Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

123 comments

It goes like this: (4, Funny)

BTO (604614) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548254)

Gay = +100%

Re:It goes like this: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14548351)

Eating Pudding = +200%

Re:It goes like this: (4, Funny)

skyshock21 (764958) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548482)

Gay cowboys eating pudding = +110%

Re:It goes like this: (1, Troll)

ThirdOfThree (901559) | more than 8 years ago | (#14549248)

I got your South Park reference, but I guess Slashdot doesn't stoop to humor that low.

...

Re:It goes like this: (1)

ThirdOfThree (901559) | more than 8 years ago | (#14549296)

Awesome! I get trolled and the post that I thought should be funny gets modded up!

Wahoo!

Re:It goes like this: (0, Flamebait)

ClaudeVMS (637469) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548668)

Queers eating each other = +1000% for the mentally ill liberals.

RE Bayesium (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14548256)

I gots da first post because I subscribe!!!
*******

Re:RE Bayesium (1)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548333)

I have a sudden urge to post the O RLY owl. In on-topic news, I can't say I find this particularly impressive. From what I know about Sundance, it's pretty easy to predict winners based on past patterns and current trends in film-making. Granted, the popularity contest known as the Grammys is easier by several miles...

The Winner! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14548259)

Tortured with health problems? You're one click away from healthy life! An amazing variety of licensed meds at one big store! Click the link and make your first step to constant relief!

Shocking news! (3, Funny)

Big Nothing (229456) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548268)

So, a company claims that their product (or in this case; algorithm) is good?

STOP THE PRESS!

An algorithm that works (4, Funny)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548462)

So, a company claims that their product (or in this case; algorithm) is good?

Well according to their algorithm, certain words such as Africa, America, American, beautiful, black, best, emotional, fascinating, great, inspired, lake, new, riveting, Sundance, sexy, story, subtitles, truth, vision, world should never be used.

My 'kiss of death' film would be:

"The Beautiful Lake: An African Vision of the World"

Description: An emotional story of truth about a man from Africa who comes to America to find himself. Being a skilled carpenter, he builds a new home which is set on a beautiful lake. As we hear anectdotes of his vision of truth, a fascinating story emerges. We also learn about his riveting and inspired adventure to his new home, and we see how it impacts his once black view of the world. A great film for any Sundance enthusiast! (with sexy subtitles)

It is almost guaranteed to bomb, before anyone even sees it!

Re:An algorithm that works (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14548671)

a man from Africa who comes to America to find himself.

typical. Just like in "Beyond rangoon [imdb.com] ", the suffering of darkies is not important unless Americans get in on the act too.

The Golden Movie (1)

mflaster (702697) | more than 8 years ago | (#14549293)

From the article:
Golden: academic, accomplished, bedroom, complex, dialogue, dream, death, focus, girl, human, high, journey, love, mother, narrative, romance, relationship, superbly, sex, ultimately.

Therefore, coming soon to a theater near you:

The Contortionist

This academic work involves an accomplished contortionist, her bedroom, and many complex, dialogue-strewn dreams that focus on girl-girl scenes with animals as well as humans. Everyone is high on life in this journey through love, motherhood, and applepie, as the narrative covers romance, relationships, but, most importantly, superb sex, ultimately.

Re:An algorithm that works (2, Funny)

Sporkus (840586) | more than 8 years ago | (#14549784)

I've gone ahead and compiled a similar list with respect to /. posts: Golden: "insensitive clod," "tinfoil hat," "Soviet Russia," "overlords," and "M$" Kiss of Death: "the honorable Jack Thompson," "the RIAA acted appropriately," etc.

Re:Shocking news! (3, Insightful)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548532)

Yeah, I get so tired of people publishing probabilty success rates without stating what the baseline is.

For example, I could announce I have an 85% accurate weather prediction system. it's this: predict the sun will shine most of the day. nowhere does it rain all day more than 15% of the days. so my predictor is 85% accurate.

When you claim an accuracy you need to also give the null model accuracy or it's gibberish.

Re:Shocking news! (3, Informative)

sunya (101612) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548640)

nowhere does it rain all day more than 15% of the days.

Time to brush up on geography. It rains pretty much all the time in Cherrapunji [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Shocking news! (1)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 8 years ago | (#14549469)

true but, averaged over the whole planet I'm still 85% correct.

