I fully encourage commenting of pretty much any kind or form. Feedback is definitely appreciated, and I only plan on deleting comments if they become overly inflammatory (ie. racist, sexist, etc.) or if they are the work of spammers.
However, I would appreciate if you avoided the use of anonymous commenting. Don't get me wrong, you can use all the false pseudonyms you want. From my perspective, the game of guessing the commenter from the fake name is a fun one.
I'm not even asking you to maintain a consistent identity or use a real name. You may do so if you wish (it is kind of helpful for me in tracking readers), or you may not. I just want some additional context to your comment, even if it is fake.
I will not actually turn off the use of anonymous commenting, quite frankly because I don't care that much. I would just prefer that you yourself make the decision to turn down that option and I encourage you to be creative in your name selection.
Note, commenting anonymously on this post is neither original nor funny. It is actually quite lame. I just thought I'd give you a heads up in case you thought you were really clever.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
"I Personally Know Rick. Do I Have to Worry About Appearing On Sarcastic Robots in an Unflattering Manner?"
Why, that is an excellent question Jimmy, and a lot of people have asked us about this (ed. note, this statement is false both because no one has asked and because we don't know anyone named Jimmy (also note that this blog has no editor and we have no problem using nested parentheses)). But we here at Sarcastic Robots appreciate that while we (strictly speaking, I) have decided to use our real names and identities - again, there is only actually one of us - on this here blog, you have not signed over your right to internet anonymity simply by being acquainted with the aforementioned Rick Valenzano.
In this end, the real names of persons involved in any stories recounted will be redacted and replaced with false monikers or vague pronouns*. While the context will often let other acquaintances of Rick Valenzano in on the identities of the characters mentioned, be advised that this will only occur in situations in which we would be comfortable recounting said "adventures" in a regular social gathering with the names intact (ie. non-digital person-to-person interactions). As we plan on mostly avoiding stories in which anyone except Rick Valenzano (our inspiration and muse (and author (see, we're doing the parentheses thing again, I warned you))) appears ridiculous, you should be free and in the clear. The one exception being in the case of us being out for sweet, sweet revenge.
* Note, we will use the real names of individuals where it is of clear benefit to them (ie. if they want readers to contact them), or if they otherwise ask us to divulge their identities (which seems unnecessary, but who knows what you people want).
In this end, the real names of persons involved in any stories recounted will be redacted and replaced with false monikers or vague pronouns*. While the context will often let other acquaintances of Rick Valenzano in on the identities of the characters mentioned, be advised that this will only occur in situations in which we would be comfortable recounting said "adventures" in a regular social gathering with the names intact (ie. non-digital person-to-person interactions). As we plan on mostly avoiding stories in which anyone except Rick Valenzano (our inspiration and muse (and author (see, we're doing the parentheses thing again, I warned you))) appears ridiculous, you should be free and in the clear. The one exception being in the case of us being out for sweet, sweet revenge.
* Note, we will use the real names of individuals where it is of clear benefit to them (ie. if they want readers to contact them), or if they otherwise ask us to divulge their identities (which seems unnecessary, but who knows what you people want).
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
On this Episode of "Cinematastic with Rick": District 9
Let me start off with the following: I enjoyed watching District 9 and felt it was well worth the price of admission. Now let me temper that statement: rarely have I ever found myself both impressed and disappointed by the same film, and somehow District 9 did just that.
The good: the premise is fantastic. The main idea behind the film is that an alien ship has broken down over Johannesburg, at which point the aliens are herded off their ship and into a ghetto of sorts. However, the locals don't like the presence of the aliens and have the government relocate the aliens farther from the city. The first half of the film follows a particular bureaucrat named Wikus Van De Merwe (played by Sharlto Copley) as he heads the effort to inform the aliens of the impending relocation.
Most of this part of the movie is filmed in a documentary style as it follows the work of Wikus and the private corporation that has been given the task of moving the aliens. Is Wikus a standard bumbling bureaucrat at an evil corporation who only gets his job through nepotism? Of course he is. Does Copley go over-the-top with his performance? A little bit. But at the same time, I was still entranced by the plot, pacing, and cinematography.
The main problem I had with the film is that the script takes this brilliant idea and bringing it right back on to the beaten path. While the first half brings up a lot of interesting issues regarding apartheid, the treatment of refugees, and immigation, the last half simply follows the standard action movie formula.
