From what i think happened was they programmed it to get the final question wrong in a funny way if it was far enough ahead, im pretty sure it was just rubbing it in. I mean the last question was really easy and completely knowledge based (WW2 and airports). So yea basicly I think it was just a big middle finger to the 2 humans.
The answer wasn't as far off base as it seemed. Toronto has a Billy Bishop Airport and a Lester B Pearson Airport, Billy Bishop being a WWI flying ace and Lester Pearson also having flown in WWII, though his real accomplishments came afterward. Still, it's not a totally inexplicable guess, if you discount the category. I think Watson had learned to downplay the importance of the category, since the clues can often be about the category and the answer something else.
I'm interested in seeing what the algorithms are for both determining what category and which questions, and determining what Watson's wagers are. Wagers I can get, but what gets me is how it figures out the category it will select and the money.
I think he actually has algorithms for this too- he has data from the history of the show of the most common spots for Daily Doubles to be and things like that, which is why he went immediately for the 1600 and 1200 questions until the DDs were eliminated, and then went for the easiest questions next. At that point he already had an incredible lead so limiting the amount of money one of the others would get by stealing an answer is logical.
I found it both amusing and slightly perplexing that, in Final Jeopardy, he named a Canadian city even though the category was US cities. Would they not be able to set up a filter for that sort of thing? Maybe it would filter out right answers more than it would prevent giving a wrong answer so it wasn't worth it.
Unfortunately, the best LP ever seems to have died- Let's Play Sakura Wars by Spirit Armor on SomethingAwful. He was getting so close to the end but then he just stopped updating... still, considering it started in 2007, it is an impressive achievement. He translates the game from Japanese as he goes, and he adds in huge amounts of extra lines, many of which are genuinely hilarious.
For the record, the latter was played in one sitting by a group of guys trading off. It is truly hilarious, and they just get more and more delirious with rage and lack of sleep as the videos go on.
This is probably the most accurate description of this thread I've seen.
No, it's brushing away the criticism because you don't like to hear it and have nothing else to say.
If you think this article is a "hit piece" then that implies that, if the facts presented in it are true, it would reflect terribly on the Republicans and criticism of the decision would be justified. So either provide evidence that the information is wrong or misleading, or stop trying to stifle discussion.
And sibtiger, your wrong when you claim that people who sleep with 17 year olds are never prosecuted for statutory rape. There have been high profile cases. And even if not true same applies for 16, etc. Having the statutory rape abortions covered by Medicaid would pretty much mean we use tax dollars for these teen screw ups.
Then make those situations not statutory rape. They shouldn't be anyways. If there are states where an 18 year old sleeping with a 17 year old can be charged with statutory rape, that is significantly more unjust situation than Medicaid paying for their abortion.
They are both bad. They are both crimes. But an 45 year old rapist holding a woman down while forcibly penetrating her is completely IS different and distinct from a 17 year old girl having sex with her 18 year old boyfriend.
You can claim you can't see the distinction, and that they are both DEFINED as different forms of "rape." But that's like claiming you can't see the distinction between manslaughter and first degree murder because they're both "homicides".
a 17 year old girl having sex with her 18 year old boyfriend IS consensual (by any normal, common use, philosophical, definition of consent) sex... AND it's defined by statute as "statutory rape".
First of all, I very much doubt this specific case is true (most statutory rape laws allow for a certain age difference between parties.) Second, if you think there are situations where what a statute defines as statutory rape is not serious enough to qualify the victim for the support of things like medical abortions, then the problem is an over-broad definition of statutory rape, not that abortion is being provided for it.
Besides, statutory rape is only one of the cases where this might not cover it. What about date rape? What about where the girl is drugged? What about cases of coercion with no actual physical restraint? Any or all of these could be defined as "not forcible", and what is the implication of that? It means you "weren't really raped" or, at best, "you weren't raped that badly."
If it is rightfully called rape, then society should do whatever it can to help the victim recover from the consequences of it, and that includes providing abortion services. If you don't think that situation deserves to be called rape and addressed by society as such, then you should redefine rape so that situation doesn't fit in it anymore. Dividing up various forms of rape into levels of seriousness is ridiculous.
A number of New Pornographer songs have female doing lead vocals- Neko Case in their early days, and Kathryn Calder doing one or two songs as well on their later albums. They almost always have some sort of piano or keyboard going too. Some suggestions: The Bleeding Heart Show Sweet Talk, Sweet Talk My Shepherd Challengers
Beating the Endless Setlist 2 in Rock Band 2 was pretty epic (all 84 on-disc songs in a row). I did it on Expert guitar, no breaks or fails allowed. Those last notes of Painkiller felt very sweet.
The point of debate is to have intellectual thought, and to spread your viewpoint without making it personal and attacking someone. In my perspective, I see some others who don't like "Under God", and have this fanaticism that it should be removed from the U.S. pledge of allegiance. Not only that, but if I'm going to be involved in a debate, I would like to have my side of the argument acknowledged, not ridiculed.
I may not be the most intricate writer, but I'm pretty sure I get my point across without having to use fancy verbiage. Besides, the main objective I've seen from the posters who think "Under God" should be removed, is that they simply don't like it, and that it promotes religion. It's not enough of an argument to remove something that has now become an American tradition. Maybe they should find fault with the people who wanted to place "Under God" in the pledge, rather than the actual quote itself.
I'm not really involved in this debate, but you are engaging in really bad faith behaviour here. You are not engaging with the arguments that are being presented, you are mischaracterizing the arguments that are being made. Of course people don't like it, otherwise they likely wouldn't be against it, but it's a principle of debate that you should try to give someone on the other side the best possible interpretation of their words, not the worst.