Re:Shocking news! (1)

saider (177166) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548823)

For example, I could announce I have an 85% accurate weather prediction system. it's this: predict the sun will shine most of the day. nowhere does it rain all day more than 15% of the days. so my predictor is 85% accurate.

Actually you can claim that the sun will shine all day long. It may shine on the cloud tops instead of the ground, but it will shine.

That and don't move to Seattle.

Re:Shocking news! (1)

scheming daemons (101928) | more than 8 years ago | (#14549791)

Actually, most weather systems take 4 to 5 days to move through a region, so if you simply predict "Tomorrow will be about the same as today", you will be right 80% of the time.

JohnGraham....What? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14548272)

What is JohnGraham doing?

Fuck films... (2, Insightful)

Caspian (99221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548274)

...let's see it predict STOCK WINNERS.

There are no winners (0, Troll)

Mille Mots (865955) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548313)

In the stock market there are no winners...only fools to a greater or lesser degree.

Re:Fuck films... (1)

h0nk3y (933455) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548327)

No kiddng. Predict something that noone else can predict. Predict whether Iran will create weapons with their nuclear power facilities. Predict how long it will be before the rain forests are completely wiped out. Predict when the ozone layer will be totally depleted. Predict when Microsoft will ship a secure version of Windows. :)

Re:Fuck films... (3, Funny)

Caspian (99221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548370)

"Predict something that noone else can predict."

Who IS this Noone [urbandictionary.com] guy? I keep hearing his name all over the place. He must be bigger than Jesus.

Re:Fuck films... (1, Flamebait)

plopez (54068) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548392)

No one (Noone) is bigger that Jesus :)

Did I get the joke or was that unintentional? :)

Re:Fuck films... (1, Interesting)

Caspian (99221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548558)

No, that wasn't the joke. I'm not a Christian.

Re:Fuck films... (1)

Tim Browse (9263) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548840)

Reminds me of one of my favourite jokes, from an extremely obscure UK radio comedy programme - the characters had all been getting mysterious notes, from people like Mr N.O. Body, and Mr E. Nigma, and the final character said he just got a note from his milkman. He checked the note:

"Wait a minute, it's signed Mr Noone! You know what this means!"
"Yes!"
"It's from Peter Noone!"
"No, you idiot! Don't you see? He's Mr No-One!"
"Oh, now, he is, yeah, but he was big in the 60s."

I'll get me coat.

Re:Fuck films... (1)

majello (643443) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548966)

Actually, according to google he is:

  • Google for noone: 144.000.000 results
  • google for jesus: 73.100.000 results

cheers, majello

Re:Fuck films... (1)

scheming daemons (101928) | more than 8 years ago | (#14549841)

...that Noone guy is a real looser...

Re:Fuck films... (1)

Caspian (99221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14549855)

Yeah, he's rediculous. Its a shame.

Re:Fuck films... (1)

richdun (672214) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548488)

Next week. 2014. 2015. April 6, 2063 (with a little help for their faulty logic).

Re:Fuck films... (1)

crow (16139) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548414)

Why stock? People bet on all sorts of things. I would be shocked if you couldn't bet on the Sundance winners. So the real question is, if they had used their predictions as a betting strategy, what would their return on investment be?

That would give a good indicator of how much they're simply predicting the favorites (not much return) or accurately predicting surprises.

Re:Fuck films... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14548557)

I am pretty sure the British will be gambling on Sundance, they gamble on EVERYTHING including whether the Sun will come up...

No its not an ethnic slur, go check out the British bookies once and you will see what I mean

Re:Fuck films... (5, Informative)

DeveloperAdvantage (923539) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548432)

There are many examples of using statistics and artificial intelligence in finance (go google), including some applications to predict stock prices. Even a decade ago, books like "Neural Networks in Finance and Investing" and "Artificial Intelligence in the Capital Markets" were already published, along with hordes of books on statistics in finance (think about what Quants do).

Of course, I don't think we can yet predict stock prices with the same 81% accuracy as in this article. And, if anyone could, they would be wise to keep it to themselves.

Re:Fuck films... (1)

z0idberg (888892) | more than 8 years ago | (#14549048)

Of course, I don't think we can yet predict stock prices with the same 81% accuracy as in this article. And, if anyone could, they would be wise to keep it to themselves.


