"You really are treated worse than a pirate when you pay for your software. You can't even properly lend or swap games with friends anymore, even on consoles like the Xbox 360 because of DLC."
Yep. This is why I pirate MS products, buy Apple products and download linux for free. Because MS are still the evil empire.
People have a right to fair use. By putting these restrictions on Live (although you don't *have* to use it, I know) MS is stepping on my right to make backup copies of games. (Note: I don't own any video game consoles at this point)
"This area does this, this area does that" is pretty outdated. Researchers these days are focused more on interactions between regions, timing, etc. The problem with the old approach is that we start applying our human words ("Is this episodic memory here, or is that semantic memory?") to processes invented by mother nature that will not regularly fit into our definitions. In general, we are getting a better idea of how the brain works, but it isn't shedding as much light as we would like on how the mind works.
He isn't talking about some evil mind control, what he is saying is that when you learn and use your brain, connections change. Therefore, if you are trying to get the "up" motion on the keyboard down, there will be a change in your brain activity that will be reinforced by getting it right. So yes, he is right that using this device will change how things are working, but such change would be no different than learning to type in Dvorak or using a different controller for the first time. Nothing dangerous.
Err...psychology and neuroscience are not distinct. In fact, I'm currently in a program (one of *many*) that combines them both. The role of psychology is not to explain what it feels like to experience something or to be conscious of it. You are right in saying that endless reductionism will struggle to explain that. However, any respectable psychologist/neuroscientist knows that you won't be able to explain what colorblindness feels like from looking at an MRI scan or comparing results on a color discrimination task. Yet there is a definite relation between behavior and what is going on in the nervous system, ergo by understanding neural substrates of a phenomenon one can shed some light on why the behavior happens.
And yeah, we are pretty sick of physicists arrogance that they can just march in and start doing what we have spent our entire academic lives trying to learn.
In that case, could you explain to me why this happens? (at least in physics). Is it a lack of funding for "real" experiments, getting bored with particles and phase transitions, pursuing their own interests, or what? Also, do you know how articles like this fit into the tenure game? It doesn't bother me so much when physicists get into life science problems (lets be honest, biology is getting more quantitative). However, as a cognitive/neural scientist grad student, it drives me nuts when I read papers where physicists try and tackle cognition or philosophy because it is pretty clear they have no idea what they are talking about. Don't mind them doing the neural stuff because they tend to have a good grasp on signal processing/information theory stuff, as well as dynamical systems theory.
As for economists, I'm pretty sure they just fall into the "when you only have a hammer all problems look like nails" thing.
Mod parent up. Canonical needs to cut this twice a year crap. What is the point? What are they trying to prove? Could you imagine the flack MS or Apple would take if they put out two versions of their OS every year and half the time they did crap like this?
Pretty narrow minded statement there. In reality, it is a good way to compare which countries are using cocaine, and possibly even how often. I would be willing to bet that you find it more on higher valued bills, and finding it on lower valued bills is probably an indicator that the less affluent are also using it. Those are just examples I thought up right now (didn't read article because I've read about this before) and I'm sure someone who actually does this for a living could be even more creative.
The better you get at something, the *less* cortical activity is needed to perform. The judge doesn't know his neuroscience of expertise, and therefore is wrong.
I do think that a part of the problem is that Russian built aircraft may be good on paper, but lack reliable engines (as your said), avionics, and skilled pilots. Also, very few Su-35s and 37s have been built.
I agree with the cancellation of the remaining orders because of various reasons. However, some posters don't seem to get that it hasn't been flown because it is an air superiority fighter.
Except that the average Su-27 pilot has a tiny fraction of flight experience that any other USAF or NATO pilot has. The F-22 can do plenty of maneuvers that the Su-27 cannot. Modern Russian fighters and the VVS are overrated.
Also, keep in mind that the stealth employed on the F-22 is not the same stealth tech existing on other platforms, such as the F-117. Part of the reason the 117 was retired related to the technology being compromised.
Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
Just to let you know, the European theater of WW2 was primarily a war between Russia and Germany. The US did a lot to help out and history would have been very different had we not gone in, but Russia would have beat the Germans without us.
In Vietnam and Korea we struggled (at first) to maintain air superiority. Thinking that dogfighting is dead is a mistake that we have made twice already and shouldn't make again. Having said this the F-35 is still better than anything else out there excluding the F-22.
The F-117 was really expensive to maintain and supposedly some of its stealth tech had been compromised (or at least wasn't as effective as it was). It can only carry 2x 2000 lbs bombs with no other ordinance, which is less than the F-35 iirc.
They did that early on in the war because we thought dogfighting would be dead. Then they stuck cannons back onto F-4s, changed how pilots were trained and things got a little different.
From what I have read the strategy for the F22 and F35 is to use external tanks, use em and then drop em when you get near enemy territory. Once their defenses are knocked out external pylons can be used more because stealth tech will be redundant.
Slashdot Mirror
Never said I played their games, did I? Besides the point, I don't get treated like a criminal for using their products legally.
True, but can you do that? What kind of filesystem does the 360 use? I have no idea myself.
"You really are treated worse than a pirate when you pay for your software. You can't even properly lend or swap games with friends anymore, even on consoles like the Xbox 360 because of DLC."
