Statistically speaking, you are more likely to shoot a family member getting up for a piss or midnight snack than you are a burglar. If anything, you'd be increasing the risk to your family by having a gun in the house.
True, but the *likelihood* that this molecule does those things is quite small. The "we can connect our discovery to anything" approach that is occurring in some of the neuroscience areas could easily become a "boy who cried wolf" scenario. I can't think of how many articles I read recently where, someone is like "we've got XYZ solved!!" only to never hear anything about that research again.
The bottom line is that too many news stories lead the public to believe that we are way further ahead than we are on solving certain issues, or that we have a breakthrough when as you correctly pointed out, we have only maybe found another piece of the puzzle.
I am generally cautious whenever some researcher makes some discovery and goes "blah blah blah this IS what memory IS blah blah autism blah blah epilepsy blah blah addiction blah blah Alzheimer's blah blah blah"
Anyway, the point is that it is highly unlikely that this ONE molecule can be implicated in that many disorders. It sounds to me like this guy may have found something very important in regulating one neurotransmitter, but fails to say which one. All of the disorders he mentions do deal with some sort of synaptic malfunction, but I am skeptical about one molecule being a part of all of them. Some of these disorders focus on different brain regions, are matters of cell death, or synaptic excitation or inhibition. I don't think it is likely that this one molecule is the bullet (even if it has different malfunctions for different disorders). The guy is in love with his results.
But, if I am wrong and this does pan out well for him, I could see a free trip to Sweden in his future.
If kids say "what the fuck do you want officer?" I think the problem at hand is not EA forums or places like it, but that their parents/teachers/society failed to let them know that this is rude and a bad idea. I know we cannot always point fingers at parents* but I do not like the "think of the children" mentality in a place that is not meant for children. I am an adult, and therefore should be allowed to act like one when in an environment that is not supposed to be family friendly or professional/work related.
*There are many "bad" children out there that have "good" siblings, something that is overlooked when auto-blaming parents for the actions of their children.
Go back to suburbia where you belong, bitch to the PTA, and maybe Hillary Clinton will get the Senate to investigate the forums for you. Seriously, the world is an R rated place at a minimum, and trying to shelter your kids from it is asinine. Don't want your kids hearing bad language? Take em out of school. You can protect them from sex, drugs, and violence all you want (and as a parent, that is your right) but if you really think bad language is something to worry about you really haven't a clue what kind of world your kids live in.
What they mean is to nail down equations which can be used to govern and predict brain activity in a similar fashion to the ones we have in physics. Essentially they are saying that Neuroscience needs to be approached from a more quantitative perspective than biological due to its complexity. Ie we can't totally figure out the brain with MRI and microscopes. However, more of this work will be done on computers than chalkboards. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_neuroscience
Plus if a new coder only learns Java, they look like a real idiot when they don't know what a function is because they have been calling it a "method" the whole time.
The problem with the "if you don't get it in the fist day/week/semester" approach is that it assumes that the student is the only variable. It fails to take the language, quality and quantity of instruction, etc into account. Some people learn the basics very quickly but cannot perform high end, top quality work. Some of us take our time to learn, and do very well in the end. Having said this if someone cannot understand x=6; then they probably will never get it or for some odd reason never took math.
I don't necessarily think that Java == GUIs (sorry, it should be (Java.equals(GUIs));). I think my problem is that so many CS departments spend a lot of time teaching things that are Java specific or jump to crap like GUIs. Java has its own set of lingo (ie calling Functions methods, for instance) that does not carry over to other languages.
My problem with Java is that whenever I work with it, I find that my problems getting the job done are *rarely* a misunderstanding on my part as to what I am supposed to do, but understanding the rules and limitations of Java. Although the API is great, there are a lot of inconsistencies as to how to use different objects (ie Double versus Integer if I recall) that you would expect to be the same across the board. Generally speaking the language is SO object oriented that I find it to be amazingly convoluted. Case in point, ArrayLists. It took me ages to get to the point where I could just initialize one from my memory rather than have to look it up.
And as for Python, I mean it *only* for the very first semester of CS. Some schools have a CS course you have to take now before programming (and its not the "how to use MS office and shit" class) which is essentially a survey course of everything in CS, from programming to AI to CPU design, theory of computation, etc. It would be very useful in a course like that where you aren't too worried about *really* coding but don't have time to teach them the finer points of OOP. After this course, C/C++ would probably be the way to go in my book.
rant:
I hate Java so much. Don't waste my time with GUIs, 10 years from now swing won't frigging matter. Some of us aren't going to be software engineers dammit! MIT has been using Lisp in some form for ages, I wish every other school in the country would take a page out of their book. Even Caltech teaches Java as their main language, which is surprising. My ideal curriculum would start with a semester of Python just to get students familiar with how programming works without worrying about the intricacies of a specific language. Then after that do Lisp or C/C++. Anything but Java.
