To continue the shell scripts reference for snarfing things already downloaded, here is a bit more automated. It incorporates "cut" to separate an element and also copy it someplace else using scary quotes.
cp `find .mozilla/ -type f -amin -50 | xargs "file" | grep WebM | cut -d " " -f1 | cut -d ":" -f1` Desktop/FourierStanfordLecture2.webmWhen using anything on the net I see many things that are considered in my "Markov Chain" and I have in the past looked for things relating to Doctor Who, blender, gimp, Jeri Ellsworth, etc.
The problem is that I am not a Markov process and I am being treated as such. There is no probability of transition between Fourier and gimp, unless I recognize something that might apply, but there is also a billion hidden transitions that might go to vector gradient flow or some other idea. The big problem is that I am being treated as a statistical probabilistic entity and I am not. This is why I use the elvi, wget, w3m, beautifulsoup, and many other tools. There is a virtual zero probability that I will transition from Fourier to LOL cats, even though I have in the past looked at LOL cats to know what it is. I will likely never study LOL cats again as it is a completed task.
The hidden information is the state of mind and intent. It will always remain hidden and no amount of tracking will tell me where I will go next until they have a perfect model of my mind that is deterministic. I do not move on the throw of dice from subject to subject. I complete the prerequisites and move on to the main course.
What I deduce from observation is quite different than what others might deduce, I am sure. I observe that 361,719 people begin viewing the first lecture on Graduate Fourier analysis at Stanford, and by the end or at its greatest complexity is 7,000. This implies that only 2% of people can or do follow it all the way through. I could assume it is too complex for 98% of people interested, or perhaps it just gets boring.
People who watched this also watched...
And I am generic people and so I might transition here...
The path through a matrix to a goal is much like the traveling salesman problem, but everybody is in a different time, different origin , with different preceding path and skill. I could observe that 90% of people will take the silly path to a dead end node.
The point is that it is distracting to be presented with the transition probabilities as if I were a stochastic entity. The associations can be comical at times, it is like a ChomskyBot trying to contribute to a conversation about quantum fluctuations in 14 nanometer flip-chip semiconductor processing. I have also observed "deceptobots" that implement the same logical techniques that are used to disrupt a reasoned solution and re-direct it to a false conclusion. Pretty much the algorithm of a corrupt barrister. Look a bear!
How many corrupt lawyers does it take to screw in a light bulb, 0, they pass a law that makes you do it for them.
Sometimes it depends on where you look. I was browsing through some html code and so I see hidden options. I wonder how a person is supposed to know that action "X" will reveal a hidden option that is undocumented when there is no usage manual in existence. FireBug is so cool. I guess it is the web developer tools now though.