text stringlengths 1 2.55k |
|---|
= = = Maico Buncio = = = |
Maico Buncio (born as Maico Greg T. Buncio : 10 September 1988 – 15 May 2011) was a Filipino motorcycle racer and four-time Philippine national superbike champion. He died after a race accident in Clark, Pampanga Philippines on 15 May 2011. |
From Mandaluyong City, Buncio is the son of Gregorio "Yoyong" Buncio, a motorcycle racer, mechanic, and modifier. His mother is Mylene Buncio. He has four other siblings, namely Lourdes, Shara, Jacquelyn, and Barny. |
Buncio's father gave him the name "Maico" from a European motorcycle brand. At the age of three, he had started to learn riding motorcycles before bicycles. His training began early under the mentoring of his experienced father. |
Buncio started his motocross competition career at the age of eight. He won first place in the 1996 FBO Motorcross Series 50cc category for ten years old and below held at the TRAKSNIJAK Race Track in Tagaytay City. |
At the age of 14, Buncio represented the Philippines in Perris, California at the FMF Memorial Day Motorcross Races, winning first place in the Mini Class 85cc for the 14 years old and below category. |
Buncio took up Bachelor of Science in Commerce, Major in Entrepreneurship at the University of Santo Tomas. Buncio was a consistent honor student since elementary and studied in OB Montessori until high school. He also finished his computer New Media Design Course from Phoenix One Knowledge Solutions in Makati on his ... |
Buncio was the sole representative of the Philippines in the 2004 Yamaha ASEAN Cup held at Shah Alam, Malaysia, where he raced against competitors from Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and Indonesia. He won the fourth overall title for the country despite having to start from the back of the grid and having to race agai... |
Yamaha rider Buncio dominated the underbone racing 150 cc category for four years since 2006 before placing second to Suzuki rider Johnlery Enriquez in the 2010 event sponsored by Motorcycle Taipei Research Team and PAGCOR Sports. |
Buncio also broke records at the 3.2-kilometer Batangas Racing Circuit with a lap time of one minute, 49 seconds (400cc Superbike category) and two minutes, seven seconds (Underbone category). |
2007 was the "most memorable" for Buncio when, at the age of 19, he broke the winning streak of ten-time Rider of the Year, Jolet Jao in the 2007 Shell Advance Superbikes Series. Buncio held the Superbike National Champion title for the next three years. |
He also finished a race in the AMA Superbike 600cc class in Laguna Seca U.S.A. on September 2008. |
In 2009, Buncio was chosen as the endorser for Accel Sports Sporteum Philippines Inc. |
Buncio was also awarded the Golden Wheel Awards Driver of the Year in 2010 and 2011. |
He has ridden mostly Yamaha bikes in his entire career with Factory Yamaha and YRS until he signed for Team Suzuki Pilipinas in late 2010 |
Maico was also a businessman, opened his own YRS Motorcycle Racing shop in Caloocan, and was a race director of the Moto ROC underbone race series. He is a big fan of Valentino Rossi of MotoGP and always dreamed to compete in international motorcycle racing. |
He often carries his trademark logo and the iconic race number "129" usually in a form of a sticker on his apparel and motorcycles. |
Maico Buncio fell a high speed accident on 15 May 2011 during the Superbike qualifying race at the Clark International Speedway Racing Circuit. While passing a semi-straight right hand sweeper on the speedway, Buncio's Suzuki GSX-R 600 motorbike slid and crashed into the run-off section. He was thrown off his bike and... |
Buncio was thrown off some 100 meters from his bike and was impaled on a protruding reed bar in an unfinished barrier on the Clark Speedway Circuit. He was rushed to a nearby hospital in Mabalacat and transferred to the UST Hospital in the wee hours of 15 May and was pronounced dead at 3:57 PM on the same day due to m... |
He said that the Aeromed's medical response team pulled the victim's body from the steel bar. This, he said, might have caused his son's death. The bar punctured his body and damaged his kidney and liver. Instead of cutting the steel bar to free Maico, the AeroMed emergency staffers decided to pull the young motorcycl... |
Dr. Reynante Mirano, chief of St. Luke’s Hospital Emergency Medicine, said that instead of pulling Buncio’s body from the protruding metal, the medics should have cut the steel bar. |
Maico Buncio left a memorable quote to his fellow riders "Never stop riding, because I didn't." |
Buncio's wake was held in the Loyola Memorial Chapels in Makati City and he was laid to rest in the Loyola Memorial Park in Marikina City on 21 May 2011. A motorcade organized by his fellow riders marked his funeral procession. |
= = = Maurizio Bianchi = = = |
Maurizio Bianchi (born 4 December 1955 in Pomponesco in the Province of Mantua) is an Italian pioneer of industrial music, originating from Milan. |
Bianchi was inspired by the music of Tangerine Dream, Conrad Schnitzler and Throbbing Gristle. He wrote about music for Italian magazines before beginning to release his own cassettes under the name of Sacher-Pelz in August 1979. He released four cassettes as Sacher-Pelz before switching to his own name or simply "MB"... |
