This article has some very vague commentary in it. For example - "brain volume". What are they measuring exactly? Total brain volume? Seems to imply that, but then later they talk about the size of an individual region of the brain.
Now, that's interesting because measuring the size of a brain region is quite tricky. For one thing, if a region seems to shrink, then you're mostly looking at activation patterns. It's not like you lose neurons - it's well known that the brain tends to swap and recruit neurons between brain regions - quite a plastic organ.
And that rather changes the interpretation, since the region they say they're measuring is associated with sexuality stimulus response. Which makes the conclusion kind of mundane: people who watch pornography (and I'll bet a lot of people who are in pornography - or maybe just on HBO) have a reduced response to sexual stimuli.
Also you actively need to be kept away from other people like you.
Unvaccinated people congregating in geographical proximity is actively a bad thing - i.e. schools need to know how many unvaccinated children (for any reason) are present since while 1 is probably fine, 10 more or less undoes herd immunity benefits for them. It has serious ramifications if any 1 presents with symptoms of something normally vaccine-preventable.
The only important thing is whether the figures can reverse on you. If it's an across the board reduction, who cares? I'd be way more interested if it was possible for the relative efficiency of two vehicles to actually switch around.
Yes except no one's been able to show that they actually do have the keys, or even a smoking gun of "this algorithm is always active".
What they are doing is the same wailing and knashing of teeth that happened 40 years ago.
Meanwhile it seems far more obvious that the NSA instead just relies on the CIAs direct intercept and tampering with targeted bits of hardware, rather then depending on people using a specific algorithm, with a specific set of constants, somewhere that's interesting to them and not one where the documentation for its specifications explains exactly how to generate new constants which would eliminate any baked in security hole.
...it would not be possible to robotically attach new, external reaction wheels. It's a telescope, it has direction, could you not design something to attach externally and provide reaction control?
No idea - but the general point was that pure electric air propulsion is a technology that doesn't exist in a vacuum. There's lots of ways it could become viable.
Solid-oxide fuel cells are a much more efficient way to burn hydrocarbons then conventional combustion engines. An electric airliner that used solid-oxide fuel cells could potentially get more range for the same weight of fuel - and unlike with batteries, you're not trading off fuel mass.
Why should there be exits? What if they go to another universe?
I was talking about the classic kind of wormhole. Either it has a direction, and then there should be a 50/50 chance that any end is an exit, or it has no direction and both ends can act like an exit.
If they go to another universe, then I would expect other universe's wormholes to connect to ours too, in a similar ratio (otherwise our universe would be very special, and lose matter/energy).
Is there one nearby that we can observe with our extremely primitive and limited technology? Would we know it if we saw it?
Matter almost falling into a black hole, but escaping, is the source of some of the most energetic bursts of cosmic rays, and we can detect those from half a universe away. It would not be unreasonable to expect the matter/energy that comes out to be even more energetic and also have a much greater quantity. Again, only assuming stuff exits a wormhole.
Why would matter exiting a wormhole be more energetic? It would be less energetic.
In a blackhole matter enters, undergoes E=mc^2 and is re-emitted as conveniently detectable radiation. In a wormhole, matter potentially traverses the length and remains as matter - which means no gamma ray bursts, just whatever heat you pick up from jostling around with all the other matter that might be doing it.
Wouldn't a wormhole technically have a much larger volume of 3D spacetime to spread it's mass in, since a good deal of the mass can extend down into the wormhole and along it - which would mean it's quite literally out of the plane of ordinary space.
The problem is the self-destruct on the mines was expected to have about a 3% failure rate (these were actually developed). Leaving 3% of your mines in the ground and potentially active after the conflict means you're still left with mindfields about as large as they were during the war.
The real goal is to build a robot which can outrun a human and then just holds onto them until the authorities arrive. The magic of robotics is really going to be the ability to let the robot take the first, second and subsequent shots and keep going.
