The article fails to mention that the areas closest to the ear are also the areas associated with speech and auditory processing, but the figure in the NYT story is very unclear about the specific location in which the "increased metabolism" occurs. Could it be that there's a 7% increase in metabolism in that part of the brain because the subjects are listening? Or perhaps because they're ignoring the looped recording? (i.e., Could that be the brain's dev/null for speech?)
Furthermore, the one paragraph that might answer those questions is poorly worded and -given the kind of mendacity we've unfortunately become used to these days- suspiciously so. There are only three sentences that describe methodology:
Each study subject was fitted with a cellphone on each ear and then underwent two 50-minute scans. During one scan, the cellphones were turned off, but during the other scan, the phone on the right ear was activated to receive a call from a recorded message, although the sound was turned off to avoid auditory stimulation. Whether the phone was on or off did not affect the overall metabolism of the brain, but the scans did show a 7 percent increase in activity in the part of the brain closest to the antenna.
How horrible is that? Does the third sentence really mean that the increased activity is not correlated to whether the phone is on?? Or did the author really mean "Whether the sound was on or off" instead? No editor worth his or her salt would have let that slip by. Or is this a verbatim quote from the report? If so, this should not have passed peer review. If that sentence accurately reflects the methods and results, then the real conclusion is that we should all be attaching antennae to our heads, forget the transmitters.
All in all, I say FAIL to the NYT (and probably also to JAMA and the NIH but the NYT failed so hard I can't tell).
The US Navy is really pushing "ammo-less" weapon systems because of the nature of the threat of the Chinese arsenal, especially the air force.
In a nutshell, the US could fire everything it had at Chinese jets, and score a kill with each shot, and still face an overwhelming force. The same goes for US bullets and PRC soldiers. So of course they want lasers. All you need is electricity... and lots and lots of technicians.
(Nobody's asking why the US is attacking China in these scenarios... that's the most bothersome part.)
Yes, the DVDA attempt to prosecute anyone who even linked to a host of the deCSS "liberated" decryption key was the first case of the Streisand effect. It evoked an outraged response from the community, including a very effective EFF Blue Ribbon campaign for Freedom of Speech Online, which is still active. I still own several t-shirts with the CSS key printed on the back. This was way back in like 1999 or something.
But it wasn't named the Streisand Effect until Barbara Streisand sued the California Coastal Records Project (an awesome site) for publishing pictures of her estate on the coast of California. When this news hit the web, the pictures were copied far and wide in support of CCRP. And Streisand lost her lawsuit.
Message to broadcast journalists: Don't sit around trying to sound and look authoritative when talking about something you don't know Jack about. It makes you look like an idiot 16 years later when the average 1st grader knows more than you did then.
It just reinforces every other experience I've had when I've seen what journalists do to "facts" about which I have separate, objective knowledge: they ALWAYS get something wrong. Often, something important. And the culprit is always either lack of attention to detail, or a rush to understanding/judgment (or both).
It makes me watch the news in a new light. I never believe anything I read/see in the news anymore, after seeing how frequently they get their 'facts' wrong.
Your analogy would hold water if Bing was copying the style of the results page (layout, colors, etc).
In this case, a better analogy would be if Ford bought key Toyota parts, put them in Ford vehicles, and then bragged about the superiority of Ford cars and trucks.
Yes, it only applies to autocomplete. But since this story hit the media a month ago, I've been watching how I use autocomplete, and learned something:
I use autocomplete to help me phrase my search terms, almost subconsciously. Any geek knows that phrasing a search is the key to getting proper results. I will frequently use the autocomplete to validate or invalidate several attempts at phrasing the search before I hit enter. Same goes for spelling. Autocomplete results in me creating more successful searches with more pertinent results.
Now, I seldom use this for porn because, 1) i use filestube as my porn search engine, and 2) I usually don't need help phrasing a search for "big butts." (And, I've noticed that Google autocomplete stopped working for pornstar names a long time ago, far earlier than their announcement in late 2010.)
But, for torrents, autocomplete is sometimes a valuable tool. No, I don't need it, but the responsiveness of autocomplete is an aid to the thought process of editing the search phrase. If they start extending their autocomplete bannination to other topics, I'd start getting concerned. Right now it's only the top of a slope which may or may not be slippery.
But "its just autocomplete" isn't a valid excuse, for several reasons. Google is making editorial decisions when they're relied upon to be a neutral, content-independent indexing service. It scares some people because, there's no easier and more effective way to censor something than to cripple its index entries. What's next?