Surely if someone worked this out they would then make money by flogging the method to other people through infomercials, public speaking and self-help books wouldnt they ?!

I mean, thats what everyone else does that figures out how to get rich. you dont actually do it, you teach everyone else how to do it and make money out of it that way.

Damn nice of them if you ask me.

Re:Fuck films... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14549098)

I don't think we can yet predict stock prices with the same 81% accuracy as in this article. And, if anyone could, they would be wise to keep it to themselves.

Current positions of my models:

Long: BRST
Long: AAPL
Long: INTC

Short: EBAY
Short: TIVO
Short: MSFT

Re:Fuck films... (1)

jweller (926629) | more than 8 years ago | (#14549759)

Of course, I don't think we can yet predict stock prices with the same 81% accuracy as in this article. And, if anyone could, they would be wise to keep it to themselves.

quite the opposite.

If I advertised a program that predicted stock pices with 81% accuracy, a very large number of people would buy/sell based on it's results, making it self predicting. at least in the short term.

Re:Fuck films... (1, Funny)

illuminatedwax (537131) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548519)

Sorry, I don't want to have to drill a hole in my head.

Re:Fuck films... (3, Funny)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548573)

** REPORT RESULTS: Bayesian Query = 'STOCK WINNERS' **

George W. Bush
Dick Cheney
Darl McBride

Re:Fuck films... (1)

InsaneLampshade (890845) | more than 8 years ago | (#14549032)

"** REPORT RESULTS: Bayesian Query = 'STOCK WINNERS' **

George W. Bush Dick Cheney Darl McBride"


You seem to have mis-spelled "WIENERS".

Re:Fuck films... (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548804)

...let's see it predict STOCK WINNERS.

Oh that is easy. Just ask Google.

However, you may not be able to afford more than one stock.

Re:Fuck films... (1)

MS-06FZ (832329) | more than 8 years ago | (#14549231)

Hey, that sounds like a good idea for a film! I bet people would like to watch other people fucking on the screen! I'm a-gonna win the next Sundance!

Another method to predict the winners (1, Interesting)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548282)

Bring a decibel meter and a stopwatch and find the films with the loudest and longest:

1) Laughter
2) Applause
3) Standing Ovations afterward


This simple method will give you a good idea of who will be the winners.

Re:Another method to predict the winners (1)

DeveloperAdvantage (923539) | more than 8 years ago | (#14549514)

I thought this was how to measure which director could stack the audience with the most friends! :)

Neato! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14548288)

I wonder what Mr. Graham thinks of this.

Unimpressed (1, Insightful)

Big Nothing (229456) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548293)

"Our engineers were thinking that determining whether a movie is good or bad could be similar to determining whether e-mail is spam or not," said Unspam Chief Executive Prince, 31, who loves the festival and uses it as a recruiting tool. "We had the last 10 years of the festival's film guides, which are like inputs, and then a bunch of outputs, like how many people saw a film, did it win anything at Sundance, did it have commercial success. If you could figure out the pattern between the inputs and the outputs, then you could actually predict future winners."

I'm not a Spam guru so please excuse me if I'm wrong, but isn't 81% a horrible result? Perhaps not for movie prediction but in Spam filtering?

Re:Unimpressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14548317)

AIUI 81% is reasonable for Bayesian filtering alone. Most commercial spam filters still use traditional rules too, which help their figures.

Re:Unimpressed (2, Insightful)

Raistlin77 (754120) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548324)

That depends. If it predicts and filters 84% of all spam, then it can't be anything but good. However, if 84% of what it predicts and filters is indeed spam, then 16% was not and was filtered needlessly - that's bad.

Re:Unimpressed (0, Troll)

garcia (6573) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548366)

I'm not a Spam guru so please excuse me if I'm wrong, but isn't 81% a horrible result? Perhaps not for movie prediction but in Spam filtering?

Perhaps they should use spam filtering for weather reporting. That way, the "dart throwing monkies" will end up with more accurate results than they do now. "There's a 30% chance of rain." I have always wondered if a passing grade in meteorologist college coursework was 30% or better.