...then it should be pretty clear that it is quite possible from a behavioristic standpoint for an organism to make a detrimental choice because that detrimental choice creates some other positive response. For example, a drug addict may shoot up even though he knows drugs are bad because it feels good.
Just because our behavior is hardwired and governed by equations doesn't mean that the behavior is perfect.
Empathy may be reinforced via learning, but generally speaking it is not a learned behavior. Kicking the dog and getting bitten/in trouble is not learning empathy, its learning to not kick the dog. Empathy is quite neurological, read about mirror neurons and autism spectrum disorders. "Sociopaths" are most likely born that way (some of them have amazingly normal upbringings) and don't learn to be crazy. Both Autism and Antisocial personality disorder (sociopaths) are classified as Axis II disorders and are almost impossible to treat, which is demonstrative that traits such as empathy are not learned.
And I'm sure you could deal with your kids asking you every night at dinner why you have a thousand yard stare...if you are even home for dinner, granting the length of these missions. My father did 26 years in the AF flying F16s, F117s, and Predators. The only combat and killing he did was in predators. It affected him, I know. Maybe not as much as his friends who flew above convoys under attack and watched powerlessly from above in F16s with enough munitions to wipe out the whole area but couldn't because they aren't mindless killing machines. If you really think that its that simple and that easy then you are horrendously mistaken.
(The file is called sex.pdf , don't be alarmed, totally sfw!)
In this one they used mobiles, not engines. There is another study out there that is with 12 m/os that does use engines, cars, etc that gets the same results. It's all in "The Essential Difference" by Simon Baron-Cohen, cited in a few posts above.
There was actually a study where newborns were placed in cribs with screens mounted above. On one side, cars, motors, engines, machinery, etc. On the other side, faces, people, etc. The results were in line with adult stereotypes. The boys stared at the machines, the girls at the people/faces.
Slashdot Mirror
Statistically speaking, you are more likely to shoot a family member getting up for a piss or midnight snack than you are a burglar. If anything, you'd be increasing the risk to your family by having a gun in the house.
True, but the *likelihood* that this molecule does those things is quite small. The "we can connect our discovery to anything" approach that is occurring in some of the neuroscience areas could easily become a "boy who cried wolf" scenario. I can't think of how many articles I read recently where, someone is like "we've got XYZ solved!!" only to never hear anything about that research again.
The bottom line is that too many news stories lead the public to believe that we are way further ahead than we are on solving certain issues, or that we have a breakthrough when as you correctly pointed out, we have only maybe found another piece of the puzzle.
I mean, even the onion has started making jokes about this sort of thing: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/son_of_a_bitch_mouse_solves_maze
I am generally cautious whenever some researcher makes some discovery and goes "blah blah blah this IS what memory IS blah blah autism blah blah epilepsy blah blah addiction blah blah Alzheimer's blah blah blah"
Anyway, the point is that it is highly unlikely that this ONE molecule can be implicated in that many disorders. It sounds to me like this guy may have found something very important in regulating one neurotransmitter, but fails to say which one. All of the disorders he mentions do deal with some sort of synaptic malfunction, but I am skeptical about one molecule being a part of all of them. Some of these disorders focus on different brain regions, are matters of cell death, or synaptic excitation or inhibition. I don't think it is likely that this one molecule is the bullet (even if it has different malfunctions for different disorders). The guy is in love with his results.
But, if I am wrong and this does pan out well for him, I could see a free trip to Sweden in his future.
If kids say "what the fuck do you want officer?" I think the problem at hand is not EA forums or places like it, but that their parents/teachers/society failed to let them know that this is rude and a bad idea. I know we cannot always point fingers at parents* but I do not like the "think of the children" mentality in a place that is not meant for children. I am an adult, and therefore should be allowed to act like one when in an environment that is not supposed to be family friendly or professional/work related.
*There are many "bad" children out there that have "good" siblings, something that is overlooked when auto-blaming parents for the actions of their children.
Go back to suburbia where you belong, bitch to the PTA, and maybe Hillary Clinton will get the Senate to investigate the forums for you. Seriously, the world is an R rated place at a minimum, and trying to shelter your kids from it is asinine. Don't want your kids hearing bad language? Take em out of school. You can protect them from sex, drugs, and violence all you want (and as a parent, that is your right) but if you really think bad language is something to worry about you really haven't a clue what kind of world your kids live in.
A secretary of the internet! (http://xkcd.com/494)
The truly paranoid user should get use a liveCD with a mac address scrambler off of a wireless connection that does not belong to them.
What they mean is to nail down equations which can be used to govern and predict brain activity in a similar fashion to the ones we have in physics. Essentially they are saying that Neuroscience needs to be approached from a more quantitative perspective than biological due to its complexity. Ie we can't totally figure out the brain with MRI and microscopes. However, more of this work will be done on computers than chalkboards. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_neuroscience
At least it makes your projects sound cooler and more complicated to people who don't know their stuff.