Which behaves just like BushCheney's "justice" department, which acted just like Clinton's "Justice" department, which acted just like Bush40's "Justice" Department, which acted just like....
The DOJ stopped 'belonging' to a president long, long ago.
What are you offering in terms of compensation for "a full day's work?"
I certainly understand your frustration with the work ethic of some young people, and the sense of entitlement that many new grads bring with them. But smart people who understand that they're well-compensated *will* go the extra mile for you. Not just monetary compensation, but benefits and social intangibles as well. It also helps to be a good interviewer and learn to identify the honest hard-workers who enjoy their work, and not just hire people based on their resumes. The latter is a recipe for disaster.
When workers hear comments like yours, smart people react with "this guy's only interested in squeezing us to maximize his bottom line, why should I do anything extra for him?" And I'd say they're correct, not because they're right about you specifically, but because they are able to find someone else who sounds like they will provide a better boss-employee relationship. Thus, you're left with the desperate, the dumb, and the dropouts -- people who justify your opinions.
Correct, and if they wanted effective moles, they'd put them in at the middle-management level where the detail decisions get made, not at the Executive level where -even at Apple- they are too far removed from the code and too visible to be effective saboteurs.
I've been reading Fast Food Nation and just finished the french fry chapter. (Potatoes are shot out of a cannon at a wire screen to make fries.) This morning I started the beef chapter, and then on the drive to work listened to the Morning Jocks rave about the result of asking for "extra meat" when ordering food at Taco Bell.
Now I know why every time I eat at Taco Bell, I regret it the next morning. It's really disgusting what it does to my bowels... I refuse to eat there anymore, especially in So California where there are so many great places to get real Mexican food that doesn't turn your morning poop into something worthy of a hazmat response. I spent 10 days in Mexico last month, eating local food. It all tasted great, and none of it did to me what Taco Bell does to me. Yet, when I got home to Los Angeles, and started eating processed USian foods again, I had the runs for a week. (Which is why I cracked open the copy of Fast Food Nation that had sat unread on my shelf for two years.)
Really, read that book. It's fascinating and not really judgmental like Super Size Me was.
There's a difference between operating for 30 min at an altitude of 100mi and operating for 10 years at 23,000 miles altitude. I doubt NASA is proposing using Androids and iPhones for things much more demanding than weeklong shuttle missions, or maybe pushing the envelope to ISS deloyment for 90 days or so. Beyond that, the phones *will* reliably fail.
Google the phrase "total dose ionizing radiation" and poke around a bit, maybe also looking for the phrase "total dose hardness of bulk cmos" for fun. Then look up "single event effects in bulk cmos." There's a lot of info out there.
Well, just like our economists forgetting the economics lessons of the past 80 to 100 years, now NASA is faced with budget cuts after the resulting spectacular economic failures. So, how does NASA respond? By apparently forgetting the engineering lessons of the past 80 to 100 years. Keyword apparently.
I've designed build space electronics, from launch vehicles to earth science instrumentation for low earth orbit, to weather and comm satellites for GEO and even cameras for planetary science missions, and I can tell you with certainty that the iPhone will not operate reliably at orbits much higher than ISS, and even there won't operate for very long. Take them to a very rad hard environment, like Jovian orbit, and they won't function at all. NASA knows this. And I doubt they've forgotten it. (Here is a good introduction on radiation effects, and this is a very good site for diving deep into the topic.)
Rather than assuming that they're idiots, I suspect that either a) they have a very select subset of missions for which they're considering consumer grade mobile phones (e.g., short duration low-inclination LEO missions), or 2) they're intentionally proposing a noncompliant technology for a mission for a reason, such as demonstrating the impossibility of the mission for the proposed price, or perhaps simply in protest of budget cuts.
I'd put my money on 1) but would not be surprised if 2) were true. I've seen it before.
My first impression, too. My mind's eye pictured a lowered iPhone with the A8 mounted on the outside, spinner rims, ground effect lighting, and an airbrushed graphic of a busty chica in a bikini sporting a Bob Dobbs tattoo on her navel.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, well we're talking about crypto engineers, so only the 'girl' condition is essential, not the 'cute' condition.
don't know what made the author think that the majority deletes everything immediately after dropping files in the recycle bin. I don't.
My first thought, too. The only time I empty the trash as soon as I delete something is when I'm deleting pr0n.
Or when I'm freeing up some disk space by deleting a bunch of unused large files. Which is still usually pr0n.
And then I'm deleting files to make space for more pr0n.
(or both?)