The main problem is we know other lifeforms evolved on this planet before us, and we're not the oldest planetary system out there. Unless there is an absurd statistical imbalance in the formation of actual Earth-like planets - which survey data suggests is very unlikely - then the conditions were ripe for complex multi-cellular life to arise for billions of years prior to humans coming on the scene.
I'm not sure anyone would bother encrypting light-speed communications. They're so slow that the real problem is hoping anybody knows what you were saying hundreds of years later.
The thing I've been hanging out for is if we discover any possible means of FTL, then the first thing we should go looking for is whether there's FTL radio communications being performed via that method.
Although the best possibility at the moment I guess is beacons transmitting warp-bubbles between each other with Alcubierre-drives.
This is a concept a lot of people struggle with, but scale matters.
And perhaps moreover, every thing you described there is a function of it - in all those cases you're left with little recourse because the scale is too low to make most forms of it worthwhile. Hence eBay and PayPal really.
To some extent the biggest thing SpaceX is doing is tossing the demand for "flight qualified" out the window, and instead building the part they want and then flying it and qualifying it.
The risk of course being, you might destroy from test rigs. But if you acknowledge that's what they are, then you learn things.
The missing part of your argument I think is not just "1 professor".
What you want to do is get a whole bunch to record the relevant lectures - ideally people who are very diverse in style. Then let the students pick the one they find works best for them.
Of course you could then take this further: have a project to post-process and bookmark the content covered in each section, so if you're struggling with a concept then you get a splay of dozens of that same lecture over the years, from different people, so you can go through them and try and find the nuance which let's you actually grok the concept you're missing.
The part of the argument which explains why this will never happen in the current environment is where you want to use tutorial classes for properly consuming content. My tutorial classes at the moment are 50 people or so. 30 seems to be the smallest. They're not tutorials, they're just some weird version of regular high school classes and it's all specifically blameable on budget cutting.
UNSW actually is trying to do this, but so far it seems very opt-in. If you use overhead projectors then it doesn't go into the recording.
I suspect they are allowing the system to be way too cooperative with the lecturers where it should probably be a little more adversarial - ensure nothing used to present in that room isn't recorded.
Lectures work really really well when you need to have a conceptual understanding of a subject. I always found biology lectures useful, because the subject is extremely concept oriented and you need to understand that. Same with chemistry, and the same with physics - interestingly.
What I've found absolutely doesn't work for me is mathematics (and mathematics heavy subject) lectures. I have no idea how anyone learns a thing from lectures on mathematics. At least in first and second year, my experience of mathematics lectures was me trying very hard to follow them, missing 1 item and being lost for the entire lecture. Nothing past that point connected with anything, because we were suddenly well away from "this is how this framework fits together and why" and back into "just remember this is what happens" - which I really can't do in a lecture setting.
I'm willing to accept this may be a quirk on my part, but mathematics taught from a definitionally-heavy perspective seems to be about the most useless thing I can have lectured at me in rapid-fire. The pattern of "answers only in tutorials" makes it even worse, since then we're well onto "please wait a week to discover your entire understanding is wrong".
In my (newly ongoing experience, 2nd degree program) I'm finding that idea seems to have gone out the window. 50-person tutorial classes are just a second-round of less effective lectures, delivering material that would be more usefully provided as a worked-solutions booklet. Waiting a week to find out why you're wrong is also a least-efficient means to learn.
It was a startling realization that I could take notes during a lecture, walk out and not have a clue what was being said - this is handwritten notes too.
So I gave up on notes and focused on the lecture itself, since afterall I can copy out content from a book anytime.
Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Vaxxers are by and large vaccinated. It's how they survived to adulthood to be able to act like the idiots they are.
Their children, who they have a ridiculous amount of power over through no choice of the children, are the ones who suffer for it.
This article has some very vague commentary in it. For example - "brain volume". What are they measuring exactly? Total brain volume? Seems to imply that, but then later they talk about the size of an individual region of the brain.