Bianchi corresponded with many of the key players in the industrial music and noise music scenes including Merzbow, GX Jupitter-Larsen, SPK, Nigel Ayers of Nocturnal Emissions and William Bennett of Whitehouse. After this exchange of letters and music, his first LPs were released in 1981. |
"Symphony For A Genocide" was released on Nigel Ayers' Sterile Records label after Bianchi had sent Ayers the money to press it. Each track on the LP was named after a Nazi extermination camp. The cover featured photographs of the Auschwitz Orchestra, a group of concentration camp prisoners who were forced to play cla... |
Also in 1981, William Bennett, head of the band Whitehouse and the British Come Org. label, offered Bianchi a record contract, which Bianchi signed unchecked. It was based on a "joke contract" that Steven Stapleton of Nurse With Wound had sketched. The contract assumed all rights to Bianchi's work. After delivery of t... |
By 1983 and the release of the "Plain Truth" LP on U.K. power electronics label Broken Flag, Bianchi had become a Jehovah's Witness. At the end of 1983 Bianchi announced his withdrawal from music, stating "The end is very near, and we have a very short time to recognise our mistakes and to redeem ourselves... I stoppe... |
In 1998, encouraged by Alga Marghen label head Emanuele Carcano, who offered him a label of his own, Maurizio Bianchi resumed making music. The label was EEs'T Records, through which he released new editions of old MB albums and many new recordings. |
Bianchi then proceeded to work on over a hundred new projects both solo or in collaboration with other Italian and international artists including Atrax Morgue, Aube, Francisco López, Mauthausen Orchestra, Merzbow, Ryan Martin and Philip Julian/Cheapmachines. |
Bianchi has worked with record labels including Dais Records, the Carrboro, North Carolina based Hot Releases and the Italian Menstrual Recordings to re-release some of his out-of-print material. |
On August 19, 2009, for unspecified personal reasons, Maurizio Bianchi decided again to completely stop making music. This decision was soon after reversed; Maurizio Bianchi continued to release new music. |
In 2005, a 2-CD-Set named "Blut und Nebel" was released, consisting of a remix of his first ten LPs. Bianchi submitted the set's first CD, remixing the first 5 LPs from 1981 and 1982, to Wikipedia. The track, over 45 minutes long, is split into three .ogg files: |
Sacher-Pelz |
MB / Maurizio Bianchi first phase |
Cassettes |
Vinyl albums |
Leibstandarte SS MB |
As his releases on Come Org have been massively manipulated, Maurizio Bianchi does not count these records as part of his discography. However, in 2013 Triumph of the Will and Weltanschauung were re-issued with bonus tracks as separate CDs and as part of the Teban Slide Art box set, which also contained the unofficial... |
MB / Maurizio Bianchi second phase |
Collaborations |
= = = FIFA Order of Merit = = = |
The FIFA Order of Merit is the highest honour awarded by FIFA. The award is presented at the annual FIFA congress. It is normally awarded to people who are considered to have made a significant contribution to :association football. |
At FIFA's centennial congress they made one award for every decade of their existence. These awards were also handed out to fans, organisations, clubs, and one to African Football. These were referred to as the FIFA Centennial Order of Merit. |
The winner doesn't have to be directly involved with football to receive it. One such notable non-footballing personality was Nelson Mandela who won it for bringing South Africa back to international football. |
= = = Fadeaway = = = |
A fadeaway or fall-away in basketball is a jump shot taken while jumping backwards, away from the basket. The goal is to create space between the shooter and the defender, making the shot much harder to block. |
The shooter must have very good accuracy (much higher than when releasing a regular jump shot) and must use more strength (to counteract the backwards momentum) in a relatively short amount of time. Also, because the movement is away from the basket, the shooter has less chance to grab his own rebound. |
The shooting percentage is lower in fadeaway (because of the difficulty of the shot) and the shooter cannot get his own rebound. This leads many coaches and players to believe it is one of the worst shots in the game to take. However, once mastered, it is one of the hardest methods of shooting for defenders to block. ... |
Only a handful of great NBA players have been successful shooting fadeaways. Michael Jordan was one of the most popular shooters of the fadeaway. Wilt Chamberlain, Patrick Ewing, LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Hakeem Olajuwon, Dwyane Wade, Karl Malone, Larry Bird, Carmelo Anthony, DeMar DeRozan, and LaMarcus Aldridge are ... |
= = = Two envelopes problem = = = |
The two envelopes problem, also known as the exchange paradox, is a brain teaser, puzzle, or paradox in logic, probability, and recreational mathematics. It is of special interest in decision theory, and for the Bayesian interpretation of probability theory. Historically, it arose as a variant of the necktie paradox. |
The problem typically is introduced by formulating a hypothetical challenge of the following type: |
It seems obvious that there is no point in switching envelopes as the situation is symmetric. However, because you stand to gain twice as much money if you switch while risking only a loss of half of what you currently have, it is possible to argue that it is more beneficial to switch. The problem is to show what is w... |
