Author Topic: TV Shows  (Read 139645 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RavynousHunter

  • Master Thief
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8108
  • Gender: Male
  • A man of no consequence.
    • My Twitter
Re: TV Shows
« Reply #495 on: September 29, 2014, 08:48:57 am »
I'm currently addicted to Top Gear.  Take from that what you will.
Quote from: Bra'tac
Life for the sake of life means nothing.

Offline Askold

  • Definitely not hiding a dark secret.
  • Global Moderator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8358
  • Gender: Male
Re: TV Shows
« Reply #496 on: September 29, 2014, 01:30:41 pm »
I started watching Blue bloods from Netflix and I'm liking it a lot.

One episode had this one particular actress that seemed to be a rather bad actor and wondered how she got onto the show but at the end of the episode it was revealed that she was the villain and had been pretending a victim. Thus explaining the poor timing and horrible acting. I hope that was intentional.

I also liked seeing the actor of Jared from the Pretender doing another great role. If I was writing fanfiction or had my own fanon I would claim that he is always playing Jared infiltrating different organisations.
No matter what happens, no matter what my last words may end up being, I want everyone to claim that they were:
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Aww, you guys rock. :)  I feel the love... and the pitchforks and torches.  Tingly!

Offline Katsuro

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1406
  • Gender: Male
Re: TV Shows
« Reply #497 on: September 29, 2014, 05:05:40 pm »
I'm currently addicted to Top Gear.  Take from that what you will.

Hey, Top Gear is awesome...in a really stupid kind of way.  But that's the point really.

You should check out the old episodes from Top Gear, from the 70's - 90's.  It's an interesting comparison.

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: TV Shows
« Reply #498 on: September 29, 2014, 09:04:40 pm »
Top Gear's quite fun for the challenges they do. Though I do find it a bit dry when they're just prattling on about cars.

Offline Cerim Treascair

  • My Love Is Lunar
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3092
  • Gender: Male
  • Get me my arbalest... explosive bolts, please.
Re: TV Shows
« Reply #499 on: September 29, 2014, 09:11:07 pm »
Me and food shows, I swear... I'm alternating between Masterchef and Secret Eaters.  Interspersed with my usual Restaurant Impossible viewing.
There is light and darkness in the world, to be sure.  However, there's no harm to be had in walking in the shade or shadows.

Formerly Priestling

"I don't give a fuck about race...I'm white, I'm American, but that shit don't matter.  I'm human."

Offline Alehksunos

  • Transvestite Boo-kin
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1456
  • Gender: Male
  • Gay Witch for Abortion
Re: TV Shows
« Reply #500 on: September 29, 2014, 10:04:04 pm »
One of the few shows of the BBC and other broadcasting stations of the United Kingdom I've ever gotten into (besides the obligatory Monty Python's Flying Circus) was Red Dwarf, then because I wanted something like Star Trek and other classical "soft sci-fi" but played for laughs. These shows over in the United Kingdom are just so... dry. I still can't make up my mind whether this is a good thing or not.

Offline RavynousHunter

  • Master Thief
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8108
  • Gender: Male
  • A man of no consequence.
    • My Twitter
Re: TV Shows
« Reply #501 on: September 30, 2014, 08:51:33 am »
I'm currently addicted to Top Gear.  Take from that what you will.

Hey, Top Gear is awesome...in a really stupid kind of way.  But that's the point really.

You should check out the old episodes from Top Gear, from the 70's - 90's.  It's an interesting comparison.

Alas, I don't think they have the old, old stuff on Netflix.  Also, I find the prattling on about cars interesting.  Makes me wonder if you could design a genetic algorithm to digitally evolve the most powerful, attractive car possible using the highest-rated set from any given model year, irrespective of brand.
Quote from: Bra'tac
Life for the sake of life means nothing.

Offline chitoryu12

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
  • Gender: Male
  • Tax-Payer Rhino
Re: TV Shows
« Reply #502 on: October 01, 2014, 01:02:00 pm »
I'm currently addicted to Top Gear.  Take from that what you will.

