The Downfall: "Der Untergang"
Sorry to harp on, but optimistic mistranslation of Marx' works isn't something the world needs


Sorry to harp on, but your lack of proficiency in the German language isn't something the world needs either. "Untergehen" can be, in some instances, translated as "perish" but only in the sense of material/conceptual destruction over a period of time. For example, you can say that a culture has perished or a now-ruined city comes from a civilization that has perished. I.e.: "untergehen" is figurative and much more soft than perish. In fact, the primary meaning is "to sink". Compare untergehen and perish in the Pons dictionary. Also remember that the film "Der Untergang" is translated as "Downfall" and not "Holocaust" or "Perish" or whatever.

A more literal translation is this: "All other tribes and peoples, large and small, have from their inception this Mission, to sink in the revolutionary global storm." It simply means that all cultural differences between men and women over the world will be erased when the proletarian revolution takes effect globally. They thought once a critical mass of workers got together, the proletarian revolution would suddenly take the world by storm and bring equality/liberty/autonomy, hence the metaphor here of cultures going down the drain in favor of the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

>> ^spoco2:
Seeing as that audio doesn't go with that visual (as in there are more, and different instruments being played than what they are, and there is zero 'live sound' to it)... this leaves me completely meh
no upvote at all.
Hence for dickheads like smooman who like to insult people for not agreeing with their upvoting behaviour I give two middle fingers up.


Fucking A, plus 1. Conceptually cool, but do it live! Also, do something more interesting some crappy SOAD song.

WPP, QM - It's pretty simple. America spends more per capita on healthcare than pretty much any other industrialized nation.

So what? When do liberals care what anything COSTS? If our health care costs were less, the difference would be wasted elsewhere in other ways, probably on gold-plated schools.

Almost 90% of Americans are happy with their health care even with the problems it has now.

Do you have a conceptual counter-argument for Weiner's point, that a private insurance company's first priority is profitability, not the health and well being of its customers? If you do, I'd love to hear it.

Yeah. Karl Marx was wrong. No matter the business, you cannot remove the profit motive from the equation and expect excellent or even adequate results. The soviets tried it...end result: with massive natural resources they lived in poverty. The profit motive is what makes a company value its customers' satisfaction. Even a heavily-regulated company is NOTHING like the nightmare of inefficiency in a government organization. FEMA, Amtrak, Post Office...

The Constitution is a "negative document", mostly dedicated to telling the federal government what it CANNOT do. If the feds were supposed to have a blank check and give the people whatever they demanded, the Founders would not have 'wasted time' being very specific about the limited powers granted.

That shyster, Lord Obama, is on record as saying the Constitution didn't go far enough in spreading the wealth around. He cannot be trusted.

This liberal sophistry about what the Constitution means, why not just go all the way and claim you have a "right" to a free home, car, high-paying job and a life free from struggle and pain? There's always another Ted Kennedy ready to spend someone else's money to make your dreams come true.

Again: WE'RE GOING BANKRUPT on all the entitlements (aka fake "rights") we've got now. We can't afford any more Christmases on the backs of yet-to-be-born generations. The tit's run dry.

WPP, QM - It's pretty simple. America spends more per capita on healthcare than pretty much any other industrialized nation.

Either A. Americans citizens are significantly more sickly than those from other countries, B. American doctors are significantly more inept than those from other countries, or C. The system is flawed.

Do you have a conceptual counter-argument for Weiner's point, that a private insurance company's first priority is profitability, not the health and wellbeing of its customers? If you do, I'd love to hear it.

>> ^curiousity> Umm... Isn't that what he said? I'm pretty sure he said the problem with Canada's health care is that it is underfunded.
And you are making the same point and then saying that he is ignorant? We did watch the same video, right?

To a point yes and to a point no. We already run at a 50% tax rate, and that's with 33m people across the country. Figure at the size of the country, that we're already overburdened paying for everything. You probably missed the point because I was touching on things in a conceptual level which is okay. The level is at the max that can be reasonably sustained, while providing all other core services.