Re:Unimpressed (1)

guaigean (867316) | more than 8 years ago | (#14549405)

Argh, I hate feeding the trolls... Anyway, meteorological data is very difficult to predict. Simple storms and weather patterns can easily be altered within a couple days time. The amount of influences on weather are enormous, and simple ideas such as the butterfly effect (not the movie) can create huge effects within a months time. Yes, the weather channel doesn't have the best success rate, but considering the number of molecules involved in weather fronts, our computers aren't exactly suited to the job yet, but simply do the best they can in giving ranges or a pattern existing in.

Re:Unimpressed (1)

Voxus (870217) | more than 8 years ago | (#14549942)

I'm unimpressed with your own weather-watching skills, not to mention your math. Have you ever taken a lesson in probability? 30% is about 1/3. So a 30% chance of rain means that about 2/3 of the time, it isn't going to rain! You might even get bright, clear skies.

Re:Unimpressed (2, Informative)

Vann_v2 (213760) | more than 8 years ago | (#14549853)

The problem is that saying it is "81% successful" is meaningless. Typically one would use a two-fold measure of success for these sorts of application: precision and recall. In the case of spam, the precision of your algorithm would be the number of correctly marked emails over the total number of emails marked, and the recall would be the number of correctly marked emails over the number of emails that are actually spam.

In terms of search this is perhaps more clear, so consider Google. You issue Google a search query and it returns a bunch of results. Precision measures how many of the results returned are actually relevant, and recall measures how many of the relevant results were actually returned. One could get 100% precision by returning just one result which could be verified as relevant (or, in the above case, verified as spam), and one could get 100% recall by simply returning everything. Oftentimes one takes the harmonic mean of the two, called the F-score in this case, as an overall measure of the success of the algorithm. In other instances one might want to favor precision over recall or vice versa.

I think they probably mean "81% precision," but a low recall means that you'll have many spam emails which are not marked. Of course, if they mean the opposite, then low precision could mean many marked emails which are not spam!

sub-concious (0, Redundant)

genbitter (928451) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548298)

So will people who read the article be more likely to see the movies they say will be a success? If so then they will making the prediction true, thus feeding this whole non-sense system with positive feedback!

Simple... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14548310)

Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding equals the win!

Filter Mods (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14548323)

Angsty +2
Depressing +2
Happy or Inspirational -1
Featuring charaters of a marginalized societal group +10
Featuring charaters of a majority societal group -10
Making those majority characters feel guilty +20
Political Agenda +10
Social Agenda +10
Leftist Social & Political Agenda +50
Non-acting acting +3
Use of black and white film +1
Sense of Humor -5
Comedy film -100
Intellectual +1
Pseudo-intellectual +30
Director dresses in all black +4
Actors dress in all black +10
Actors dress in all black and do interpretive dance to Phillip Glass music while speaking German backwards +20
Audience participates and dances with the actors in above scenario +1000
Would actually generate box office revenue -100
Good movie that would appeal to more than a niche audience -20

Re:Filter Mods (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14548346)

That reminds me. Is David Lynch working on a new movie?

Re:Filter Mods (1)

Deagol (323173) | more than 8 years ago | (#14549741)

I heard his last film was stalled due to the dancing midget trade union being on strike.

Re:Filter Mods (-1, Offtopic)

slavemowgli (585321) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548580)

It's "Philip", not "Phillip" (in "Philip Glass", that is). ^_~

Re:Filter Mods (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14548631)

Ah, right, sorry, I was just practicing "interpretive" spelling...

Kiss of Death? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14548330)

Prince and his crew came up with two lists: words that "make you golden" or are "the kiss of death."

Kiss of death: Africa, America, American, beautiful, black, ...

Prince went on to comment they were suprised to come up with the first racist bayesian filter in their career.

Re:Kiss of Death? (1)

darkmeridian (119044) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548463)

Your little list includes "America" and "beautiful", so who cares?

Filtering (-1, Redundant)

poeidon1 (767457) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548343)

Does it has a white and black list filtering in the algorithm as well?

Not insane (-1, Redundant)

tenchiken (22661) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548361)

This is no where near as insane as it sounds. The predective model behind bayes is good for things other then spam filtering. In particular it is good for analyticaly modeling unstructured data. Given that other predictive models (for example, linear regression, logistical regression, neural networks and additive scorecards) require more structured information (the variables must be explicit "which studio supports it, " or "what rating did ebert give it") a purely unstrucuted bayes algorithm that looks at reviews, hypes, or events in the movie might be far more effective.