Hey, Top Gear is awesome...in a really stupid kind of way.  But that's the point really.

You should check out the old episodes from Top Gear, from the 70's - 90's.  It's an interesting comparison.

Alas, I don't think they have the old, old stuff on Netflix.  Also, I find the prattling on about cars interesting.  Makes me wonder if you could design a genetic algorithm to digitally evolve the most powerful, attractive car possible using the highest-rated set from any given model year, irrespective of brand.

Probably not. Powerful, attractive cars are powerful and attractive because all of their components come together in a unique fashion. Attempting to create the perfect car through an algorithm that combines pieces from popular cars would be like trying to create the perfect human being by simply taking what polls say are the most attractive parts of highly attractive celebrities and combining them onto one face. The result would likely end up looking unappealing.

It's the same reason why attempts to make a formula for the "perfect movie" or "perfect video game" can never actually predict anything reliably. It takes more than just following a formula to ensure success.
Still can't think of a signature a year later.

Offline RavynousHunter

  • Master Thief
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8108
  • Gender: Male
  • A man of no consequence.
    • My Twitter
Re: TV Shows
« Reply #503 on: October 01, 2014, 02:57:32 pm »
Probably not. Powerful, attractive cars are powerful and attractive because all of their components come together in a unique fashion. Attempting to create the perfect car through an algorithm that combines pieces from popular cars would be like trying to create the perfect human being by simply taking what polls say are the most attractive parts of highly attractive celebrities and combining them onto one face. The result would likely end up looking unappealing.

It's the same reason why attempts to make a formula for the "perfect movie" or "perfect video game" can never actually predict anything reliably. It takes more than just following a formula to ensure success.

You misunderstand my means.  I'm not saying "just mash shit together," I'm saying "mash shit together and change it up," or more succinctly, "mimic natural selection."  Car A mates with Car B, they mingle genes, but there's a random chance of a small mutation occurring, which may or may not harm the child car's ability to survive to pass along its genes.  There are some fairly standard things, from what I've seen, that people call "attractive" in cars, traits they all share and, even if there weren't or if they're hard to nail down, there's only a certain number of things that will be appealing on a large scale; its why dumbass action movies with absolutely zero thought in them gross millions at the box office, and intriguing, thought-provoking cinema can flop on an epic scale.

If it can be expressed logically, it can be expressed to a machine.  It may be difficult as all hell, but it is most certainly possible.  Given enough time, anything can be made into a set of logical rules.
Quote from: Bra'tac
Life for the sake of life means nothing.

Offline chitoryu12

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
  • Gender: Male
  • Tax-Payer Rhino
Re: TV Shows
« Reply #504 on: October 02, 2014, 01:54:03 am »
Probably not. Powerful, attractive cars are powerful and attractive because all of their components come together in a unique fashion. Attempting to create the perfect car through an algorithm that combines pieces from popular cars would be like trying to create the perfect human being by simply taking what polls say are the most attractive parts of highly attractive celebrities and combining them onto one face. The result would likely end up looking unappealing.

It's the same reason why attempts to make a formula for the "perfect movie" or "perfect video game" can never actually predict anything reliably. It takes more than just following a formula to ensure success.

You misunderstand my means.  I'm not saying "just mash shit together," I'm saying "mash shit together and change it up," or more succinctly, "mimic natural selection."  Car A mates with Car B, they mingle genes, but there's a random chance of a small mutation occurring, which may or may not harm the child car's ability to survive to pass along its genes.  There are some fairly standard things, from what I've seen, that people call "attractive" in cars, traits they all share and, even if there weren't or if they're hard to nail down, there's only a certain number of things that will be appealing on a large scale; its why dumbass action movies with absolutely zero thought in them gross millions at the box office, and intriguing, thought-provoking cinema can flop on an epic scale.