Plus if a new coder only learns Java, they look like a real idiot when they don't know what a function is because they have been calling it a "method" the whole time.
There, fixed that for you. Also, turn in your geek badge.
Fixed.
The problem with the "if you don't get it in the fist day/week/semester" approach is that it assumes that the student is the only variable. It fails to take the language, quality and quantity of instruction, etc into account. Some people learn the basics very quickly but cannot perform high end, top quality work. Some of us take our time to learn, and do very well in the end. Having said this if someone cannot understand x=6; then they probably will never get it or for some odd reason never took math.
see my post below for explanation.
I don't necessarily think that Java == GUIs (sorry, it should be (Java.equals(GUIs));). I think my problem is that so many CS departments spend a lot of time teaching things that are Java specific or jump to crap like GUIs. Java has its own set of lingo (ie calling Functions methods, for instance) that does not carry over to other languages.
My problem with Java is that whenever I work with it, I find that my problems getting the job done are *rarely* a misunderstanding on my part as to what I am supposed to do, but understanding the rules and limitations of Java. Although the API is great, there are a lot of inconsistencies as to how to use different objects (ie Double versus Integer if I recall) that you would expect to be the same across the board. Generally speaking the language is SO object oriented that I find it to be amazingly convoluted. Case in point, ArrayLists. It took me ages to get to the point where I could just initialize one from my memory rather than have to look it up.
And as for Python, I mean it *only* for the very first semester of CS. Some schools have a CS course you have to take now before programming (and its not the "how to use MS office and shit" class) which is essentially a survey course of everything in CS, from programming to AI to CPU design, theory of computation, etc. It would be very useful in a course like that where you aren't too worried about *really* coding but don't have time to teach them the finer points of OOP. After this course, C/C++ would probably be the way to go in my book.
*cough* Java *cough*
rant: I hate Java so much. Don't waste my time with GUIs, 10 years from now swing won't frigging matter. Some of us aren't going to be software engineers dammit! MIT has been using Lisp in some form for ages, I wish every other school in the country would take a page out of their book. Even Caltech teaches Java as their main language, which is surprising. My ideal curriculum would start with a semester of Python just to get students familiar with how programming works without worrying about the intricacies of a specific language. Then after that do Lisp or C/C++. Anything but Java.
Its because when a convoy is in an urban area, you can't just start bombing shit.
Funny, my blue pill tasted like Tasty Wheat....
If you look at the matching law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_law
...then it should be pretty clear that it is quite possible from a behavioristic standpoint for an organism to make a detrimental choice because that detrimental choice creates some other positive response. For example, a drug addict may shoot up even though he knows drugs are bad because it feels good.
and take the law of effect into account: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Effect
Just because our behavior is hardwired and governed by equations doesn't mean that the behavior is perfect.
Empathy may be reinforced via learning, but generally speaking it is not a learned behavior. Kicking the dog and getting bitten/in trouble is not learning empathy, its learning to not kick the dog. Empathy is quite neurological, read about mirror neurons and autism spectrum disorders. "Sociopaths" are most likely born that way (some of them have amazingly normal upbringings) and don't learn to be crazy. Both Autism and Antisocial personality disorder (sociopaths) are classified as Axis II disorders and are almost impossible to treat, which is demonstrative that traits such as empathy are not learned.
Then you don't know these fly boys. They aren't a bunch of illiterate rednecks.
And I'm sure you could deal with your kids asking you every night at dinner why you have a thousand yard stare...if you are even home for dinner, granting the length of these missions. My father did 26 years in the AF flying F16s, F117s, and Predators. The only combat and killing he did was in predators. It affected him, I know. Maybe not as much as his friends who flew above convoys under attack and watched powerlessly from above in F16s with enough munitions to wipe out the whole area but couldn't because they aren't mindless killing machines. If you really think that its that simple and that easy then you are horrendously mistaken.
I said they used images of cars, motors, and such, which was referring to a similar study done when the infants had better sensory abilities.
I read the book over a year ago, and made a mistake.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=14&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.math.kth.se%2Fmatstat%2Fgru%2F5b1501%2FF%2Fsex.pdf&ei=sSuKSJGRJIfsgATVxOSsDg&usg=AFQjCNEXFhXvU3VvTAngOLCDby6b48_vkg&sig2=K9wWxLB1yYL-4fO0jvMVLQ
(The file is called sex.pdf , don't be alarmed, totally sfw!)
In this one they used mobiles, not engines. There is another study out there that is with 12 m/os that does use engines, cars, etc that gets the same results. It's all in "The Essential Difference" by Simon Baron-Cohen, cited in a few posts above.
There was actually a study where newborns were placed in cribs with screens mounted above. On one side, cars, motors, engines, machinery, etc. On the other side, faces, people, etc. The results were in line with adult stereotypes. The boys stared at the machines, the girls at the people/faces.