Lurker > ChichiriMuyo

I'd say 2k5 was the last time I felt "the magic." However, each new gimmick after that has taken more away from it with RR just about being the last straw.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

Phoenix Wright (Phoenix Wright)

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

8

Great game, but it has some unnecessarily frustrating moments

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

If LeBron gets a ring will MWC's head explode? I really can't wait to find out.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

"Welcome one and all to mother of all Save My Pokemon topics!!!"

Is that so?

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

Great Brittain, land of the constantly monitored.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

Sephiroth

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

abstain
(7)Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, "In the Pale Moonlight"

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

Yuffie

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

15/24, and there were a lot where I recognized the artist just couldn't figure out which song it was. I would have gotten at least 20/24 if it was artist or title.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

CherryCokes posted...

Football, Feminism and You (1x6, where Jeff and the Dean try to get Troy to play football) - B-
r

Say what? The Troy/Jeff dialogue in that episode is what got me to give the show a second chance after not liking one of the first eps. It's definitely not bottom 5 material.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

Michael Jackson strikes me as the most likely candidate to be brought back in hologram form for a solo tour.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

I can't imagine living a life where the use of technology is a privilege that must be earned, let alone choosing that situation when I already have the right to do so.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

The Return of the Fellowship of the Ring to the Two Towers

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

No, it's definitely not from there.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

"Have a bad experience with vodka lately?"

Nope. And it's not making me feel sick or anything, but somehow it smells like ti went bad even though, you know, vodka.

"You've got yourself some irradiated vodka, better take it back to the zone."

The... danger zone?

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

Recently I've noticed that vodka smells and tastes different than it used to. I honestly have no idea what the deal is here, because my sense of smell and of taste is just fine otherwise, but all of a sudden vodka smells foul to me (rather than smelling like alcohol, which is not something I would call foul). Any ideas what is going on, anybody?

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

I watched the first two episodes. It's okay. The best segments are the ones that don't involve Kiefer's character or his kid.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

The Return of the Fellowship of the Ring to the Two Towers
Good Times with Weapons

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

First thing that came to mind was Rangers F.C....

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

xxx It Hits the Fan - Wigs, Comm, Martin
xxxx Christian Rock Hard - sonten, firefdr, Nick, ramm
xxxx All About the Mormons? - Wigs, Martin, Dp, vcharon
xxxxx Butters' Bottom B**** - Wigs, Comm, firefdr, bryans, Nick

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

Actually, spinich is beating more than two competitors now, and all of them are better than spinach. Maybe that is the freater shame.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

That's bad, crasty, but Broccoli is third to two foods that nutritionally are considered grains. I mean, I guess it's cool that my favorite vegetable it technically in first, but those other two being considered vegies and leaving broccoli third sucks.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

ExThaNemesis posted...
Why are you a scumbag if you are unnerved at your girlfriend packing on 10 pounds? Explain to me how the basic male desire for thin women makes one a scumbag.

Well, for one, a lot of girls will do that pretty often if it happens to be that time of the month around the holidays, as compared to summertime and no menstration. Fluctuation of 10lbs, not a very big amount at all, really. It'd have to be more than that to warrant any sort of health concern, and even to warrant any sort of attractiveness concern for most people. So, yeah, if a perfectly healthy girl puts on 10 lbs., it's a pretty ****ty person that would make them feel bad about it.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

FL81 posted...
From: KingButz | #021
Arizona master race
This.

We don't need to save daylight.

We've got so much of it already!

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

Oh, what a game...

I had a solo top complaining that they couldn't handle their role by blaming everyone else. Me especially, since I was jungle and apparently he couldn't handle top at all. He quit, then came back cause he thought we were going to surrender and saw we were actually taking it back without him. So, of course, he claimed all the credit at the end despite the fact that he couldn't handle his role (and admitted to everyone he intentionally left for half the game) and left us to take his exp for him.