Don't get me wrong, I like action movies, and the director, Neill Blomkamp, plays the formula very well. But he relies too heavily on well-worn cliches. While the originality of the film actually makes this predictable turn somewhat unpredictable, I have to say I still came out of the film disappointed. It just feels too much like strong film that should have been a sci-fi classic.
What are others saying about this movie? Rottentomatoes finds that a strong proportion of movie critics favourably reviewed this film. Of those I pay attention to, the reaction is somewhat more lukewarm. Interestingly enough, it is also for a divergent set of reasons too.
While Alan Bacchus loved the final action set piece, but he is less than impressed with the characterization of Wikus and found the mix of documentary and non-documentary styles distracting. Will Leitch similarly loves the concept and look as I do, but was dissapointed with cliched action ending. Roger Ebert agrees, and adds that he feels that aside from a few specific exceptions, the aliens are difficult to sympathize with.
By the way, be sure to check out the short film Alive in Joburg, also by Blomkamp, on which this movie is based. This wonderful short distills the premise into 6 minutes, but certainly leaves a lot of room for expansion. In this end, I do appreciate the attempt to extend the ideas into a feature-length film. And while District 9 is certainly well-done, I can't help but feel it is also something of a missed opportunity.
By the way, I need a name for these movie review segments and so I'd love to here of your suggestions in the comments. Also, if you've seen the movie, I'd like to hear what you think about it.
The good: the premise is fantastic. The main idea behind the film is that an alien ship has broken down over Johannesburg, at which point the aliens are herded off their ship and into a ghetto of sorts. However, the locals don't like the presence of the aliens and have the government relocate the aliens farther from the city. The first half of the film follows a particular bureaucrat named Wikus Van De Merwe (played by Sharlto Copley) as he heads the effort to inform the aliens of the impending relocation.
Most of this part of the movie is filmed in a documentary style as it follows the work of Wikus and the private corporation that has been given the task of moving the aliens. Is Wikus a standard bumbling bureaucrat at an evil corporation who only gets his job through nepotism? Of course he is. Does Copley go over-the-top with his performance? A little bit. But at the same time, I was still entranced by the plot, pacing, and cinematography.
The main problem I had with the film is that the script takes this brilliant idea and bringing it right back on to the beaten path. While the first half brings up a lot of interesting issues regarding apartheid, the treatment of refugees, and immigation, the last half simply follows the standard action movie formula.
Don't get me wrong, I like action movies, and the director, Neill Blomkamp, plays the formula very well. But he relies too heavily on well-worn cliches. While the originality of the film actually makes this predictable turn somewhat unpredictable, I have to say I still came out of the film disappointed. It just feels too much like strong film that should have been a sci-fi classic.
What are others saying about this movie? Rottentomatoes finds that a strong proportion of movie critics favourably reviewed this film. Of those I pay attention to, the reaction is somewhat more lukewarm. Interestingly enough, it is also for a divergent set of reasons too.
While Alan Bacchus loved the final action set piece, but he is less than impressed with the characterization of Wikus and found the mix of documentary and non-documentary styles distracting. Will Leitch similarly loves the concept and look as I do, but was dissapointed with cliched action ending. Roger Ebert agrees, and adds that he feels that aside from a few specific exceptions, the aliens are difficult to sympathize with.
By the way, be sure to check out the short film Alive in Joburg, also by Blomkamp, on which this movie is based. This wonderful short distills the premise into 6 minutes, but certainly leaves a lot of room for expansion. In this end, I do appreciate the attempt to extend the ideas into a feature-length film. And while District 9 is certainly well-done, I can't help but feel it is also something of a missed opportunity.
By the way, I need a name for these movie review segments and so I'd love to here of your suggestions in the comments. Also, if you've seen the movie, I'd like to hear what you think about it.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
"Epic Movie? More like Epic Fail!"*
I really enjoy going to the cinema. I love being overwhelmed by the big screens and hearing how other people react to a film. I even kind of enjoy that slightly nauseous feeling I get after leaving the theatre having gone through a fountain sprite and bag of gummy bears (note, I am a firm believer that this feeling is part of the experience).
But, there are also only so many hours in the day and so much money in my pocket. Which are just some of the reasons I have always found a certain set of movie critics quite valuable.
