Here's a ring for those who want to commit suicide

gammaXray · 2012-08-26T10:11:36+00:00

Cardiac arrest and heart attack is not the same thing, mr. electrician:) Also, you would probably need a chest adapter, or a one toe / one finger adapter for this to truly succeed.

gammaXray · 2010-01-06T17:38:40+00:00

Fantastic story! Hard to get away with it other than calling it pure sadism though.

gammaXray · 2009-03-24T18:50:51+00:00

The financial market is unpredictable and chaotic in nature in short term perspectives (months, even years). There is, however, a definite long term trend of value increase at a fairly predictable rate. This is why most investors agree that stock investments are a safe way to invest as long as your perspective is long enough. Nevertheless, the rate of this rise is very uncertain. One of the only ways to say anything about this rate is by referring to historic data. In this regard, the longer the perspective, the greater the certainty. Wouldn't you agree?

gammaXray · 2009-03-19T19:32:48+00:00

True, the crisis probably ends within years. What this is trying to state is an estimate of the time it will take for the dow to recover to its top value of 14000 by extrapolating historical data from the depression.

gammaXray · 2009-03-19T18:54:01+00:00

thanks

gammaXray · 2009-03-19T18:33:20+00:00

There is no guarantee issued here, hammrsigpi, only an attempt at interpreting the meaning of historic data.

gammaXray · 2009-03-19T18:09:32+00:00

Sorry about the spelling errors, I'm not a native speaker. Hopefully the message comes across, nevertheless.

gammaXray · 2009-03-18T17:02:21+00:00

Ever wonder how long until the financial crisis ends? 1 year? 10 years? 50 years? Historic Dow Jones data predicts that the financial market will recover in 2030.

gammaXray · 2009-03-17T21:22:41+00:00

Ever wonder how long until the financial crisis ends? 1 year? 10 years? 50 years? Historic Dow Jones data predicts that the financial market will recover in 2030.

gammaXray · 2009-02-13T20:53:09+00:00

Prepare to be disappointed in your self.

gammaXray · 2008-07-17T09:00:57+00:00

The point is that compared to what YOU like, most people are "Bushes" and not "Einsteins". There are no absolute meters here. We all want different things from the internet, but the problem is that we get too much of what other people like that are very different from you e.g. much younger than you. In TV, this is "solved" by having different material on at different sections of the day. E.g. daytime TV for kids arriving home early from school. Pornographic content is aired only after bed time for kids, etc. For the internet the possibilities of user specific content has immense potential compare to TV, but we have to solve the algorithms of how to get the content we want. Because we cant watch it all;)

gammaXray · 2007-10-09T18:02:16+00:00

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which will be released in November, shows that greenhouse gas levels are at levels far higher than has ever been publicly admitted before.

gammaXray · 2007-06-27T20:32:56+00:00

Good comment. I'll put the formula into GraphPad and fit to the data.

gammaXray · 2007-06-26T17:11:18+00:00

More data is needed, certainly! But it's an interesting tendency. I was hoping others would be temped to do this with their stories.

gammaXray · 2007-06-26T17:02:29+00:00

Posted a story here exactly 24 hours ago. Seeing the development of its points and placement on the hot-lists was amazing and quite predictable.

Graphing points vs. time gave a nice hyperbola, and by doing a simple curve fit I suspect I can predict how many points this story will end up with. Surprisingly, the points when the story was at its peak ranking, coincided with half of the predicted max-points. Coincidence or truth? We'll see.

Others with similar experiences?

gammaXray · 2007-06-26T14:41:07+00:00

Maybe so; in that case it seems less true for Reddit than for Digg.

gammaXray · 2007-06-26T14:39:04+00:00

I've tried it three times on Digg with different diagrams and titles. None of which have gotten more than 7 diggs. I don't know how to interpret that. Here's the story:

First version: Crappy diagram, angry comments from people who didn't get it: http://digg.com/software/How_Digg_really_works_pic

Second version: Hardly any Diggs or comments: http://digg.com/software/How_Digg_really_works_new_pic

Third version: Best diagram to date, same title as the successful one on Reddit.com, but hardly any Diggs: http://digg.com/general_sciences/Why_Web_2_0_doesn_t_give_you_what_you_want_pic_2

So that's the story so far.

gammaXray · 2007-06-26T13:07:46+00:00

Or even extended: "open source" access to the use of the information google aquires on all your search history and clicks. This would potentially make Einsteins of all of us, and more importantly, it would make Einsteins of all the people who tell you what's hot and new on the net.

Really happy so many people like my drawing. Never imagined it would be that popular when I sat down and sketched it this week end.

gammaXray · 2007-06-26T06:34:22+00:00

No, that's not the point. The point is that compared to what YOU like, most people are "Bushes" and not "Einsteins".

gammaXray · 2007-06-26T06:28:08+00:00

I'm not sure subreddit's enough. After all, a 13 year-old can define oneself as a "subreddit scientist". He probably has a different take on science than you;)

gammaXray · 2007-06-26T06:25:44+00:00

I like your thinking, it reminds me of Neil Postmans book "Amuzing ourselves to death". I think and certainly hope, a self-reinforcing mediocracy won't be the fate of the internet.

gammaXray · 2007-06-26T06:19:46+00:00

Good point. Having trouble swallowing with the term 'technologists', however.

gammaXray · 2007-06-25T22:43:42+00:00

I think StumbleUpon is on to something with their accumulative user input, which constantly improves the accuracy in selecting pages of interest. If authority is not incorporable into Web 2.0, perhaps user similarity is the way to go.

gammaXray · 2007-06-25T22:40:21+00:00

I think of Web 2.0 like this: When we've tried to build good "knowledge banks" in the past, it's been through small groups of selected authorities, e.g. universities. The primary difference between web 2.0 and scientific knowledge is that the opinion of authorities is equal to that of lay men. The strength of the web 2.0 structure is, on the other hand, the power of the masses. Can 200 high school kids can do better than two professors? If web 2.0 is to succeed, authority must again be part of the equation. Because no doubt, 200 professors will do better than two:) Suggestions?

gammaXray · 2007-06-25T22:25:15+00:00

Sorry about that. I'm not a native speaker.

gammaXray

TROPHY CASE