Besides, the fact that people don't like the wording basically backs up one of the arguments I saw- that the wording is divisive, and the point of the pledge is to unite. I would guess that feeling excluded by the pledge would be a good reason to dislike the wording, yes? Especially since the exclusion is on the basis of something that is not generally seen as essential to being a "good American".
Canada:
1. Hockey
2. UFC
3. CFL
4. Baseball
5. I have no clue, Hockey and UFC are the biggest ones. Maybe poker, lol.
This seems to be a good start- but keep in mind there aren't any baseball teams outside Toronto anymore and the Jays suck (I mean the Leafs suck too but that's different). I guess there are still a lot of people who watch though.
Hockey is of course tops. Certainly among the younger group UFC is very popular, but don't forget that older demographic mostly can't stand MMA and prefer stuff like curling.
If you just said "football" I'd agree, because there are a lot of people who could not care less about the CFL but still watch the NFL- that said the CFL is still pretty popular. I'd probably put it as:
1. Hockey
2. Football
3. Baseball
4. UFC
5. Basketball
The answer wasn't as far off base as it seemed. Toronto has a Billy Bishop Airport and a Lester B Pearson Airport, Billy Bishop being a WWI flying ace and Lester Pearson also having flown in WWII, though his real accomplishments came afterward. Still, it's not a totally inexplicable guess, if you discount the category. I think Watson had learned to downplay the importance of the category, since the clues can often be about the category and the answer something else.
I think he actually has algorithms for this too- he has data from the history of the show of the most common spots for Daily Doubles to be and things like that, which is why he went immediately for the 1600 and 1200 questions until the DDs were eliminated, and then went for the easiest questions next. At that point he already had an incredible lead so limiting the amount of money one of the others would get by stealing an answer is logical.
I found it both amusing and slightly perplexing that, in Final Jeopardy, he named a Canadian city even though the category was US cities. Would they not be able to set up a filter for that sort of thing? Maybe it would filter out right answers more than it would prevent giving a wrong answer so it wasn't worth it.
Just a heads up for those who might be interested.
I'm excited.
In the same vein, but different genre.
Threshold v the Katayanagi Twins, for example.
If people are still discussing the topic, I thought this was an interesting take on it. No hard data, but I do see a lot of things to identify with.
Currently, Geop is doing a really great LP of Assassin's Creed (you can watch all the videos from here too) that is at once a very good demonstration of the game and a very informative little history lesson.
EDIT: Also Boatmurdered and Sonic 2006.
For the record, the latter was played in one sitting by a group of guys trading off. It is truly hilarious, and they just get more and more delirious with rage and lack of sleep as the videos go on.
No, it's brushing away the criticism because you don't like to hear it and have nothing else to say.
If you think this article is a "hit piece" then that implies that, if the facts presented in it are true, it would reflect terribly on the Republicans and criticism of the decision would be justified. So either provide evidence that the information is wrong or misleading, or stop trying to stifle discussion.
Then make those situations not statutory rape. They shouldn't be anyways. If there are states where an 18 year old sleeping with a 17 year old can be charged with statutory rape, that is significantly more unjust situation than Medicaid paying for their abortion.
First of all, I very much doubt this specific case is true (most statutory rape laws allow for a certain age difference between parties.) Second, if you think there are situations where what a statute defines as statutory rape is not serious enough to qualify the victim for the support of things like medical abortions, then the problem is an over-broad definition of statutory rape, not that abortion is being provided for it.
Besides, statutory rape is only one of the cases where this might not cover it. What about date rape? What about where the girl is drugged? What about cases of coercion with no actual physical restraint? Any or all of these could be defined as "not forcible", and what is the implication of that? It means you "weren't really raped" or, at best, "you weren't raped that badly."
If it is rightfully called rape, then society should do whatever it can to help the victim recover from the consequences of it, and that includes providing abortion services. If you don't think that situation deserves to be called rape and addressed by society as such, then you should redefine rape so that situation doesn't fit in it anymore. Dividing up various forms of rape into levels of seriousness is ridiculous.
The Bleeding Heart Show
Sweet Talk, Sweet Talk
My Shepherd
Challengers
I'm not really involved in this debate, but you are engaging in really bad faith behaviour here. You are not engaging with the arguments that are being presented, you are mischaracterizing the arguments that are being made. Of course people don't like it, otherwise they likely wouldn't be against it, but it's a principle of debate that you should try to give someone on the other side the best possible interpretation of their words, not the worst.
Besides, the fact that people don't like the wording basically backs up one of the arguments I saw- that the wording is divisive, and the point of the pledge is to unite. I would guess that feeling excluded by the pledge would be a good reason to dislike the wording, yes? Especially since the exclusion is on the basis of something that is not generally seen as essential to being a "good American".
This seems to be a good start- but keep in mind there aren't any baseball teams outside Toronto anymore and the Jays suck (I mean the Leafs suck too but that's different). I guess there are still a lot of people who watch though.
Hockey is of course tops. Certainly among the younger group UFC is very popular, but don't forget that older demographic mostly can't stand MMA and prefer stuff like curling.
If you just said "football" I'd agree, because there are a lot of people who could not care less about the CFL but still watch the NFL- that said the CFL is still pretty popular. I'd probably put it as:
1. Hockey
2. Football
3. Baseball
4. UFC
5. Basketball
Just thought I'd drop this off here- seeing as this is the guy actually responsible for all this, it seems relevant.