I say certain set because I don't find all critics valuable to me personally. It is not because they are poor writers or bad critics, its just that they don't help me pick movies to watch. In some sense, I look for critics that have similar sensibilities as I do, this way I know that if they liked a film, I probably will too.
Another important function that movie critics serve involves highlighting lesser known films that I might otherwise miss. I always enjoy being surprised by a film, and so throwing a little less conventional fare into the mix is always helpful - particularly if it is suggested by a source I trust.
With these ideas in mind, I have been thinking about helping to populate this corner of the internet with a few movie reviews of my own. If you are reading this blog, you almost certainly know me personally and so probably agree with me on at least some aspects of movie-watching taste. Perhaps you will find these reviews useful. And if you don't, you are free to share regarding where our opinions differ. Or mock me as is probably more likely.
Anyways, before I write anything of my own, I thought I'd share a lineup of critics and movie sites I usually pay attention to. The first is Brian D. Johnson who writes for Maclean's. I initially became a reader mostly because my parents used to have a Maclean's subscription. However, I find of all critics I have encountered, his interests lie closest to me. He also tends to spotlight Canadian filmakers I might otherwise miss due to the poor job that we as a nation do of celebrating our own films. You can check out his work on his blog.
Keeping with the Canadian theme, I also like the work of Alan Bacchus at Daily Film Dose. He has been writing that blog for a few years now with the idea being that he publishes a movie review every day. He is also not a bad ballplayer, which I know first-hand having played against him in a men's league a few years back.
Mostly due to the fact that I spend quite a bit of time scouring Slate, I have also gotten into the habit of checking out the work of Dana Stevens. Of all the people listed here, I probably agree with her the least, but its nice to have a contrasting point of view. I ain't just lookin' for yes men in my critic blog-roll.
I am also pleased that Will Leitch has started routinely adding movie reviews to his site. I still don't know what a Tumblr blog is, but I like this one. Leitch is much more famous from his work in the sports blogosphere, but I find his movie articles quite perceptive. I certainly appreciate the fact that everything he writes emanates how much he enjoys doing what he is doing.
Finally, I have recently been getting into Roger Ebert's site which certainly offers a lot more than just movie reviews. He certainly knows what he is talking about and has a wealth of information there on the site that I'm sure, at the very least, will help you procrastinate.
So stay tuned for some of reviews which I hopefully will eventually write. I expect that I won't just tackle new films, as I plan to mention some older movies that catch my eye as well. After all, that is what rental stores are for.
* Note, I did not actually see Epic Movie and never intend to do so. I don't usually like judging a movie completely by its trailer, but that movie just looks awful. If I ever do see Epic Movie, I can only imagine it is because I am being tortured or lost a bet. Anyways, I just thought this was a hilariously terrible headline for a review of that movie. A quick google search shows that I am not the only one who thought of this tagline. I think that is a good sign that I will not be adding anything particularly noteworthy to the world film criticism.
But, there are also only so many hours in the day and so much money in my pocket. Which are just some of the reasons I have always found a certain set of movie critics quite valuable.
I say certain set because I don't find all critics valuable to me personally. It is not because they are poor writers or bad critics, its just that they don't help me pick movies to watch. In some sense, I look for critics that have similar sensibilities as I do, this way I know that if they liked a film, I probably will too.
Another important function that movie critics serve involves highlighting lesser known films that I might otherwise miss. I always enjoy being surprised by a film, and so throwing a little less conventional fare into the mix is always helpful - particularly if it is suggested by a source I trust.
With these ideas in mind, I have been thinking about helping to populate this corner of the internet with a few movie reviews of my own. If you are reading this blog, you almost certainly know me personally and so probably agree with me on at least some aspects of movie-watching taste. Perhaps you will find these reviews useful. And if you don't, you are free to share regarding where our opinions differ. Or mock me as is probably more likely.
Anyways, before I write anything of my own, I thought I'd share a lineup of critics and movie sites I usually pay attention to. The first is Brian D. Johnson who writes for Maclean's. I initially became a reader mostly because my parents used to have a Maclean's subscription. However, I find of all critics I have encountered, his interests lie closest to me. He also tends to spotlight Canadian filmakers I might otherwise miss due to the poor job that we as a nation do of celebrating our own films. You can check out his work on his blog.