Fit your stereotype? (4, Interesting)

246o1 (914193) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548374)

From TFA (words in the description that help or hurt it): "Golden: academic, accomplished, bedroom, complex, dialogue, dream, death, focus, girl, human, high, journey, love, mother, narrative, romance, relationship, superbly, sex, ultimately. Kiss of death: Africa, America, American, beautiful, black, best, emotional, fascinating, great, inspired, lake, new, riveting, Sundance, sexy, story, subtitles, truth, vision, world." So, they want complex, academic films about girl-mother relationships with a strong narrative of romance and sex. Nothing about beautiful black people in Africa or America with any sort of interest in visions, truth, or the world, especially if said black people are sexy and live near a great, nay, the best lake.

Re:Fit your stereotype? (0)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 8 years ago | (#14549466)

Oh get off it. You have a list of words completely taken out of context and you're turning it into some "everyone at Sundance is racist" nonsense.

The real difference between the two lists is that the first list is more concrete and the second is more abstract. I'm not surprised to hear that fascinating, beautiful and emotional are in the list. Those words are the hackneyed descriptions of every art house critics favorite film. People are probably sick of hearing them and ignore them like a David Manning review.

I dont know why Africa and America are on there. Perhaps people dont want to see political flms? Perhaps there have been a glut of films about 9/11 America and African warlords? I know I've seen many off these films in the Chicago Reader's film section.

Also, you assume black refers strictly to race. How about black comedies. Or a description for something dark or sinister like some lame home-made serial killer movie?

Whats really interesting is how people project their own assumptions on others from a list of out of context words.

The next step (1)

bignobody (933871) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548408)

is to use them to write the perfect screenplay! Guarenteed blockbusters, everytime!

Questionable categories (1)

pigwiggle (882643) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548425)

They picked "Sombodies" as a successful drama. Drama? Not really; definitely a flat out comedy. Good stuff. Sundance is cool, but their ticketing system is getting progressively worse. This year I paid $5 for the chance to pick movies in a ½ hour slot 3 days after the box office opened. Didn't get even one of my first choices; essentially got what was left.

Bayesian for Slashdot (5, Interesting)

bhima (46039) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548429)

I've been thinking about this for a while...

Someone should develop a client side Bayesian Filter / Moderation system for Slashdot.

Think about it...

A sizable portion of people around here are not consistantly assholes so it doesn't really make sense to add them to a "foe" list.
Frequently things are in strange topics so it doesn't make sense to ignore whole topics.
Not all new members are trolls so modding all new members down doesn't make sense either.
And the current moderation system is subjected to other people's current peeves and political leanings.

And please don't tell me to do it, I'm an embedded developer not a web developer... I have no idea where to even begin with it.

Re:Bayesian for Slashdot (0)

OK PC (857190) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548578)

Do it

Re:Bayesian for Slashdot (2, Interesting)

utexaspunk (527541) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548597)

Yeah- I've wanted a site like digg/slashdot that worked like this for a while- users can vote on anything, and then anything you haven't voted on is given a score that is calculated according to how the people who most consistently vote in agreement with you score the story/comment. The site is custom-tailored to what you want- People who like stupid crap will mod up stupid crap and get more stupid crap because other people who like stupid crap will have modded up the same stupid crap and more, while people who like good stuff will mod up good stuff and will get more of it because other people who modded up the same stuff that they thought was good will have modded up more stuff that they'll like. It's impervious to trolls or advertisers, because if I don't like advertising, I'll mod all advertising down and thus it will pre-mod stuff with advertising down because other people who hate advertising will have modded it down...

Re:Bayesian for Slashdot (2, Interesting)

BridgeBum (11413) | more than 8 years ago | (#14549172)

Check out http://reddit.com./ [reddit.com.] At least, once it isn't broken. It's a news aggragation site per slashdot/digg, but incorporates some of what you are looking for.

Re:Bayesian for Slashdot (4, Interesting)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548599)

And the current moderation system is subjected to other people's current peeves and political leanings.

Which is what makes it so much fun!