The article fails to mention that the areas closest to the ear are also the areas associated with speech and auditory processing, but the figure in the NYT story is very unclear about the specific location in which the "increased metabolism" occurs. Could it be that there's a 7% increase in metabolism in that part of the brain because the subjects are listening? Or perhaps because they're ignoring the looped recording? (i.e., Could that be the brain's dev/null for speech?)
Furthermore, the one paragraph that might answer those questions is poorly worded and -given the kind of mendacity we've unfortunately become used to these days- suspiciously so. There are only three sentences that describe methodology:
How horrible is that? Does the third sentence really mean that the increased activity is not correlated to whether the phone is on?? Or did the author really mean "Whether the sound was on or off" instead? No editor worth his or her salt would have let that slip by. Or is this a verbatim quote from the report? If so, this should not have passed peer review. If that sentence accurately reflects the methods and results, then the real conclusion is that we should all be attaching antennae to our heads, forget the transmitters.
All in all, I say FAIL to the NYT (and probably also to JAMA and the NIH but the NYT failed so hard I can't tell).
The US Navy is really pushing "ammo-less" weapon systems because of the nature of the threat of the Chinese arsenal, especially the air force.
In a nutshell, the US could fire everything it had at Chinese jets, and score a kill with each shot, and still face an overwhelming force. The same goes for US bullets and PRC soldiers. So of course they want lasers. All you need is electricity... and lots and lots of technicians.
(Nobody's asking why the US is attacking China in these scenarios... that's the most bothersome part.)
< facepalm > Ordered list didn't work in preview so I numbered them myself. < /facepalm >
Seriously - '62-mile high' club sounds forced. A decade ago, I ran an informal poll at a launch vehicle company I worked for. The choices were:
I'll come back and post the top three winners later. I will say that I was surprised by the winner.
Steve Jackson games originated this almost twenty years ago.
DARPA is more or less trying this again. With better results.
Yes, the DVDA attempt to prosecute anyone who even linked to a host of the deCSS "liberated" decryption key was the first case of the Streisand effect. It evoked an outraged response from the community, including a very effective EFF Blue Ribbon campaign for Freedom of Speech Online, which is still active. I still own several t-shirts with the CSS key printed on the back. This was way back in like 1999 or something.
But it wasn't named the Streisand Effect until Barbara Streisand sued the California Coastal Records Project (an awesome site) for publishing pictures of her estate on the coast of California. When this news hit the web, the pictures were copied far and wide in support of CCRP. And Streisand lost her lawsuit.
Triatomos.
Message to broadcast journalists: Don't sit around trying to sound and look authoritative when talking about something you don't know Jack about. It makes you look like an idiot 16 years later when the average 1st grader knows more than you did then.
It just reinforces every other experience I've had when I've seen what journalists do to "facts" about which I have separate, objective knowledge: they ALWAYS get something wrong. Often, something important. And the culprit is always either lack of attention to detail, or a rush to understanding/judgment (or both).
It makes me watch the news in a new light. I never believe anything I read/see in the news anymore, after seeing how frequently they get their 'facts' wrong.
Yes, we're both such drooling idiots that we're lucky our keyboards still work.
Oh, wait - you're drawing an analogy to copying the entire Google search engine, which Bing is clearly NOT doing.
You might want to polish your reading comprehension skills AND your people skills there, friend.
That's more than just an analogy; that's a parable.
Your analogy would hold water if Bing was copying the style of the results page (layout, colors, etc).
In this case, a better analogy would be if Ford bought key Toyota parts, put them in Ford vehicles, and then bragged about the superiority of Ford cars and trucks.
It's borked under FF3.6.13 also.
Crossposted to alt.slashdot.bork.bork.bork.
Still broken.
How are we supposed to "get our mod points back faster?"
Yes, it only applies to autocomplete. But since this story hit the media a month ago, I've been watching how I use autocomplete, and learned something:
I use autocomplete to help me phrase my search terms, almost subconsciously. Any geek knows that phrasing a search is the key to getting proper results. I will frequently use the autocomplete to validate or invalidate several attempts at phrasing the search before I hit enter. Same goes for spelling. Autocomplete results in me creating more successful searches with more pertinent results.
Now, I seldom use this for porn because, 1) i use filestube as my porn search engine, and 2) I usually don't need help phrasing a search for "big butts." (And, I've noticed that Google autocomplete stopped working for pornstar names a long time ago, far earlier than their announcement in late 2010.)