Keeping with the Canadian theme, I also like the work of Alan Bacchus at Daily Film Dose. He has been writing that blog for a few years now with the idea being that he publishes a movie review every day. He is also not a bad ballplayer, which I know first-hand having played against him in a men's league a few years back.
Mostly due to the fact that I spend quite a bit of time scouring Slate, I have also gotten into the habit of checking out the work of Dana Stevens. Of all the people listed here, I probably agree with her the least, but its nice to have a contrasting point of view. I ain't just lookin' for yes men in my critic blog-roll.
I am also pleased that Will Leitch has started routinely adding movie reviews to his site. I still don't know what a Tumblr blog is, but I like this one. Leitch is much more famous from his work in the sports blogosphere, but I find his movie articles quite perceptive. I certainly appreciate the fact that everything he writes emanates how much he enjoys doing what he is doing.
Finally, I have recently been getting into Roger Ebert's site which certainly offers a lot more than just movie reviews. He certainly knows what he is talking about and has a wealth of information there on the site that I'm sure, at the very least, will help you procrastinate.
So stay tuned for some of reviews which I hopefully will eventually write. I expect that I won't just tackle new films, as I plan to mention some older movies that catch my eye as well. After all, that is what rental stores are for.
* Note, I did not actually see Epic Movie and never intend to do so. I don't usually like judging a movie completely by its trailer, but that movie just looks awful. If I ever do see Epic Movie, I can only imagine it is because I am being tortured or lost a bet. Anyways, I just thought this was a hilariously terrible headline for a review of that movie. A quick google search shows that I am not the only one who thought of this tagline. I think that is a good sign that I will not be adding anything particularly noteworthy to the world film criticism.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
On Cannibalism
A lot has happened since I last wrote something on this here blog. The Jays started playing terribly and ditched Rolen and Rios. I took a 2 and a half week vacation in Toronto. I went to the Edmonton Folk Festival. My bloody Master's thesis keeps on dragging on.
I'll cover some of these topics and others in the future, but probably won't be able to write longer pieces for a few weeks (much to your surprise I'm sure). However, on the advice of a wise man, I will try to use this space as a way to clear my head of science when I find myself stuck during my thesis writing. These posts will be shorter and more comedic (at least, that will be the attempt) than most of my work in the past. This is one such post.
A friend of mine has been trying out the online dating scene and recently joined a new site which tries to match people based on the results of a survey. I have no idea if this is the site often advertised on the television; I have not asked. What I do know is that one of the questions in the survey he completed is as follows:
If you were offered the opportunity to eat human meat prepared any way you like, would you at least try it?
* Yes
* No
* Only as a last resort for survival.
Now this question is hilarious for a myriad of reasons, including a large number of inside jokes that I will not go into here. However, something about that last selection struck me because of the stated opportunity to have the "human meat prepared any way you like." How exactly would this situation come about?
I'm sure I'm not the only one whose mind immediately goes to planes crash-landing in the Andes when the topic of cannibalism comes up*. Apparently, planes never crash in any other mountain ranges, or at least no other mountain ranges inspire cannibalism. Anyways, let us run with the Andes situation for the moment.
As the survey question allows us to have the human meat anyway we want, clearly one of our fellow passengers - specifically the non-dead ones, although I suppose we might only be able to count on our undead fellow passengers - must include say, the Iron Chefs. And when the Iron Chefs travel, they (obviously) bring along all necessary spices and cooking apparatus with them in case of such an emergency. As such, our (possibly zombie) Iron Chef friends have access to a fully functional stove, grill, deep-fryer, etc. and an army of assistants (who may or may not also be zombies). This assortment of apparatus were unharmed in the plane crash. Since they can't run on electricity, they must all run on propane, of which there is an abundance (it is preposterous to believe otherwise). The Iron Chefs, because of their love of cooking, will then happily make you a four or five course meal of your choosing, with the not so secret ingredient of human flesh. Personally, I would avoid the flesh of the undead (except perhaps as a garnish), but you are free to do as you like.
Regardless, I think that we have answered the question of whether a situation may arise in which you have to eat human meat to survive but are given the option of eating it in any way you want, with a resounding yes. For any employee of the aforementioned dating site who stumbles across this blog post (or perhaps is already one of my many many readers), I offer a pre-emptive "you're welcome" for devising a situation that will help you make your survey question more concrete. You should start mailing me the royalty checks as soon as possible. Same goes for anyone who wants to make my "zombie Iron Chef crash-landed in the Andes cannibal" story into a movie. Keep in mind, the existence of this blog post will make any lawsuits really easy.