Yep. This is why I pirate MS products, buy Apple products and download linux for free. Because MS are still the evil empire.
People have a right to fair use. By putting these restrictions on Live (although you don't *have* to use it, I know) MS is stepping on my right to make backup copies of games. (Note: I don't own any video game consoles at this point)
"This area does this, this area does that" is pretty outdated. Researchers these days are focused more on interactions between regions, timing, etc. The problem with the old approach is that we start applying our human words ("Is this episodic memory here, or is that semantic memory?") to processes invented by mother nature that will not regularly fit into our definitions. In general, we are getting a better idea of how the brain works, but it isn't shedding as much light as we would like on how the mind works.
He isn't talking about some evil mind control, what he is saying is that when you learn and use your brain, connections change. Therefore, if you are trying to get the "up" motion on the keyboard down, there will be a change in your brain activity that will be reinforced by getting it right. So yes, he is right that using this device will change how things are working, but such change would be no different than learning to type in Dvorak or using a different controller for the first time. Nothing dangerous.
Err...psychology and neuroscience are not distinct. In fact, I'm currently in a program (one of *many*) that combines them both. The role of psychology is not to explain what it feels like to experience something or to be conscious of it. You are right in saying that endless reductionism will struggle to explain that. However, any respectable psychologist/neuroscientist knows that you won't be able to explain what colorblindness feels like from looking at an MRI scan or comparing results on a color discrimination task. Yet there is a definite relation between behavior and what is going on in the nervous system, ergo by understanding neural substrates of a phenomenon one can shed some light on why the behavior happens.
And yeah, we are pretty sick of physicists arrogance that they can just march in and start doing what we have spent our entire academic lives trying to learn.
In that case, could you explain to me why this happens? (at least in physics). Is it a lack of funding for "real" experiments, getting bored with particles and phase transitions, pursuing their own interests, or what? Also, do you know how articles like this fit into the tenure game? It doesn't bother me so much when physicists get into life science problems (lets be honest, biology is getting more quantitative). However, as a cognitive/neural scientist grad student, it drives me nuts when I read papers where physicists try and tackle cognition or philosophy because it is pretty clear they have no idea what they are talking about. Don't mind them doing the neural stuff because they tend to have a good grasp on signal processing/information theory stuff, as well as dynamical systems theory.
As for economists, I'm pretty sure they just fall into the "when you only have a hammer all problems look like nails" thing.
Looks like I need to unsubscribe from that DIY ICBM podcast. And the host was so witty and charming....
Mod parent up. Canonical needs to cut this twice a year crap. What is the point? What are they trying to prove? Could you imagine the flack MS or Apple would take if they put out two versions of their OS every year and half the time they did crap like this?
Pretty narrow minded statement there. In reality, it is a good way to compare which countries are using cocaine, and possibly even how often. I would be willing to bet that you find it more on higher valued bills, and finding it on lower valued bills is probably an indicator that the less affluent are also using it. Those are just examples I thought up right now (didn't read article because I've read about this before) and I'm sure someone who actually does this for a living could be even more creative.
The better you get at something, the less neural activity is required to perform. It will not make you an immoral monster.
The better you get at something, the *less* cortical activity is needed to perform. The judge doesn't know his neuroscience of expertise, and therefore is wrong.
No problem.
I do think that a part of the problem is that Russian built aircraft may be good on paper, but lack reliable engines (as your said), avionics, and skilled pilots. Also, very few Su-35s and 37s have been built.
I'm not saying they are useless, but that they cannot be used in the current conflict. Big difference.
I agree with the cancellation of the remaining orders because of various reasons. However, some posters don't seem to get that it hasn't been flown because it is an air superiority fighter.
Except that the average Su-27 pilot has a tiny fraction of flight experience that any other USAF or NATO pilot has. The F-22 can do plenty of maneuvers that the Su-27 cannot. Modern Russian fighters and the VVS are overrated.
Also, keep in mind that the stealth employed on the F-22 is not the same stealth tech existing on other platforms, such as the F-117. Part of the reason the 117 was retired related to the technology being compromised.
Just to let you know, the European theater of WW2 was primarily a war between Russia and Germany. The US did a lot to help out and history would have been very different had we not gone in, but Russia would have beat the Germans without us.
Yeah, but the scenario you cite in India involved the USAF being handicapped iirc.
In Vietnam and Korea we struggled (at first) to maintain air superiority. Thinking that dogfighting is dead is a mistake that we have made twice already and shouldn't make again. Having said this the F-35 is still better than anything else out there excluding the F-22.
Nope, the F-18 is only flown by the Navy and Marines, and will not be replacing the F-15 or 16 in the Air Force.
The F-117 was really expensive to maintain and supposedly some of its stealth tech had been compromised (or at least wasn't as effective as it was). It can only carry 2x 2000 lbs bombs with no other ordinance, which is less than the F-35 iirc.
The F-15s from the 70s are F-15As and are not flown anymore, they have been replaced by F-15Cs.
They did that early on in the war because we thought dogfighting would be dead. Then they stuck cannons back onto F-4s, changed how pilots were trained and things got a little different.
From what I have read the strategy for the F22 and F35 is to use external tanks, use em and then drop em when you get near enemy territory. Once their defenses are knocked out external pylons can be used more because stealth tech will be redundant.