Yes he is ignorant, because he believes that funding should be higher. He misses the half-trillion dollar debt we have(0.30/$1 spent in just interest), other social services, and so on and so forth. Canada is 'socialized' we pay out the ass for it in taxes. The other provinces pay out the ass for it to equalize everyone across the board. Canada is not a member of the SDL like Sweden, or Norway. We don't have a +75% tax rate.

Now all you gotta do is figure out the rest, and figure out how you can tell people that an extra 5-15% tax rate is going to be good for them. Especially in a place like Ontario where you have a true unemployment rate of around 18% and 1:4 people are employed by the government.

The biggest problem i see is that there are so many ways to approach to the problem that all seem to do what is needed, but right now are scattered between researchers and projects all over the world, and i dont have access to them! For instance, you have massively excellent ideas, but would i have even known about them if i didnt come on videosift? so who else might already have another piece to the puzzle that i am completely ignorant of? that is my base starting point, because of my experience level and resources.

you are correct in approaching the linguistic AI component as the heaviest and most critical task to work on. Everything else is trivial in comparison.

The researchers at Cornell started a project in 2004 with a 10 year goal to accomplish basically what we're talking about in terms of analysis, only for a different purpose. I would not like to... spend time on that component when that research will save time and ultimately be better than what i can think of or make with my resources. I could essentially dig the hole, and fill it in with their system... a desire not driven by a particular ... inability... but out of desire for maximum efficiency.

I seem to be my best at unifying already developed systems, so right now... im identifying what components are needed, in what stage, if any, do they exist currently, where do they exist, and how can i use them in this new way.

The database component and GUI is likely where i personally could do the most work, but soon i will have access to the brains here at the CS department, and hopefully they will be interested enough to give me pointers in the right direction for the rest. I am about 7 months out from even getting to that point, so in that time, i am going to keep basically brainstorming and researching all the stuff i can so that the concept is presentable and accessible to new minds.

I can't contribute much at this point besides vision, time, and energy, but i feel like its such a worthy goal that i could easily spend a lifetime on it and consider it well spent. Your ideas make total sense to me, but... i wouldnt have been able to produce them in such logical context as efficiently... so at least, i can identify the need to be educated and educate myself more. I want to see what specific areas i excel at here at school so i feel i have validity to ... waste the time of more brilliant individuals such as yourself.

I mean, you already have such practical solutions for an AI framework, and i haven't even done anything as defined. so it makes me feel .. unworthy of attempting to interact at your level when i know i am not ready... but i know now you have a piece to the puzzle... so progress has been made... perhaps soon i can make the call to arms for the project in a way that is appropriate to the end goal, which is participation of everyone.

That's all i can spew forth ... once again thank you for making me see that it really is important to other people... that alone is enough to keep me going on this. I belive soon i will make a .org website for people to start brainstorming on, with a forum and such... that is how i can most effectively contribute at this point... organizing channels for ideas regarding the various components, as they are identified. My younger brother, for instance, is getting heavy training in the PeopleSoft/oracle suites, so there is another piece right there.

Sorry to be so vague in response to your very specific ideas.. all i can say to them is... YES MOAR PLS!1 and lol you found the same funny definitions for the acronym i did... heh heh heh. There needs to be a clearing house for these ideas... that's where i can come in the soonest, i believe... i would love to watch the conversation develop between more parties with interests and abilities such as yours! ok, well, back to the drawing board to channel some of this excitement productively! i have a large break time coming up in late august, and with that i hope to be in full swing making the website and "conceptual" framework for others to spin off of.

boy this will be neat... thanks D!

What is with that insistence on thinking of logical absolutes as objects of some kind? The concepts are objects of course, but the absolutes themselves do not exist as such in the conventional sense of the word - they are the limits on reality that exist only in the sense that we can deduce what is and is not logically possible. To require them to actually be something in the sense that a physical object or a conceptual object is something seems to me to imply logical absolutes might be contingent on something, that they might be mutable, which would render them invalid. They are not part of reality, they do not even exist in the sense that somewhere outside reality you have absolutes hanging around, doing their logical A=A schtick. A strange kind of circular reasoning here perhaps, but the absolutes are absolutes because if they were not, they would not be. I don't see why they must stem from something.