* Note: this assertion is not completely true. I often think of a particular Kids in the Hall sketch seen here.
I'll cover some of these topics and others in the future, but probably won't be able to write longer pieces for a few weeks (much to your surprise I'm sure). However, on the advice of a wise man, I will try to use this space as a way to clear my head of science when I find myself stuck during my thesis writing. These posts will be shorter and more comedic (at least, that will be the attempt) than most of my work in the past. This is one such post.
A friend of mine has been trying out the online dating scene and recently joined a new site which tries to match people based on the results of a survey. I have no idea if this is the site often advertised on the television; I have not asked. What I do know is that one of the questions in the survey he completed is as follows:
If you were offered the opportunity to eat human meat prepared any way you like, would you at least try it?
* Yes
* No
* Only as a last resort for survival.
Now this question is hilarious for a myriad of reasons, including a large number of inside jokes that I will not go into here. However, something about that last selection struck me because of the stated opportunity to have the "human meat prepared any way you like." How exactly would this situation come about?
I'm sure I'm not the only one whose mind immediately goes to planes crash-landing in the Andes when the topic of cannibalism comes up*. Apparently, planes never crash in any other mountain ranges, or at least no other mountain ranges inspire cannibalism. Anyways, let us run with the Andes situation for the moment.
As the survey question allows us to have the human meat anyway we want, clearly one of our fellow passengers - specifically the non-dead ones, although I suppose we might only be able to count on our undead fellow passengers - must include say, the Iron Chefs. And when the Iron Chefs travel, they (obviously) bring along all necessary spices and cooking apparatus with them in case of such an emergency. As such, our (possibly zombie) Iron Chef friends have access to a fully functional stove, grill, deep-fryer, etc. and an army of assistants (who may or may not also be zombies). This assortment of apparatus were unharmed in the plane crash. Since they can't run on electricity, they must all run on propane, of which there is an abundance (it is preposterous to believe otherwise). The Iron Chefs, because of their love of cooking, will then happily make you a four or five course meal of your choosing, with the not so secret ingredient of human flesh. Personally, I would avoid the flesh of the undead (except perhaps as a garnish), but you are free to do as you like.
Regardless, I think that we have answered the question of whether a situation may arise in which you have to eat human meat to survive but are given the option of eating it in any way you want, with a resounding yes. For any employee of the aforementioned dating site who stumbles across this blog post (or perhaps is already one of my many many readers), I offer a pre-emptive "you're welcome" for devising a situation that will help you make your survey question more concrete. You should start mailing me the royalty checks as soon as possible. Same goes for anyone who wants to make my "zombie Iron Chef crash-landed in the Andes cannibal" story into a movie. Keep in mind, the existence of this blog post will make any lawsuits really easy.
* Note: this assertion is not completely true. I often think of a particular Kids in the Hall sketch seen here.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Only In California
I am going to get into other tales from my trip to Pasadena later, but I wanted to give a quick update on one of my adventures in Southern California. As part of the conference, the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) hosts a video competition with the goal of encouraging students to enter into a career in AI research. As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, I was part of a video about a system that interprets motions made with a Wiimote. This film had been made so as to be entered into the competition and ended up being nominated for the Best Short Film Award. As the creator of the film could not be there, I was designated as his proxy since I was attending the conference.
This is all a long-winded way of saying that I have officially appeared in an award winning short film. It is an accomplishment that I am now going to add to resumes and business cards. As the proxy, I was also entrusted with the task of saying a 30 second speech. Since I did not expect we would win, it ended up coming something like this:
"Michael (the video director) couldn't be here today, and so he sent me in his place. He didn't tell me what he wanted to say, so I am just going to assume that he would have thanked Ricardo who built the WiiGesture system with him, and me, for appearing in the film. Thanks."
Anyone who knows me is probably also aware that there were a lot of "ummm"s and "ahhh"s thrown in as well.
This is all a long-winded way of saying that I have officially appeared in an award winning short film. It is an accomplishment that I am now going to add to resumes and business cards. As the proxy, I was also entrusted with the task of saying a 30 second speech. Since I did not expect we would win, it ended up coming something like this:
"Michael (the video director) couldn't be here today, and so he sent me in his place. He didn't tell me what he wanted to say, so I am just going to assume that he would have thanked Ricardo who built the WiiGesture system with him, and me, for appearing in the film. Thanks."