If it can be expressed logically, it can be expressed to a machine.  It may be difficult as all hell, but it is most certainly possible.  Given enough time, anything can be made into a set of logical rules.

Dumbass action movies make a profit because they have mass market appeal. They're analogous to cheap and reliable Japanese cars, not Italian supercars. If anything, the supercars are the "intriguing, thought-provoking cinema": they have a specific niche that doesn't appeal to the majority of the population and may not necessarily be accessible to everyone and are thus reliant on luck and a strong target market to make an impact.

If you asked a computer to fake evolution to create the perfect car, it would probably make something that looks a lot like a Honda Civic instead of a Lamborghini Diablo.
Still can't think of a signature a year later.

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: TV Shows
« Reply #505 on: October 02, 2014, 08:26:12 am »
I've decided to re-watch Red Dwarf. Great fun, that show.

Offline RavynousHunter

  • Master Thief
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8108
  • Gender: Male
  • A man of no consequence.
    • My Twitter
Re: TV Shows
« Reply #506 on: October 02, 2014, 08:34:56 am »
Probably not. Powerful, attractive cars are powerful and attractive because all of their components come together in a unique fashion. Attempting to create the perfect car through an algorithm that combines pieces from popular cars would be like trying to create the perfect human being by simply taking what polls say are the most attractive parts of highly attractive celebrities and combining them onto one face. The result would likely end up looking unappealing.

It's the same reason why attempts to make a formula for the "perfect movie" or "perfect video game" can never actually predict anything reliably. It takes more than just following a formula to ensure success.

You misunderstand my means.  I'm not saying "just mash shit together," I'm saying "mash shit together and change it up," or more succinctly, "mimic natural selection."  Car A mates with Car B, they mingle genes, but there's a random chance of a small mutation occurring, which may or may not harm the child car's ability to survive to pass along its genes.  There are some fairly standard things, from what I've seen, that people call "attractive" in cars, traits they all share and, even if there weren't or if they're hard to nail down, there's only a certain number of things that will be appealing on a large scale; its why dumbass action movies with absolutely zero thought in them gross millions at the box office, and intriguing, thought-provoking cinema can flop on an epic scale.

If it can be expressed logically, it can be expressed to a machine.  It may be difficult as all hell, but it is most certainly possible.  Given enough time, anything can be made into a set of logical rules.

Dumbass action movies make a profit because they have mass market appeal. They're analogous to cheap and reliable Japanese cars, not Italian supercars. If anything, the supercars are the "intriguing, thought-provoking cinema": they have a specific niche that doesn't appeal to the majority of the population and may not necessarily be accessible to everyone and are thus reliant on luck and a strong target market to make an impact.

If you asked a computer to fake evolution to create the perfect car, it would probably make something that looks a lot like a Honda Civic instead of a Lamborghini Diablo.

It'd likely make a hybrid between the two.  It seems like you're arguing that they wouldn't have any "love" in their creation, that there isn't a "human" touch, and would thus be rubbish.  The thing is, you don't know that: evolution made Don Vito, but evolution also made Karen Gillan.  A cold, calculating, impersonal force can create beauty, and beauty makes one more successful in the theatre of evolution.  If cars were people, then you'd see car porn starring the likes of the Dodge Challenger or a Rolls Royce Phantom, and only "niche" porn would star a Smart Car or VW Beetle.

When using attractiveness as one of the largest selection pressures, the results are more likely to be attractive the further you go down the line.  Also, its not "fake" evolution, it'd be as real as we can make a simulacrum, especially if your RNG is cryptographically secure.  Just set the rules, and let the dice do the rest.  Its how we came to be, its how the Car to End All Cars could come to be, as well.
Quote from: Bra'tac
Life for the sake of life means nothing.