Now, that's interesting because measuring the size of a brain region is quite tricky. For one thing, if a region seems to shrink, then you're mostly looking at activation patterns. It's not like you lose neurons - it's well known that the brain tends to swap and recruit neurons between brain regions - quite a plastic organ.
And that rather changes the interpretation, since the region they say they're measuring is associated with sexuality stimulus response. Which makes the conclusion kind of mundane: people who watch pornography (and I'll bet a lot of people who are in pornography - or maybe just on HBO) have a reduced response to sexual stimuli.
Is that really a bad thing?
Also you actively need to be kept away from other people like you.
Unvaccinated people congregating in geographical proximity is actively a bad thing - i.e. schools need to know how many unvaccinated children (for any reason) are present since while 1 is probably fine, 10 more or less undoes herd immunity benefits for them. It has serious ramifications if any 1 presents with symptoms of something normally vaccine-preventable.
The only important thing is whether the figures can reverse on you. If it's an across the board reduction, who cares? I'd be way more interested if it was possible for the relative efficiency of two vehicles to actually switch around.
Yes except no one's been able to show that they actually do have the keys, or even a smoking gun of "this algorithm is always active".
What they are doing is the same wailing and knashing of teeth that happened 40 years ago.
Meanwhile it seems far more obvious that the NSA instead just relies on the CIAs direct intercept and tampering with targeted bits of hardware, rather then depending on people using a specific algorithm, with a specific set of constants, somewhere that's interesting to them and not one where the documentation for its specifications explains exactly how to generate new constants which would eliminate any baked in security hole.
...it would not be possible to robotically attach new, external reaction wheels. It's a telescope, it has direction, could you not design something to attach externally and provide reaction control?
No idea - but the general point was that pure electric air propulsion is a technology that doesn't exist in a vacuum. There's lots of ways it could become viable.
Solid-oxide fuel cells are a much more efficient way to burn hydrocarbons then conventional combustion engines. An electric airliner that used solid-oxide fuel cells could potentially get more range for the same weight of fuel - and unlike with batteries, you're not trading off fuel mass.
Why should there be exits? What if they go to another universe?
I was talking about the classic kind of wormhole. Either it has a direction, and then there should be a 50/50 chance that any end is an exit, or it has no direction and both ends can act like an exit.
If they go to another universe, then I would expect other universe's wormholes to connect to ours too, in a similar ratio (otherwise our universe would be very special, and lose matter/energy).
Is there one nearby that we can observe with our extremely primitive and limited technology? Would we know it if we saw it?
Matter almost falling into a black hole, but escaping, is the source of some of the most energetic bursts of cosmic rays, and we can detect those from half a universe away. It would not be unreasonable to expect the matter/energy that comes out to be even more energetic and also have a much greater quantity. Again, only assuming stuff exits a wormhole.
Why would matter exiting a wormhole be more energetic? It would be less energetic.
In a blackhole matter enters, undergoes E=mc^2 and is re-emitted as conveniently detectable radiation. In a wormhole, matter potentially traverses the length and remains as matter - which means no gamma ray bursts, just whatever heat you pick up from jostling around with all the other matter that might be doing it.
Conversely all the exits would, by definition, also be at the center of galaxies since they'd have to be huge gravitational masses as well.
At those sorts of distances, it's unlikely we'd be able to conclusively know if we were seeing a wormhole exit or some other phenomena.
Wouldn't a wormhole technically have a much larger volume of 3D spacetime to spread it's mass in, since a good deal of the mass can extend down into the wormhole and along it - which would mean it's quite literally out of the plane of ordinary space.
The problem is the self-destruct on the mines was expected to have about a 3% failure rate (these were actually developed). Leaving 3% of your mines in the ground and potentially active after the conflict means you're still left with mindfields about as large as they were during the war.
The real goal is to build a robot which can outrun a human and then just holds onto them until the authorities arrive. The magic of robotics is really going to be the ability to let the robot take the first, second and subsequent shots and keep going.