Sometimes I hate lol players.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

At 25 you're fine. You're too old for your family's finances to be applied to you.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

Nutella 7.5/10 - Tastes a lot like chocolate, mostly isn't.
Peanut Butter - 5 - A truly average food stuff. It is almost always lauded for its effect in combination with some other food item be it jelly, chocolate, or even celery. It is not below average because these combinations are genuinely good, it is not above because these things are able to stand on their own and do not need the peanut butter to shine. I do believe peanut butter can make your hair shine, or something like that, though, so it's cool.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

Rad Link 5 posted...
But Teddy Long just booked you for a match.

I think you have to, now. It's in your GameFAQs Contract.

I'm pretty sure that only applies to people who perform for GFAQ Smackdown, and it's not Friday night.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

I came in here to congratulate him or something, now I'm just goign to steal his gift *yoink*!

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

red sox 777 posted...
http://www.bmcc.cuny.edu/finaid/grants/pellawardschedule.html

Actually, here's a chart. Now I guess you'd just need to calculate EFC. Which based on personal experience, can be surprisingly high even with negative income.

Tell me about it. My first semester they were willing to give me an amount in the three digit range despite the fact that I literally had no disposable income and was in fact losing money just working, let alone going to school as well. I don't even know how I turned that around, because they calculated the EFC for me, but it got better after that first semester.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

Oh, and that said, "watching reality TV is creepy"... you heard it from GenesisSaga first ;)

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

GenesisSaga posted...
Xeybozn posted...
From: Ace_Killjoy | #011
What exactly is creepy/strange about simply coming here to read topics?
Imagine going to hang out with your friends and noticing some guy nobody knows following you around, not saying anything. And he's there every time you guys meet up, always just watching and listening.

That's about what people are thinking when they say lurkers are creepy.

Pretty much that, only not quite as extreme.

It's like... if we're interesting enough to watch then we HAVE to be interesting enough to talk to. Why not just join in? I promise I won't eat you alive unless you're a jerk.

Fallacy of false cause. Simply because it is enjoyable to observe a group of people does not mean it would be enjoyable to interact with them. Way, way too many people watch reality TV to see the ways in which other people can become absolute train wrecks. Most of them would not want to live in the same house as those train wrecks. Some people may be curious as to what we talk about, that does not mean they will want to talk about it with us (if at all).

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

Holy****whathaveyoupeopledonetomeohmygodit's2:30wheredidthetimegoandwhydoIlikearguingsomuch!?

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

I can totally see why that would apply for mathematical formulas. Even if I was interested, I would have to invest a great deal of time studying math to recreate the process. As a lay person I have a much better understanding of the results and the implications, and I can ignore the mathematics entirely. So that really shouldn't take much of the space. For example, I do not need Einstein to walk me through the process of how he figured out E = MC^2. I do need to know what E, M, and C stand for though. These days I know I can just search "mathematical constant E" and... oh dear god that's not right...

So, yeah, even though a paper can be written explicitly for a select group, taking a small amount of space to explain terminology goes a long way in making it readable for the people who do read it even if it's not meant for them. I mean, it's not like I'm going to have to take a class to understand the paper, let alone get a degree in it, but 15-20 words devoted to clarifying terms would have helped and I highly doubt that'd be the threshold between printable or not due to length concerns.

Note: I've obviously never read any of Einstein's papers, so even if he didn't outline these things because his contemporaries would have known don't bother pointing it out.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

Yes, but the chances of me reaching 1-Dan level of play is slim as it is, and it most certainly wouldn't have happened when the game was that new. If, for example, I had only ever seen a 17x17 board (as early players had), it would take very extensive playing (more than I've done as of yet) to even consider the possibility that the 19x19 board was better for the nuanced reasons you have mentioned. I mean, really, I've read it and I know what you're saying, but as a Go player (a very bad go player) it's harder for me to translate that into actual game experience.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

LordoftheMorons posted...
He explains what 3-SAT is in the paper though (he probably could have defined more explicitly Push and PushPush, but you can pretty much figure out the rules, and there's a paper referenced if clarification is needed). I still see no reason to define NP-hard in a CS paper.

