It is actually harder than weather prediction, because it is largely dependent on weather prediction. The same can be said about any sport. If a game is postponed due to weather, that may affect where it is played (might have to be played away or at a neutral venue instead of at home), for example. A steaming hot day may also induce more fatigue.
Historical correction: The word football was originally used to describe a game that eventually became Association Football (the kind you play with your feet), and Rugby Football. The latter was brought to the US, and when poorly executed lead to a lot of deaths. So the rules were adjusted (and influences from other games also entered play), and American Football was born. Also, the word "soccer" comes from "association" and was in common use in the UK prior to WW2. You can watch old matches from the 30s and hear commentators call it "soccer." I'm also told that some Kiwis call Rugby 'football' and call football 'soccer.'
My dad was an air force pilot, and I used to watch a lot of crash tapes growing up. I'm totally %100 desensitized to watching planes crash and not seeing a chute or an ejection. Yet that luge crash really fucking upset me.
What they should have done was taken a violent game and compared it to a nonviolent game that still 'gets your adrenaline flowing' so to speak (sports, racing, etc) and performed the post-gaming test after several sessions of gaming, not just one. I applaud attempting to assess this experimentally, but the experiment here is a bit sloppy. It is a bit like comparing drug A to no drug, when you should do drug A to a placebo or drug A to drug B.
The state department is moving people around who are likely targets. If you really think that say, that "Mohammed _________, our source who owns the pizza joint in south Kabul" is safe because they pulled his name out, you are pretty naive (the pizza analogy is silly, I know). Only a small percentage of the cables have been read by any one source (or everyone combined, for that matter), but once they are, if there is only one pizza place in Kabul, Mohammed ________ is fucked, as is his entire family. People will get hurt as various governments and terrorist groups dig into the releases. Hell, the Taliban doesn't exactly follow due process, if they had been wondering about our hypothetical pizza shop owner and had a hint they'd go kill him. Not to mention the possibility that blanking names out may lead them to the *wrong* people.
As someone who did a lot of Java in college, I think they spent too much time focusing on Java-related things and not enough time on learning the nuts and bolts of the language. I know that Data Structures and Algo are hard classes, but I think students would have done better if the professors spent that time more wisely at the introductory level.
I'm not entirely sure most high schools know what math is, either. Or science in general. Canned labs and regurgitation of scientific facts are not science, and turn a lot of people off. I was one of those people until I was in college.
But to get on topic, no, they don't. If you aren't teaching programming or theory, you aren't CS. You are just a class about computers. I'm also a tad confused as to why this would "turn girls off" (or boys, or anyone). I suppose it would mislead them, but then what other degree would they expect to cover actual CS/programming? A lot of times students are in the wrong major because they have been mislead by whoever that it is about something that it isn't (psychology, for instance) but I really don't see what else there is, other than perhaps Software Engineering. (I understand this is about high school, I'm looking at the long run for these students) If these schools have AP Comp sci courses, those should set the students straight.
The ratio of Admirals:Ships isn't really ridiculous. People have to run the Navy on the shore, direct conflicts, work in joint staff centers, etc. When the military doesn't need people, they miss promotion and get out (or in the case of an Admiral, retire to a more lucrative job). It isn't exactly pork.
"Building new stuff" - a lot of our weapons are generations ahead of what other countries have, or at least what other countries have operational and in threatening numbers.
NSF grants aren't just handed out. There is a great deal of accountability. Projects failing? You can get your money pulled, or will be turned down for your next grant.
While the NIH is more medically focused, you can bet your ass that basic research underlies a lot of those NIH funded discoveries. I mean, how are guys working on NIH grants (and at pharma companies too) supposed to know a damn thing about chemistry otherwise?
No, I don't. I just don't see too many corporations doing basic research, or funding Ph.D.'s that won't make them money. That is the issue. When I get a doctorate, I go and do it in research that I think is important, not something that is going to go and make some guy on wall street money. The two are very different. Basic science is the foundation on which applied science is built; you can only build so much on top of the foundation before it is unable to hold the house you've made. However, laying cement (basic science) isn't as sexy as architecture, so it gets screwed. There is simply NO WAY the private sector can carry basic science given their disdain for it. Further, we really wouldn't have science like we do today if it was profit driven from the start. Who the hell cares about that crap Lavoisier and Newton are doing? Certainly won't make my mill run faster, or make better guns, so why bother?
You don't understand my argument about jobs. If the private sector were willing to do this, I'd say fine. But the fact is that when the private sector won't do a job that needs doing, that is where government should step in. This is clearly the case here.