Anyone who knows me is probably also aware that there were a lot of "ummm"s and "ahhh"s thrown in as well.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Live From Pasadena, it's Rick Velanzano
I am currently in Pasadena at the General Game Playing Competition. The competition is held as part of a workshop at the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). And my name has been misspelled on my name tag.
General Game Playing is part of a push towards constructing general machine reasoning systems. The idea is to construct a program that can reason about the task at hand and devise a strategy to do it well. The field of games used as a test bed because a large number of tasks can be expressed in this way, and competition offers a simple well to compare alternative approaches.
Artificial intelligence researchers have had tremendous success in developing programs that perform specific games at a world-class level. The classic example was Deep Blue which bet the world-champion Chess champion Gary Kasparov. At the University of Alberta, we have one of the strongest games research group in the world and some of our more public successes include the construction of a program, Chinook, which is not only world-class at Checkers but provably can never be beaten. Our Computer Poker Research Group also constructed a program, Polaris, that has shown capable of defeating world-class poker players over a large number of heads-up limit hold'em matches. Oh yeah, and I was not involved in either of those projects.
However, these programs are limited in that they are specific to the exact game they were designed to play. These programs can playing arbitrarily poorly if even even slight modifications are made to the game, like changing the way a knight moves, changing the size of the board, or changing the number of players. On the other hand, humans are much better at handling such game changes.
In comparison, general game playing programs are expected to play a large variety of games, and actually only get the games rules immediately before the game is to begin. The game then consists of two phases: the initial "thinking" phase, during which the program has an opportunity to analyze the game descriptions; the game-play phase, during which players are required to make a move ever so often (the time changes depending on the game).
Anyways, I will be updating this page over the next week with updates on how the conference is going and how we did in the competition.
UPDATE: The competition started with two divisions of 4 players. We came second in our division and are off to the finals with 3 other teams. We also just got killed when we tried to play Sudoku.
UPDATE 2: Well, the competition is over and we ended up coming in third. We were a little disappointed because we missed out on second by the smallest of margins (it came down to how the numbers were rounded), and the fact that we had some trouble with a program on some of the games. Regardless, we are pleased with the result and despite a few hiccups, were much happier about the way the competition was run this year.
General Game Playing is part of a push towards constructing general machine reasoning systems. The idea is to construct a program that can reason about the task at hand and devise a strategy to do it well. The field of games used as a test bed because a large number of tasks can be expressed in this way, and competition offers a simple well to compare alternative approaches.
Artificial intelligence researchers have had tremendous success in developing programs that perform specific games at a world-class level. The classic example was Deep Blue which bet the world-champion Chess champion Gary Kasparov. At the University of Alberta, we have one of the strongest games research group in the world and some of our more public successes include the construction of a program, Chinook, which is not only world-class at Checkers but provably can never be beaten. Our Computer Poker Research Group also constructed a program, Polaris, that has shown capable of defeating world-class poker players over a large number of heads-up limit hold'em matches. Oh yeah, and I was not involved in either of those projects.
However, these programs are limited in that they are specific to the exact game they were designed to play. These programs can playing arbitrarily poorly if even even slight modifications are made to the game, like changing the way a knight moves, changing the size of the board, or changing the number of players. On the other hand, humans are much better at handling such game changes.
In comparison, general game playing programs are expected to play a large variety of games, and actually only get the games rules immediately before the game is to begin. The game then consists of two phases: the initial "thinking" phase, during which the program has an opportunity to analyze the game descriptions; the game-play phase, during which players are required to make a move ever so often (the time changes depending on the game).
Anyways, I will be updating this page over the next week with updates on how the conference is going and how we did in the competition.
UPDATE: The competition started with two divisions of 4 players. We came second in our division and are off to the finals with 3 other teams. We also just got killed when we tried to play Sudoku.
UPDATE 2: Well, the competition is over and we ended up coming in third. We were a little disappointed because we missed out on second by the smallest of margins (it came down to how the numbers were rounded), and the fact that we had some trouble with a program on some of the games. Regardless, we are pleased with the result and despite a few hiccups, were much happier about the way the competition was run this year.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