Because you should never assume that the reader has any expertise in the field. I see no reason to ever write out "The United Nations" when far more people know the term "The UN" than the term "NP-Hard," yet I do it out of common courtesy to the reader even if I assume they are very likely to use the acronym far more often than the full name. I hear "The UN" far more often than "The United Nations" in informal conversations regardless of the speaker or the listener's knowledge of politics and virtually all academic publications will use the full name at least once for clarification. Honestly, I see no reason why any field should be exempt from that basic rule, let alone one where the terminology is far from wide-spread and common.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

"a) Google is really bad with caps (unfortunately, this is not well-known), and it's really clear caps matters.
b) Wikipedia is better with caps because it has a human element (and for the same reason is much better if you know you are searching for a decently known topic), and if you type 3-SAT or 3SAT into there, you get taken to the 3-satifiability problem immediately."

I will contend for all time and eternity that Google's slogan only applies to everyone but them. Evil *******s.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

metroid composite posted...
ChichiriMuyo posted...
Yes, but the introduction of the term Big Five indicates what to look up. Not the individual items listed in the parenthesis, which I assume will be used in the broad text as if the reader knows what they are, but "Big Five personality dimensions" which is a term that will probably not be used after it is introduced the first time. And I hardly need to be told it covers six aspects once I know that term, but if they just threw all of those technical aspects at me without indicating that their is a broader topic to look into. Especially, if as you say, there are six subcatagories covered by the big five. How counter-intuitive would that be?

...This is a bit of a tangent, but...I've clearly done a bad job of explaining the big five.

The big five has five subcategories (the ones listed in parentheses)
Each of these, has six subcategories (so 30-sub-subcategories in total)

And regardless of that fact, being introduced to the term big five tells me where to look. Being introduced to the term 3SAT does not. Big five, should I look it up (I assume), gives me a broad overview and it will link to many relevant terms. 3SAT doesn't mean ****, basically, without familiarity with the term. AS I mentioned before, reading a little further makes it apparent that it's a term related to boolean searches. Great. Knowing that I could have much more information at my disposal, and much more clear direction as to what is related to the topic, if I knew to search for "3 satisfiability" after the fact is irritating.

Also, I may incriminate myself as a total moron here, but I was so lost that it didn't occur to me that boolean formulas would be related to the topic until it was specifically introduced... after the term 3SAT. So yeah, I've gone and found lots of links to help me out, but the author didn't make that easy or intuitive at all. Which, again, is a terrible way to write a research paper.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

How can you conclude that? AS I've mentioned twice now, when I went back and talked to him more explicitly (after doing more research myself) he knew what I was talking about and indicated it just didn't matter in terms of what he does. I threw a few terms at him once, he blanked, I came back and talked to him with some modicum of knowledge and he knew what I was talking about.

Also, those ballistic missile guys, a lot of them get jobs here with Raytheon. They offered my roommate a job and he passed. He can't be that dumb if they were willing to hire him on to program missile guidance systems or some equally high-tech thing.

I guess the real problem here is that, by not being explicit, I as a layman could not begin to reiterate what I had read and had to do more research. More of a fail on my part, still calling a fail on their part for not being explicit as most other formal research papers would be.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

"So uhh...actually, this "example" that you thought you found is actually a counterexample, I'm pretty sure."

Ya got me there.

"...Oh yes...EXCEPT they just provided you with five terms that they don't explain (and which mean something quite technical in the context of the Big Five, and not precisely what you'd assume based on the English use of the word). Specifically, all five of these categories represent SIX subcategories, which were NOT broken down"

Yes, but the introduction of the term Big Five indicates what to look up. Not the individual items listed in the parenthesis, which I assume will be used in the broad text as if the reader knows what they are, but "Big Five personality dimensions" which is a term that will probably not be used after it is introduced the first time. And I hardly need to be told it covers six aspects once I know that term, but if they just threw all of those technical aspects at me without indicating that their is a broader topic to look into. Especially, if as you say, there are six subcatagories covered by the big five. How counter-intuitive would that be?