Basic setup: You are given two indistinguishable envelopes, each of which contains a positive sum of money. One envelope contains twice as much as the other. You may pick one envelope and keep whatever amount it contains. You pick one envelope at random but before you open it you are given the chance to take the other... |
The switching argument: Now suppose you reason as follows: |
The puzzle: "The puzzle is to find the flaw in the very compelling line of reasoning above." This includes determining exactly "why" and under "what conditions" that step is not correct, in order to be sure not to make this mistake in a more complicated situation where the misstep may not be so obvious. In short, the ... |
Many solutions resolving the paradox have been presented. The probability theory underlying the problem is well understood, and any apparent paradox is generally due to treating what is actually a conditional probability as an unconditional probability. A large variety of similar formulations of the paradox are possib... |
Versions of the problem have continued to spark interest in the fields of philosophy and game theory. |
The total amount in both envelopes is a constant formula_1, with formula_2 in one envelope and formula_3 in the other.If you select the envelope with formula_2 first you gain the amount formula_2 by swapping. If you select the envelope with formula_3 first you lose the amount formula_2 by swapping. So you gain on aver... |
The step 7 assumes that the second choice is independent of the first choice. This is the error and this is the source of the apparent paradox. |
A common way to resolve the paradox, both in popular literature and part of the academic literature, especially in philosophy, is to assume that the 'A' in step 7 is intended to be the expected value in envelope A and that we intended to write down a formula for the expected value in envelope B. |
Step 7 states that the expected value in B = 1/2( 2A + A/2 ) |
It is pointed out that the 'A' in the first part of the formula is the expected value, given that envelope A contains less than envelope B, but the 'A', in the second part of the formula is the expected value in A, given that envelope A contains more than envelope B. The flaw in the argument is that same symbol is use... |
A correct calculation would be: |
If we then take the sum in one envelope to be x and the sum in the other to be 2x the expected value calculations becomes: |
which is equal to the expected sum in A. |
In non-technical language, what goes wrong (see Necktie paradox) is that, in the scenario provided, the mathematics use relative values of A and B (that is, it assumes that one would gain more money if A is less than B than one would lose if the opposite were true). However, the two values of money are fixed (one enve... |
Line 7 should have been worked out more carefully as follows: |
A will be larger when A is larger than B, than when it is smaller than B. So its average values (expectation values) in those two cases are different. And the average value of A is not the same as A itself, anyway. Two mistakes are being made: the writer forgot he was taking expectation values, and he forgot he was ta... |
It would have been easier to compute E(B) directly. Denoting the lower of the two amounts by "x", and taking it to be fixed (even if unknown) we find that |
We learn that 1.5"x" is the expected value of the amount in Envelope B. By the same calculation it is also the expected value of the amount in Envelope A. They are the same hence there is no reason to prefer one envelope to the other. This conclusion was, of course, obvious in advance; the point is that we identified ... |
We could also continue from the correct but difficult to interpret result of the development in line 7: |
so (of course) different routes to calculate the same thing all give the same answer. |
Tsikogiannopoulos (2012) presented a different way to do these calculations. Of course, it is by definition correct to assign equal probabilities to the events that the other envelope contains double or half that amount in envelope A. So the "switching argument" is correct up to step 6. Given that the player's envelop... |
This result means yet again that the player has to expect neither profit nor loss by exchanging his/her envelope. |
We could actually open our envelope before deciding on switching or not and the above formula would still give us the correct expected return. For example, if we opened our envelope and saw that it contained 100 euros then we would set A=100 in the above formula and the expected return in case of switching would be: |
As pointed out by many authors, the mechanism by which the amounts of the two envelopes are determined is crucial for the decision of the player to switch or not his/her envelope. Suppose that the amounts in the two envelopes A and B were not determined by first fixing contents of two envelopes E1 and E2, and then nam... |
Many more variants of the problem have been introduced. Nickerson and Falk (2006) systematically survey a total of 8. |
The simple resolution above assumed that the person who invented the argument for switching was trying to calculate the expectation value of the amount in Envelope A, thinking of the two amounts in the envelopes as fixed ("x" and 2"x"). The only uncertainty is which envelope has the smaller amount "x". However, many m... |