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: TV Shows
« Reply #507 on: October 02, 2014, 09:01:46 am »
It'd likely make a hybrid between the two.  It seems like you're arguing that they wouldn't have any "love" in their creation, that there isn't a "human" touch, and would thus be rubbish.  The thing is, you don't know that: evolution made Don Vito, but evolution also made Karen Gillan.  A cold, calculating, impersonal force can create beauty, and beauty makes one more successful in the theatre of evolution.  If cars were people, then you'd see car porn starring the likes of the Dodge Challenger or a Rolls Royce Phantom, and only "niche" porn would star a Smart Car or VW Beetle.

When using attractiveness as one of the largest selection pressures, the results are more likely to be attractive the further you go down the line.  Also, its not "fake" evolution, it'd be as real as we can make a simulacrum, especially if your RNG is cryptographically secure.  Just set the rules, and let the dice do the rest.  Its how we came to be, its how the Car to End All Cars could come to be, as well.
Rav, I love you, but you really need to lay off the weed. Well, that or give me some. Either way is cool with me.

Offline RavynousHunter

  • Master Thief
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8108
  • Gender: Male
  • A man of no consequence.
    • My Twitter
Re: TV Shows
« Reply #508 on: October 02, 2014, 09:34:18 am »
It'd likely make a hybrid between the two.  It seems like you're arguing that they wouldn't have any "love" in their creation, that there isn't a "human" touch, and would thus be rubbish.  The thing is, you don't know that: evolution made Don Vito, but evolution also made Karen Gillan.  A cold, calculating, impersonal force can create beauty, and beauty makes one more successful in the theatre of evolution.  If cars were people, then you'd see car porn starring the likes of the Dodge Challenger or a Rolls Royce Phantom, and only "niche" porn would star a Smart Car or VW Beetle.

When using attractiveness as one of the largest selection pressures, the results are more likely to be attractive the further you go down the line.  Also, its not "fake" evolution, it'd be as real as we can make a simulacrum, especially if your RNG is cryptographically secure.  Just set the rules, and let the dice do the rest.  Its how we came to be, its how the Car to End All Cars could come to be, as well.
Rav, I love you, but you really need to lay off the weed. Well, that or give me some. Either way is cool with me.

Homie, please, I don't smoke no dank.  Shit, the worst thing I've had in the past year is Nyquil for a rather irritating cold.

I'm just of the school of thought that, if we can do it, machines can do it...eventually.  Its just a matter of time.
Quote from: Bra'tac
Life for the sake of life means nothing.

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: TV Shows
« Reply #509 on: October 02, 2014, 09:56:09 am »
It'd likely make a hybrid between the two.  It seems like you're arguing that they wouldn't have any "love" in their creation, that there isn't a "human" touch, and would thus be rubbish.  The thing is, you don't know that: evolution made Don Vito, but evolution also made Karen Gillan.  A cold, calculating, impersonal force can create beauty, and beauty makes one more successful in the theatre of evolution.  If cars were people, then you'd see car porn starring the likes of the Dodge Challenger or a Rolls Royce Phantom, and only "niche" porn would star a Smart Car or VW Beetle.

When using attractiveness as one of the largest selection pressures, the results are more likely to be attractive the further you go down the line.  Also, its not "fake" evolution, it'd be as real as we can make a simulacrum, especially if your RNG is cryptographically secure.  Just set the rules, and let the dice do the rest.  Its how we came to be, its how the Car to End All Cars could come to be, as well.
Rav, I love you, but you really need to lay off the weed. Well, that or give me some. Either way is cool with me.

Homie, please, I don't smoke no dank.  Shit, the worst thing I've had in the past year is Nyquil for a rather irritating cold.

I'm just of the school of thought that, if we can do it, machines can do it...eventually.  Its just a matter of time.

You say that, but the bit about the car porn does raise a few suspicions.

In all honestly, evolution kind of already is applied to cars (and pretty much every other good or service out there). They're designed, sold, the design is refined based on what's the most profitable, and the whole process repeats. Not quite the same as biological evolution, and traits are selected based on profitability rather than beauty (though beauty isn't exactly quantifiable), but the overall concept is the same.