@Foolmo - it doesn't address even half the terms used in the paper. And again, there are terms in there that aren't as easy to find as NP-hard.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

red sox 777 posted...
Also, the choice of 19x19 for Go is not arbitrary from a game design point of view, though it's difficult to say how it got there historically. There are good reasons the board should be 19x19 rather than 17x17 or 21x21. And that is that with 19x19, the corner/sides of the board balance the center just about perfectly. With anything smaller, the center is worth less than the edges, and with anything more, the center is bigger (and what happens on one side of the board also has less impact on the other side). The balance results in fun, strategically interesting games in which players have a lot of viable whole board strategies.

Amazingly it only took between 200 and 400 years for people to figure this out. I will never be that good at go...

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

Phase posted...
Computers would be very bad at playing games you or I probably think of as being rather easy

No. You'd consider the "games" they're "playing" pretty stupid and hard too. (because it's essentially solving whether a boolean equation is satisfiable in an extremely obtuse way)

It's more accurately... You can make games based off the engines of these games that are hard for computers and people to solve.

Yes, this is basically completely pointless outside of novelty, why'd you ask?

Best post in the topic, btw.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

MC, I've looked at some of those abstracts, and I fear you've missed my point entirely. For example, the first one you posted. I'm not going to pretend I understand it, but I'm also not arguing all papers should be written so that I can understand them. I'm arguing that I should be able to know what the terms are and have the ability to find them on the internet with relative ease.

Spelling out every term, as that abstract does, makes it very easy to search for those things online. Having to figure out which link is valid for which acronym based on a context you don't understand is harder to do than searching for the full and proper term. So, while I don't get a lot out of searching for optical vortex knots (well, I do get the link to that abstract...) it's still a lot better than searching for OVK would be even if it were commonly used as an acronym in physics. The reason for this is other fields can, and possibly do, use it for other meanings.

So again, the point isn't that I should be able to understand the terms when I don't have a background in the field, it's that terms should always be clarified at least once up front so that the thing is readable by anyone. I should be able to look at a research paper and, without knowing anything about the field, be able to do quick and simple research that allows me to at least follow along and get a general idea of what they are doing.

For example, the term 3SAT is used in the paper. I did not know what that meant, and without doing any research on the other terms used it wouldn't necessarily occur to me which of the many options google came up for the term was actually relevant. Yes, the word boolean in the same sentence tipped me off, but searching before hitting anything past that colon leaves it fairly open since a search on "3sat" doesn't come up with anything that'd immediately tie it to the paper.

Do take note of snippets from the examples you yourself provided, such as the following:

"Here we report a generic family of liquid crystals that demonstrate an unusually broad body-centred cubic phase (BP I*) from 60 °C down to 16 °C."

They assume I don't know what the hell they are talking about when they use the term BP I* (because I don't), so they throw it into parenthesis in its first usage.

And again, you provide another result the next link down that confirms what I'm saying:

"The current study reports a meta-analysis of the relationship between accident involvement and the Big Five personality dimensions (extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness)"

They didn't assume the reader knew what the Big Five personality dimensions were, though they certainly targeted an audience that would care about those things (why read it if you didn't). They still spelled things out for the audience by throwing additional information in the parentesis.

So really, what you've done here is laid out my point exactly and forgot to address it whatsoever. You've given examples that do exactly what I'm saying this paper did not. Thank you, I guess, for proving my point.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

Not if you don't know either to begin with! And while some of them were actually easy to look up on google, some were not so intuitive at all, and I came across them more by their relation to the other terms.