Uh...what?
I'm pretty sure everything DARPA works on has huge battlefield relevance. It's not like cold-fusion powered tanks wouldn't be a huge game-changer.
Anecdote is not data.
Fossil and DNA evidence from millions of years ago, found all over the world, is not an anecdote.
The main problem is we know other lifeforms evolved on this planet before us, and we're not the oldest planetary system out there. Unless there is an absurd statistical imbalance in the formation of actual Earth-like planets - which survey data suggests is very unlikely - then the conditions were ripe for complex multi-cellular life to arise for billions of years prior to humans coming on the scene.
I'm not sure anyone would bother encrypting light-speed communications. They're so slow that the real problem is hoping anybody knows what you were saying hundreds of years later.
The thing I've been hanging out for is if we discover any possible means of FTL, then the first thing we should go looking for is whether there's FTL radio communications being performed via that method.
Although the best possibility at the moment I guess is beacons transmitting warp-bubbles between each other with Alcubierre-drives.
This is a concept a lot of people struggle with, but scale matters.
And perhaps moreover, every thing you described there is a function of it - in all those cases you're left with little recourse because the scale is too low to make most forms of it worthwhile. Hence eBay and PayPal really.
Yes heaven forbid we take preventative action before someone gets hurt.
To some extent the biggest thing SpaceX is doing is tossing the demand for "flight qualified" out the window, and instead building the part they want and then flying it and qualifying it.
The risk of course being, you might destroy from test rigs. But if you acknowledge that's what they are, then you learn things.
The missing part of your argument I think is not just "1 professor".
What you want to do is get a whole bunch to record the relevant lectures - ideally people who are very diverse in style. Then let the students pick the one they find works best for them.
Of course you could then take this further: have a project to post-process and bookmark the content covered in each section, so if you're struggling with a concept then you get a splay of dozens of that same lecture over the years, from different people, so you can go through them and try and find the nuance which let's you actually grok the concept you're missing.
The part of the argument which explains why this will never happen in the current environment is where you want to use tutorial classes for properly consuming content. My tutorial classes at the moment are 50 people or so. 30 seems to be the smallest. They're not tutorials, they're just some weird version of regular high school classes and it's all specifically blameable on budget cutting.
UNSW actually is trying to do this, but so far it seems very opt-in. If you use overhead projectors then it doesn't go into the recording.
I suspect they are allowing the system to be way too cooperative with the lecturers where it should probably be a little more adversarial - ensure nothing used to present in that room isn't recorded.
Lectures work really really well when you need to have a conceptual understanding of a subject. I always found biology lectures useful, because the subject is extremely concept oriented and you need to understand that. Same with chemistry, and the same with physics - interestingly.
What I've found absolutely doesn't work for me is mathematics (and mathematics heavy subject) lectures. I have no idea how anyone learns a thing from lectures on mathematics. At least in first and second year, my experience of mathematics lectures was me trying very hard to follow them, missing 1 item and being lost for the entire lecture. Nothing past that point connected with anything, because we were suddenly well away from "this is how this framework fits together and why" and back into "just remember this is what happens" - which I really can't do in a lecture setting.
I'm willing to accept this may be a quirk on my part, but mathematics taught from a definitionally-heavy perspective seems to be about the most useless thing I can have lectured at me in rapid-fire. The pattern of "answers only in tutorials" makes it even worse, since then we're well onto "please wait a week to discover your entire understanding is wrong".
In my (newly ongoing experience, 2nd degree program) I'm finding that idea seems to have gone out the window. 50-person tutorial classes are just a second-round of less effective lectures, delivering material that would be more usefully provided as a worked-solutions booklet. Waiting a week to find out why you're wrong is also a least-efficient means to learn.
I find this too.
It was a startling realization that I could take notes during a lecture, walk out and not have a clue what was being said - this is handwritten notes too.
So I gave up on notes and focused on the lecture itself, since afterall I can copy out content from a book anytime.