Seriously, its wonderful that Bayesian filters are useful, but why put blinders on? Slashdot would simply cease to be interesting if you could will away anything you didn't like. Intelligent discourse requires an airing of all sides of an issue and theoretically this can lead to consensus building, if the best parts of all ideas are combined. Of course you're going to get people with very little to say, or very little between the ears, muddying the waters -- the challenge is to take the disparate elements and meld them to something coherent. Superfluous elements will be winnowed out and hopefully the end product is something most people can agree on.

Of course this is Slashdot, the Internet equivalent of a bar brawl. The rough-and-tumble of this kind of fourm is what keeps it interesting and more importantly, as much as we are infuriated by those who don't agree with us, makes us think.

Re:Bayesian for Slashdot (1)

utexaspunk (527541) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548645)

I don't think a Bayesian moderation system would necessarily prevent you from seeing any opposing viewpoints. I often moderate up comments the I disagree with if the submitter has an interesting point, or if it is necessary for some intelligent reply to make sense. I often wish /. had a view where I could see all 3+ comments as well as all their parents. That way, if someone makes an insightful reply I can read what they were replying to without having to open the parent link in another tab or browse at -1. Anyway, like using one for spam, and particularly with something as subjective as comment moderation, the fuzziness of a Bayesian filter means you're always going to have some amount of the stuff that you're trying to filter out get through.

Re:Bayesian for Slashdot (2, Interesting)

bhima (46039) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548901)

I think you are looking at it the wrong way:

Using the current mod system on Slashdot you are using someone else's blinders.
Using the Friend / Foe system you are using a static subset.

Less than 20% of the comments around here are either meaningful, thought provoking, or relevant... I want to see those that truly are interesting and between the current mod system and the outright volume I can't in the amount of time I'm willing to spend reading Slashdot.

Slashdot is not like the Internet equivalent of a bar brawl it's more like kids talking about sex in the playground of an elementary school after a heavy rain.

Re:Bayesian for Slashdot (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548993)

Using the current mod system on Slashdot you are using someone else's blinders.
Using the Friend / Foe system you are using a static subset.

True, though the system is flexible enough that I'm not required to mod categories and/or people up or down. I've determined over time that adding/subtracting points based on relationships here is a double-edged sword. I often actually want to see what people who don't like me are saying, to get some sense of why and to challenge them on a fundamental level, if I can or if I want to. It makes logical sense to mod friends up, but then I don't expect them to disagree with me too terribly often, so I use the Friend/For system more as a marker so I can pick those comments out more easily.

Re:Bayesian for Slashdot (1)

dyslexicbunny (940925) | more than 8 years ago | (#14549920)

I was under the impression that bar brawls were physical and considering the average /. reader, we would lose. Perhaps this should be the Internet equivalent of an angry debate.

Re:Bayesian for Slashdot (1)

suwain_2 (260792) | more than 8 years ago | (#14549604)

And please don't tell me to do it, I'm an embedded developer not a web developer... I have no idea where to even begin with it.

But CGIs are embedded scripts! ;)

And the winner is... (2, Funny)

fak3r (917687) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548435)

BUY Ch 3ap \/iag r a 0n1i ne - n0 prescr1pti0n r3quir3d!!!!

A better thing (2, Interesting)

tessonec (620168) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548466)

This [slashdot.org] was a far better (and open source) applecation of Bayesian filters

Instructions on completing your Oscar ballot form. (2, Funny)

SIGFPE (97527) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548470)

Does it portray women as victims? +3

Does it star a beautiful actress with ugly makeup +1

Does it deal with weighty issues? +1

Is it science fiction? -3

Does it show how minority groups are oppressed? +2

Does it star people from a minority group who haven't received Oscars for a few years? +2

Did you cry? +2

Was it made by an action movie director turned serious? +2

Does it deal with weighty issues albeit by stringing together a sequence of time-worn cliches? +2

Is it an action movie made by a serious director? -2

Is it science fiction? -5

Will I feel guilty that I'm a racist homophobe if I don't vote for this movie? +3

(For the sound editing Oscar only:) Does the movie have good sound editing? +0

Is it science fiction? -2

Re:Instructions on completing your Oscar ballot fo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14548534)

You forgot to add:

Does it include a mentally handicapped character? +10

Re:Instructions on completing your Oscar ballot fo (2)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548595)

Your system sounds like a Lifetime original movie

Re:Instructions on completing your Oscar ballot fo (1)

SIGFPE (97527) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548627)

That's because Oscar winners are just Lifetime movies with famous people starring in them. I wish they did Oscars for movies for guys.