This interpretation of the two envelopes problem appears in the first publications in which the paradox was introduced in its present-day form, Gardner (1989) and Nalebuff (1989). It is common in the more mathematical literature on the problem. It also applies to the modification of the problem (which seems to have st... |
This kind of interpretation is often called "Bayesian" because it assumes the writer is also incorporating a prior probability distribution of possible amounts of money in the two envelopes in the switching argument. |
The simple resolution depended on a particular interpretation of what the writer of the argument is trying to calculate: namely, it assumed he was after the (unconditional) expectation value of what's in Envelope B. In the mathematical literature on Two Envelopes Problem a different interpretation is more common, invo... |
In steps 6 and 7 of the switching argument, the writer imagines that that Envelope A contains a certain amount "a", and then seems to believe that given that information, the other envelope would be equally likely to contain twice or half that amount. That assumption can only be correct, if prior to knowing what was i... |
Suppose for the sake of argument, we start by imagining an amount 32 in Envelope A. In order that the reasoning in steps 6 and 7 is correct "whatever" amount happened to be in Envelope A, we apparently believe in advance that all the following ten amounts are all equally likely to be the smaller of the two amounts in ... |
Alternatively we do go on ad infinitum but now we are working with a quite ludicrous assumption, implying for instance, that it is infinitely more likely for the amount in envelope A to be smaller than 1, "and" infinitely more likely to be larger than 1024, than between those two values. This is a so-called improper p... |
Many authors have also pointed out that if a maximum sum that can be put in the envelope with the smaller amount exists, then it is very easy to see that Step 6 breaks down, since if the player holds more than the maximum sum that can be put into the "smaller" envelope they must hold the envelope containing the larger... |
But the problem can also be resolved mathematically without assuming a maximum amount. Nalebuff (1989), Christensen and Utts (1992), Falk and Konold (1992), Blachman, Christensen and Utts (1996), Nickerson and Falk (2006), pointed out that if the amounts of money in the two envelopes have any proper probability distri... |
The first two resolutions discussed above (the "simple resolution" and the "Bayesian resolution") correspond to two possible interpretations of what is going on in step 6 of the argument. They both assume that step 6 indeed is "the bad step". But the description in step 6 is ambiguous. Is the author after the uncondit... |
A large literature has developed concerning variants of the problem. The standard assumption about the way the envelopes are set up is that a sum of money is in one envelope, and twice that sum is in another envelope. One of the two envelopes is randomly given to the player ("envelope A"). The originally proposed prob... |
A first variant within the Bayesian version is to come up with a proper prior probability distribution of the smaller amount of money in the two envelopes, such that when Step 6 is performed properly, the advice is still to prefer Envelope B, whatever might be in Envelope A. So though the specific calculation performe... |
In these cases it can be shown that the expected sum in both envelopes is infinite. There is no gain, on average, in swapping. |
Though Bayesian probability theory can resolve the first mathematical interpretation of the paradox above, it turns out that examples can be found of proper probability distributions, such that the expected value of the amount in the second envelope given that in the first does exceed the amount in the first, whatever... |
Denote again the amount of money in the first envelope by "A" and that in the second by "B". We think of these as random. Let "X" be the smaller of the two amounts and "Y=2X" be the larger. Notice that once we have fixed a probability distribution for "X" then the joint probability distribution of "A,B" is fixed, sinc... |
The "bad step" 6 in the "always switching" argument led us to the finding "E(B|A=a)>a" for all "a", and hence to the recommendation to switch, whether or not we know "a". Now, it turns out that one can quite easily invent proper probability distributions for "X", the smaller of the two amounts of money, such that this... |
As mentioned before, it cannot be true that whatever "a", given "A=a", "B" is equally likely to be "a"/2 or 2"a", but it can be true that whatever "a", given "A=a", "B" is larger in expected value than "a". |
Suppose for example (Broome, 1995) that the envelope with the smaller amount actually contains 2 dollars with probability 2/3 where "n" = 0, 1, 2,… These probabilities sum to 1, hence the distribution is a proper prior (for subjectivists) and a completely decent probability law also for frequentists. |
Imagine what might be in the first envelope. A sensible strategy would certainly be to swap when the first envelope contains 1, as the other must then contain 2. Suppose on the other hand the first envelope contains 2. In that case there are two possibilities: the envelope pair in front of us is either {1, 2} or {2, 4... |
End of preview. Expand in Data Studio
- Downloads last month
- 1