I can't say this any clearer: if you take away the NSF (and why not the NIH and NIMH too? I guess they are more applied so they'd last longer, but lets take YOUR argument down the slippery slope) you will kill American science.
I think the average person has no idea what useful or good science is. I'm pretty sure that if it isn't directly related to medicine, energy, or climate change (...if they even think it is true...) most people would consider it useless. I do cognitive science/neuroscience research, and all the time people are confused why people pay us to figure out how the brain works without intentions to directly "help people." Hell, even that "soccer efficiency" study or whatever can probably be applied to some other thing our government likes that involves people working in teams, ie the military.
To prove your point further: I read recently that Newt Gingrich said he'd like to triple the NSF budget so we can catch up to the Chinese. If I recall it was in an editorial in Science or Nature...
The advances of science are not something you can just measure overnight and call profitable. Knowledge spreads around, and benefits everyone. Not to mention the fact that a lot of this grant money creates jobs (lab workers, grad students, aka FUTURE SCIENTISTS) and is spent on equipment made by American manufacturers.
There probably are people working on EEG from a mathematical standpoint. However, EEG researchers generally refer to waveforms as things like "P130" or "N270" where P or N refer to whether the peak is positive or negative, and the number refers to the time in milliseconds at which the peak occurs. They don't really know enough about why waveforms are they way they are to take a large interest in the math at this point.
The computer/brain comparison is bad when you think about it as a turing machine or as a von neumann computer. If you think about it as an information processing device that stores data and performs pattern separation/completion/recognition, then the metaphor can take you far.
And just fyi, neurology is the field of medicine pertaining to the nervous system. It is not completely synonymous with neuroscience.
I was about to roll my eyes until you made the math phobia suggestion. Read up a bit more on it an email the authors, it might be worth asking them to rule out somehow. I don't think this has anything to do with conditioning, however.
And what do you think mediates parallel processing? The change in activity caused by this current likely affects gene expression and a variety of other chemical reactions going on. You can't have plasticity without chemical change.
Slashdot Mirror
It is actually harder than weather prediction, because it is largely dependent on weather prediction. The same can be said about any sport. If a game is postponed due to weather, that may affect where it is played (might have to be played away or at a neutral venue instead of at home), for example. A steaming hot day may also induce more fatigue.
Historical correction: The word football was originally used to describe a game that eventually became Association Football (the kind you play with your feet), and Rugby Football. The latter was brought to the US, and when poorly executed lead to a lot of deaths. So the rules were adjusted (and influences from other games also entered play), and American Football was born. Also, the word "soccer" comes from "association" and was in common use in the UK prior to WW2. You can watch old matches from the 30s and hear commentators call it "soccer." I'm also told that some Kiwis call Rugby 'football' and call football 'soccer.'
My dad was an air force pilot, and I used to watch a lot of crash tapes growing up. I'm totally %100 desensitized to watching planes crash and not seeing a chute or an ejection. Yet that luge crash really fucking upset me.
....you know kids with CD collections?
What they should have done was taken a violent game and compared it to a nonviolent game that still 'gets your adrenaline flowing' so to speak (sports, racing, etc) and performed the post-gaming test after several sessions of gaming, not just one. I applaud attempting to assess this experimentally, but the experiment here is a bit sloppy. It is a bit like comparing drug A to no drug, when you should do drug A to a placebo or drug A to drug B.
Err....how did he get into Harvard Law with a 3.3? "Honors" varies from school to school.
The state department is moving people around who are likely targets. If you really think that say, that "Mohammed _________, our source who owns the pizza joint in south Kabul" is safe because they pulled his name out, you are pretty naive (the pizza analogy is silly, I know). Only a small percentage of the cables have been read by any one source (or everyone combined, for that matter), but once they are, if there is only one pizza place in Kabul, Mohammed ________ is fucked, as is his entire family. People will get hurt as various governments and terrorist groups dig into the releases. Hell, the Taliban doesn't exactly follow due process, if they had been wondering about our hypothetical pizza shop owner and had a hint they'd go kill him. Not to mention the possibility that blanking names out may lead them to the *wrong* people.
As someone who did a lot of Java in college, I think they spent too much time focusing on Java-related things and not enough time on learning the nuts and bolts of the language. I know that Data Structures and Algo are hard classes, but I think students would have done better if the professors spent that time more wisely at the introductory level.
I'm not entirely sure most high schools know what math is, either. Or science in general. Canned labs and regurgitation of scientific facts are not science, and turn a lot of people off. I was one of those people until I was in college.