But again, that's not an excuse. The UN may actually be more recognizable than The United Nations, it still didn't excuse the use of The UN without first identifying it as the united nations in any political science research paper I wrote. This is a very common practice across most academic fields, even when it is expected the audience will be as familiar with the abbreviation or more so than its elongated form and even if they are expected to not think of any other similar terms from other fields because they are outside their area of study.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

At what point in time have community colleges awarded bachelors degrees? Now, I'm not going to say the University of Arizona is the most prestigious of schools (unless you're studying astronomy, then it very well is, thank you very much), but I'm pretty sure it's a fairly decent school. Also, based on how much he makes and the salaries of the classmates he keeps in touch with, I'd have to conclude that employers think the same.

Again, he knew what the term meant when I was more explicit, it just wasn't something that mattered to him. If it is that basic, and I'll take MC's word for it that it is, then my hyperbole was unwarranted. The fact still remains, proper research paper etiquette demands that acronyms and abbreviations be written out fully in their first use and not doing so, even when the intended audience is expected to know the term, is quite simply poor writing and a terrible mistake that should never be made.

The fact of the matter is, as has been shown tonight, people who are not of your intended audience can and often will get a hold of your research papers and making them as intuitive as possible should be a basic, common courtesy.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

She's better than average, but all things considered that isn't much. 10% chance of a random STD (assuming all possibilities are equal)? Obviously I'm tapping that. But making my top 25 go-to spank material list? Nope. She's just another blonde with a fit body. If I thought about it I could probably name a dozen such girls far more interesting. So yeah, whatever the reason being, she's kinda boring considering how many of her (attractive blondes with fit bodies) there are out there. Nothing special here, thousands of substitutes to be found on college campuses all across america.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

red sox 777 posted...
I assume you mean a complex game like go and a simple game like tic-tac-toe right?

"Simple" does indeed translate to complex (thanks quotation marks!) and less complex would imply simple, yes.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

Lopen posted...
From: ChichiriMuyo | #009
Oh, also, my roommate has a BA in CS and he didn't recognize either term and had no idea what they meant
xfd

That's like 3rd year CS stuff, not even that advanced

I am not a CS guy, but I'm going to guess that would have a lot to do with what aspect you are focusing your studies on. At least that is how it goes with other subjects. For example, I know in MBA programs there isn't one pre-select set of one-size-fits-all courses but instead several focuses one can choose from. So unless ever CS student ever had to learn these things, my roommate did not. Though it's possible he forgot (he's done mostly database stuff in the field, except his current job where he works on apps and websites), I'd imagine if it was that basic he wouldn't have said "it has no real meaning to me" when I said "non-deterministic polynomial-time hard" to clear it up.

So again, as is proper ettiquite in EVERY field the author should have made it clear with the first usage what each term stands for - because that's how EVERYBODY else in their right mind does these things - and failing to do so is the mark of a poorly written paper. Again, the reasearch may be very good, I'm still making heads or tails of it.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.

Phase posted...
We prove NP-hardness results for ve of Nintendo's largest video game franchises: Mario,
Donkey Kong, Legend of Zelda, Metroid, and Pokemon. Our results apply to Super Mario
Bros. 1, 3, Lost Levels, and Super Mario World; Donkey Kong Country 1{3; all Legend of Zelda
games except Zelda II: The Adventure of Link; all Metroid games; and all Pokemon role-playing
games. For Mario and Donkey Kong, we show NP-completeness.

Assuming "generic" games and provably optimal solutions, yeah, that's kinda obvious? It comes down to "can you express a boolean formula in game terms?" I mean, it's not TOTALLY obvious it's possible, but your intuition would say "yeah, almost certainly".

In addition, we observe that several games in the Zelda series are PSPACE-complete.

... What? I gotta see this.

Looking more into the terms, I'm not shocked they would make such a statement. While at first glance they would all seem more complex than a "simple" game like go, let alone less complex games like tic-tac-toe, yet they have become such stream-lined, hand-holding games that it's only slightly harder to die in Kirby's Epic Yarn than in a modern 3D Zelda while the 2D ones are in a dramatically simpler world despite their relative unwillingness to force you in the right direction every time, all the time.

--
SuperNiceDog had a super nice bracket too.