Do you have adblock enabled?

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

•       •       •

1718 clicks; posted to Geek » on 18 Jul 2012 at 11:43 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:    more»

28 Comments     (+0 »)
 Paginated (50/page) Single page, reversed Normal view Change images to links Show raw HTML
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

A "new" "science" is it?

Do they work for Oracle?

Because People in power are Stupid: This is silly.

'Nations do not defeat their foe in a single battle; rather, victory results from aggregate success over a series of interactions. Only by gradually reducing an opponent's capacity to resist can a nation force victory.'

A theory developed through months of solid Europa Universalis gameplay?

Not impressed :

They didn't predict the future, they predicted the past. Just because their model matched what happened doesn't mean it's accurate.

1) Make predictive model.
2) Compare it to events outside the scope of your model.
3) Does your model match the events? If not, go to step 1.
4) Claim you predicted the future.

Step 3a, "compare it to future events as they happen," is curiously missing.

Maybe they're right, maybe not.

Really enjoyed the first two books but lost interest in the third. Does it get better??

"Developing the foundation"?
Subby is a mule.

This is nothing new.

Monte Carlo Simulation

This thread is turning into a Seldon crisis.

Wait until the Taliban gets the Mule

The model will invariably predict that all future events are caused by psychologists, then, it will correct itself and attribute the events to a worldwide consciousness, then it will correct itself again and say it was a robot on the moon.

fatbear: They didn't predict the future, they predicted the past. Just because their model matched what happened doesn't mean it's accurate.

1) Make predictive model.
2) Compare it to events outside the scope of your model.
3) Does your model match the events? If not, go to step 1.
4) Claim you predicted the future.

Step 3a, "compare it to future events as they happen," is curiously missing.

Maybe they're right, maybe not.

Also, this is not a "new scientific discipline"... I've been working in Geospatial statistics for the past 10 years.

I knew you were going to say that.

dr.zaeus:

Also, this is not a "new scientific discipline"... I've been working in Geospatial statistics for the past 10 years.

No, but it made the headline work.

What is this, application of Bayesian Modeling Averaging?

/If yes, this isn't new.

rfronk: This is nothing new.

Monte Carlo Simulation

+ some Bayesian stuff, I imagine...

Cheron: Wait until the Taliban gets the Mule

The Second Foundation will take care of it.

Predicting where violence may happen next?
Cops have been doing prediction-driven patrols for decades.
There's a TV commercial right now which features it.

Interesting....

johnnyboog: Really enjoyed the first two books but lost interest in the third. Does it get better??

Not really. Read through 6 books. Books 4 and 5 continue the story of the plan, which has been altered as you can assume from previous events and the story continues with new characters some years after the last book. They come to new realizations about how people work and live and visit planets with new and possibly better ideas for humanity than the Foundation ideas. You explore more of how humans spread through the Milky Way and how long it took, with a greater focus on the historical and possibly fairy tale Earth. The last book is a prequel that follows Seldon in his early life. The information in the last book is already known to everyone, just not the details of how it came to be.

It's called game theory, and it looks like it data is being collected to apply it in a structured computer model.

Anarchangel: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 397x397]

Know how I know you've never read the Foundation series?

/Groups > individuals

an entirely new scientific discipline

I would think this is a troll, but based on my experience of computer scientists, it is probably sincere.The science is a very old science. It is called sociology, Subby, you scientifically illiterate noob.

lordargent:

Asimov said to read them in chronological order :P

That's idiotic because Prelude to Foundation contains huge spoilers and should only be read after Foundation and Earth

The All-Powerful Atheismo: lordargent:

Asimov said to read them in chronological order :P

That's idiotic because Prelude to Foundation contains huge spoilers and should only be read after Foundation and Earth

Oh, I guess I started off reading them wrong.... still enjoyed the first two cool immensely.

Displayed 28 of 28 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.