Favorite youtube video

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Doc Brown racist rap:

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Hot Wheels:

 

[Grall]

Effing LOL (unless you're an arachnophobe, in which case you probably won't laugh.) Daddy attempts to catch a biiiig, very fast spider while his little daughter tapes him...and then the predictable thing happens and hilarity ensues.

 

[UniversalTruth]

 

[Davros]

If its too long/dull for you at the very least watch steven fry's speech - he kicks ass. (21 min mark)

 

[Scott_Arm]

This is absolutely fantastic. Game theory. Great stuff. I need to do some reading.

http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/magnificent-application-of-game-theory-and-ps

 

[Davros]

I need to too

split - split = split
steal - steal = zero
steal - split = steal gets the money
split - steal = steal gets the money

Im not really seeing and advantage in saying i will steal and the choosing split.

 

[KimB]

I need to too

split - split = split
steal - steal = zero
steal - split = steal gets the money
split - steal = steal gets the money

Im not really seeing and advantage in saying i will steal and the choosing split.

The point was to absolutely convince the other person that the only way they were going to get money is to split and trust him. Then, once he had been sufficiently convinced that the other person believed him, he could freely choose split knowing that was his opponent's only way to get anything.

The strategy was all in the argument leading up to the choice, not in the choice itself. Selecting split was just a way of letting people know what his real strategy was, and avoiding the hassle of splitting the money himself.

 

[Davros]

The point was to absolutely convince the other person that the only way they were going to get money is to split and trust him.

But thats still a big gamble, if you did that to me I may believe you will choose steal but not split with me and it that case I may decide better for us both to get nothing and then there are 2 outcomes you choose steal we both get nothing, you choose split and I get it all.
scenario in the clip : it could go 2 ways I get nothing or I get half
my scenario : it could go 2 ways I get nothing or I get it all

my senario seems better to me

 

[KimB]

But thats still a big gamble, if you did that to me I may believe you will choose steal but not split with me and it that case I may decide better for us both to get nothing and then there are 2 outcomes you choose steal we both get nothing, you choose split and I get it all.
scenario in the clip : it could go 2 ways I get nothing or I get half
my scenario : it could go 2 ways I get nothing or I get it all

my senario seems better to me

If you were convinced that your opponent was telling the truth about selecting steal, really convinced, then you have only two options:

1. Select steal and nobody gets anything.
2. Select split and my opponent gets the prize, though there is some chance he will split it with me (I may consider this chance high or low, but the point is there is some chance).

As long as I only care about my own outcome, as long as I am convinced my opponent will select steal, option 2 is the better option.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

This is what crazy text messaging sounds like:

Here's the original Buzzfeed link to the texts.

 

[tabs]

I usually don't like that sort of thing, but that was pretty funny.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Seven Minutes of Terror - Getting Curiosity to Mars:

 

[Simon F]

This is what crazy text messaging sounds like:

Seven Minutes of Terror - Getting Curiosity to Mars:

Maybe it's just me, but surely more application of the KISS principle could have been used.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Never had a date with a crazy woman?

Maybe it's just me, but surely more application of the KISS principle could have been used.

They do say at the beginning "it is the result of reasoned engineering thought.... but it still looks crazy". Basically they have no choice because this rover is the size of a car so they can't do what they did with the smaller rovers (ie drop it in bubblewrap). The atmosphere is thick enough to destroy the rover, but not thick enough to parachute all the way to the ground. If it works, it will be very clever indeed.

 

[green.pixel]

 

[Grall]

I would have LOVED to continue listening to this guy - he's brilliant - but unfortunately it's 1AM and I have to go to bed... His thought experiment about the lone bacteria and the bottle, starting around what, 20-24 minutes in or somesuch, is just startlingly worrying.

Problem is, you make growth-politicians, growth-industrialists and growth-lobbyists watch this clip, what they'll do is NOT agree with reality and do an about-face from the road they've previously been upon, no. They'll gonna do the three monkey routine, see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil, stick their head in the sand and deny there's ever going to be a problem.

Most likely they'll attack the message, the messenger and anything loosely connected, higher education included.

*sigh*

 

[fellix]

 

[CNCAddict]

NASA is an old dinosaur, companies like SpaceX are the future of technology growth in transportation.

 

[Grall]

SpaceX and other private entities aren't equipped to do "firsts" in aerospace research and development. They don't have the economic means or financial incentive to pursue such tasks. There's no money to be made in going to Mars for example; the planet can't be bought up, staked out or commercially exploited as that would violate international law.