But, for torrents, autocomplete is sometimes a valuable tool. No, I don't need it, but the responsiveness of autocomplete is an aid to the thought process of editing the search phrase. If they start extending their autocomplete bannination to other topics, I'd start getting concerned. Right now it's only the top of a slope which may or may not be slippery.
But "its just autocomplete" isn't a valid excuse, for several reasons. Google is making editorial decisions when they're relied upon to be a neutral, content-independent indexing service. It scares some people because, there's no easier and more effective way to censor something than to cripple its index entries. What's next?
Which behaves just like BushCheney's "justice" department, which acted just like Clinton's "Justice" department, which acted just like Bush40's "Justice" Department, which acted just like....
The DOJ stopped 'belonging' to a president long, long ago.
What are you offering in terms of compensation for "a full day's work?"
I certainly understand your frustration with the work ethic of some young people, and the sense of entitlement that many new grads bring with them. But smart people who understand that they're well-compensated *will* go the extra mile for you. Not just monetary compensation, but benefits and social intangibles as well. It also helps to be a good interviewer and learn to identify the honest hard-workers who enjoy their work, and not just hire people based on their resumes. The latter is a recipe for disaster.
When workers hear comments like yours, smart people react with "this guy's only interested in squeezing us to maximize his bottom line, why should I do anything extra for him?" And I'd say they're correct, not because they're right about you specifically, but because they are able to find someone else who sounds like they will provide a better boss-employee relationship. Thus, you're left with the desperate, the dumb, and the dropouts -- people who justify your opinions.
Correct, and if they wanted effective moles, they'd put them in at the middle-management level where the detail decisions get made, not at the Executive level where -even at Apple- they are too far removed from the code and too visible to be effective saboteurs.
I've been reading Fast Food Nation and just finished the french fry chapter. (Potatoes are shot out of a cannon at a wire screen to make fries.) This morning I started the beef chapter, and then on the drive to work listened to the Morning Jocks rave about the result of asking for "extra meat" when ordering food at Taco Bell.
Now I know why every time I eat at Taco Bell, I regret it the next morning. It's really disgusting what it does to my bowels... I refuse to eat there anymore, especially in So California where there are so many great places to get real Mexican food that doesn't turn your morning poop into something worthy of a hazmat response. I spent 10 days in Mexico last month, eating local food. It all tasted great, and none of it did to me what Taco Bell does to me. Yet, when I got home to Los Angeles, and started eating processed USian foods again, I had the runs for a week. (Which is why I cracked open the copy of Fast Food Nation that had sat unread on my shelf for two years.)
Really, read that book. It's fascinating and not really judgmental like Super Size Me was.
There's a difference between operating for 30 min at an altitude of 100mi and operating for 10 years at 23,000 miles altitude. I doubt NASA is proposing using Androids and iPhones for things much more demanding than weeklong shuttle missions, or maybe pushing the envelope to ISS deloyment for 90 days or so. Beyond that, the phones *will* reliably fail.
Google the phrase "total dose ionizing radiation" and poke around a bit, maybe also looking for the phrase "total dose hardness of bulk cmos" for fun. Then look up "single event effects in bulk cmos." There's a lot of info out there.
Well, just like our economists forgetting the economics lessons of the past 80 to 100 years, now NASA is faced with budget cuts after the resulting spectacular economic failures. So, how does NASA respond? By apparently forgetting the engineering lessons of the past 80 to 100 years. Keyword apparently.
I've designed build space electronics, from launch vehicles to earth science instrumentation for low earth orbit, to weather and comm satellites for GEO and even cameras for planetary science missions, and I can tell you with certainty that the iPhone will not operate reliably at orbits much higher than ISS, and even there won't operate for very long. Take them to a very rad hard environment, like Jovian orbit, and they won't function at all. NASA knows this. And I doubt they've forgotten it. (Here is a good introduction on radiation effects, and this is a very good site for diving deep into the topic.)
Rather than assuming that they're idiots, I suspect that either a) they have a very select subset of missions for which they're considering consumer grade mobile phones (e.g., short duration low-inclination LEO missions), or 2) they're intentionally proposing a noncompliant technology for a mission for a reason, such as demonstrating the impossibility of the mission for the proposed price, or perhaps simply in protest of budget cuts.
I'd put my money on 1) but would not be surprised if 2) were true. I've seen it before.
Well, at least her first name wasn't Hugh.
Seriously, "flaunt"?
My first impression, too. My mind's eye pictured a lowered iPhone with the A8 mounted on the outside, spinner rims, ground effect lighting, and an airbrushed graphic of a busty chica in a bikini sporting a Bob Dobbs tattoo on her navel.