Re:Instructions on completing your Oscar ballot fo (1)

Paul Crowley (837) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548802)

You didn't like Brokeback Mountain either?

I'll celebrate the big step forward for Hollywood's portrayal of gay issues when they make a gay feelgood movie. Or, you know, a gay Dukes of Hazzard.

Re:Addition (1)

SolitaryMan (538416) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548905)

Have you seen the movie? +3

Bayesian filter to predict Slashdot's new stories? (2, Insightful)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548490)

I'm not sure what kind of crack-simulator Slashdot put into its related stories selector, but some kind of Bayesian filter to figure out the relationship might be helpful.

For example...

Ask Slashdot: State of WLAN Support on Linux?
Related...
    IT: Microsoft Spending $120M To Look Smaller
    Games: Defying Review Aggregation
    Games: Competitive Gaming Hits the Mainstream

WTF?

Re:Bayesian filter to predict Slashdot's new stori (2, Informative)

Kagura (843695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548552)

Where do you see the word "related" or any of its equivalents? As far as I can tell, every story's position is based on the time it is posted to the front page.

Re:Bayesian filter to predict Slashdot's new stori (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548600)

Well, if you stick some headlines in a little grey box attached to a "main" story, wouldn't you assume they are related to the main story? (If the "grey box" thing is an attempt to "minimize" items of less-than-wide interest, the interface just sucks.)

Re:Bayesian filter to predict Slashdot's new stori (1)

warith (121181) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548935)

"Well, if you stick some headlines in a little grey box attached to a "main" story, wouldn't you assume they are related to the main story?"

Maybe at first glance, but if every single one does NOT actually relate to the story above, I would realize that assumption was wrong...

Yes, the new GREY STORY interface sucks (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548997)

Then I think we agree - the new GREY STORY interface sucks donkey balls.

Re:Yes, the new GREY STORY interface sucks (1)

Mr_Perl (142164) | more than 8 years ago | (#14549531)

In other news donkeys start tuning in to Slashdot in record numbers...

Statistical methods? (1)

CentraSpike (947642) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548493)

Although it's possible they ommitted data when when creating their model in order that it could be used later in testing (i didn't see in the article whether this was the case). It is quite possible that the 81% result was based on predicting results that were used in building the model (the article says they used historiacl data to build the model and then tried to predict historical results to test the model) - this would totally negate the results as meaningless. Lets see what it predicts and compare it the the actual results when they're available.

Re:Statistical methods? (2, Informative)

JohnGrahamCumming (684871) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548618)

Their web site states that the 81% number was "year on year" which I interpret to mean that they took the data for years n - 1 to predict year n.

John.

And that's not all they can do (1)

JohnGrahamCumming (684871) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548523)

As well as POPFile's multi-category email filtering, I sell a commercial component [extravalent.com] that does multi-category Bayesian filtering for companies to embed in their own software. Bayesian and other statistical techniques are going to be cropping up everywhere there's text to analyze.

John.

What else? (1)

illuminatedwax (537131) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548543)

Wow, document classification with Bayes nets. How fresh is that??! I wonder how many more of these we'll see? I liked this version better: http://www.pitchformula.com/ [pitchformula.com] He took it a step further and actually MADE art based on those kinds of predictions.

Has anyone tried Bayes for... (0, Offtopic)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548663)

...predicting Slashdupes?

adjectives bad in film descriptions, menus (2, Interesting)

Harlan879 (878542) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548667)

I was amused by something in the article that said that too many adjectives in the description ("riveting!") is a predictor of a negative outcome for a film. That reminds me of a rule of thumb for restaurants that a friend suggested -- if the name of the dish is full of adjectives, it'll taste bad. Amusingly, I just did a Google search for "restaurant menu adjectives", and most of the hits on the first page were for middle-school lesson plans where kids add adjectives to menus to make the food seem more appetizing!

And? (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 8 years ago | (#14548835)

Give me a Bayesian filter that will predict horse races. Now there's something I can use.

What are the odds on Sundance in the 5th?

Googlefight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14549559)

What does Googlefight say?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...