But to get on topic, no, they don't. If you aren't teaching programming or theory, you aren't CS. You are just a class about computers. I'm also a tad confused as to why this would "turn girls off" (or boys, or anyone). I suppose it would mislead them, but then what other degree would they expect to cover actual CS/programming? A lot of times students are in the wrong major because they have been mislead by whoever that it is about something that it isn't (psychology, for instance) but I really don't see what else there is, other than perhaps Software Engineering. (I understand this is about high school, I'm looking at the long run for these students) If these schools have AP Comp sci courses, those should set the students straight.
The ratio of Admirals:Ships isn't really ridiculous. People have to run the Navy on the shore, direct conflicts, work in joint staff centers, etc. When the military doesn't need people, they miss promotion and get out (or in the case of an Admiral, retire to a more lucrative job). It isn't exactly pork.
"Building new stuff" - a lot of our weapons are generations ahead of what other countries have, or at least what other countries have operational and in threatening numbers.
NSF grants aren't just handed out. There is a great deal of accountability. Projects failing? You can get your money pulled, or will be turned down for your next grant.
Seriously people, the NSF is not the fucking DMV.
While the NIH is more medically focused, you can bet your ass that basic research underlies a lot of those NIH funded discoveries. I mean, how are guys working on NIH grants (and at pharma companies too) supposed to know a damn thing about chemistry otherwise?
No, I don't. I just don't see too many corporations doing basic research, or funding Ph.D.'s that won't make them money. That is the issue. When I get a doctorate, I go and do it in research that I think is important, not something that is going to go and make some guy on wall street money. The two are very different. Basic science is the foundation on which applied science is built; you can only build so much on top of the foundation before it is unable to hold the house you've made. However, laying cement (basic science) isn't as sexy as architecture, so it gets screwed. There is simply NO WAY the private sector can carry basic science given their disdain for it. Further, we really wouldn't have science like we do today if it was profit driven from the start. Who the hell cares about that crap Lavoisier and Newton are doing? Certainly won't make my mill run faster, or make better guns, so why bother?
You don't understand my argument about jobs. If the private sector were willing to do this, I'd say fine. But the fact is that when the private sector won't do a job that needs doing, that is where government should step in. This is clearly the case here.
I can't say this any clearer: if you take away the NSF (and why not the NIH and NIMH too? I guess they are more applied so they'd last longer, but lets take YOUR argument down the slippery slope) you will kill American science.
I think the average person has no idea what useful or good science is. I'm pretty sure that if it isn't directly related to medicine, energy, or climate change (...if they even think it is true...) most people would consider it useless. I do cognitive science/neuroscience research, and all the time people are confused why people pay us to figure out how the brain works without intentions to directly "help people." Hell, even that "soccer efficiency" study or whatever can probably be applied to some other thing our government likes that involves people working in teams, ie the military.
To prove your point further: I read recently that Newt Gingrich said he'd like to triple the NSF budget so we can catch up to the Chinese. If I recall it was in an editorial in Science or Nature...
0123456, you ignorant slut.
The advances of science are not something you can just measure overnight and call profitable. Knowledge spreads around, and benefits everyone. Not to mention the fact that a lot of this grant money creates jobs (lab workers, grad students, aka FUTURE SCIENTISTS) and is spent on equipment made by American manufacturers.
First post!
There probably are people working on EEG from a mathematical standpoint. However, EEG researchers generally refer to waveforms as things like "P130" or "N270" where P or N refer to whether the peak is positive or negative, and the number refers to the time in milliseconds at which the peak occurs. They don't really know enough about why waveforms are they way they are to take a large interest in the math at this point.
The computer/brain comparison is bad when you think about it as a turing machine or as a von neumann computer. If you think about it as an information processing device that stores data and performs pattern separation/completion/recognition, then the metaphor can take you far.
And just fyi, neurology is the field of medicine pertaining to the nervous system. It is not completely synonymous with neuroscience.
If the effect is linear in one direction, it should be linear in the other as well. Things in the brain generally aren't linear.
I was about to roll my eyes until you made the math phobia suggestion. Read up a bit more on it an email the authors, it might be worth asking them to rule out somehow. I don't think this has anything to do with conditioning, however.
And what do you think mediates parallel processing? The change in activity caused by this current likely affects gene expression and a variety of other chemical reactions going on. You can't have plasticity without chemical change.
They only ran right handed subjects. This is common as a way to make sure lefties don't wash out the effects in your data.
I seriously doubt peer reviewers would have let them get away with not reporting persisting performance drops.