Saying this in public will end a scientist, politician or TV pundit's career though so we hear endless bleating about an energy crisis, running out of energy and global warming bullcrap intended to frighten us into doing things sane people would never do otherwise.
Nice conspiracy theory you have there. As a liberal, I'm always happy to hear that there is a well-organized liberal machine out there trying to corrupt our way of life. It's so comforting, since the alternative is that we're a wildly divergent group of individuals who can't put on our collective pants without arguing endlessly about it, let alone form a conspiracy.
Seriously, saying a lot of untrue things in public will end a lot of careers. A scientist saying creationism is real will get him shunned, as it should. A scientist saying "we need nukes, there is no possible way anything else can work" is not a scientific statement. Those that do risk joining the "scientists" that said man would never achieve flight, right before the wright brothers.
You are so closed minded, you're using your own convictions as proof for your convictions.
Why don't we just put all the state primaries on the same day? The importance of the Iowa primary is no longer vastly inflated, presidential canidates no longer have to pledge to Big Corn, and ethanol stops getting subsidies.
Farmers can get mad all they like, it's bad for the rest of us.
Of course the ones getting the most attention can be much more easily controlled by those who provide it.
I smell a vague conspiracy theory that doesn't hold water compared to more simple explanations. Specifically that those which are attracting more attention are doing so in general because they're more viable in the short-term, or rather appeared that way.
Ethanol got a lot of attention (read: subsidies) because of exactly one thing: the iowa primary. Traditionally, politicians hoping to run for president supported ethanol because Iowa grows corn. The thinking was "If I support ethanol, I'll get big numbers in Iowa, one of the first primaries, and that will get me big campaign contributions!" Who cares about whether it is a real solution. Although not a good reason, it's not that "THEY" can controll you better. And to be honest, you can add it to your current car and put it into the infrastructure, that's a plus it has over other energies. Of course as the article points out, it's a waste of time for numerous reasons.
Nuclear: again, not evil white men out to control you, it was a big thing for a while. Of course it's going to get attention: we can do it right now.
Clean coal: you know who is pushing big for this? Everyone who is currently supported by coal, which is a lot of people. Say you own a coal-fired power plant. Which is more attractive: being forced to dismantle your plant completely in a few years (IE if solar power wins) or spend a few million on researching "clean" coal and convincing congressmen on your payroll that you're on the way to making coal which has all of the upsides of renewables but none of the downsides without raising taxes? If your answer is "going bankrupt" instead of "clean coal" you are either a saint, a liar, or are badly deluded.
In short, we can see it's not about population control, it's about money, laziness, and semi-corruption. It's not evil crafty men in suits trying to turn off your power if you stumble onto their secrets, its about fat lazy men in suits being greedy.
Subtle difference I guess, but be realistic and you won't sound like you wear a tinfoil hat.
If something good happens in your term, your friends say it's because of you, your enemies say it was coincidence or take credit for it themselves. If something bad happens during your term, your friends say it's coincidence while denying personal responsibility, your enemies say it's your fault while denying personal responsibility. Who is right? Well, that's hard to say. In practice, it's whichever side is more convincing to the voting public.
Your final: figure out if regan defeated communism or it happened to fall apart on it's own by flipping a coin.
You mean "The subject was an underpaid, overworked grad student/postdoc, and the image was 'NEURON' in a blatant example of pandering to a specific high-impact journal to increase the likelyhood of acceptance."
Didn't read the full article, but from the abstract
We show that these receptive-field models make it possible to identify, from a large set of completely novel natural images, which specific image was seen by an observer...
Our results suggest that it may soon be possible to reconstruct a picture of a person's visual experience from measurements of brain activity alone.
The article you linked to seems to only be able to tell which object a person saw from their fMRI. I believe it required established measurements too, IE "this part of the brain lights up when they see a face. In blind studies, that part of the brain lit up, so they must have seen a face."
Whether it required a calibration for each individual or not, no image reconstruction was done: it's not the same thing at all.
On the off chance it does, keep in mind this is not the full article. Critiques along the lines of "this doesn't prove anything," or "They should have done X" are premature if you haven't read the full (journal) article. If you thought of it, they probably covered that in the article you're not willing to pay for.
There are the pics. Haven't had time to read through the text yet, but I did see 3 pixelated reconstructions next to the original image.
Not very good quality, but better than what we had before (nothing.)
Probably requires a subscription to get it. As most do on this site, feel free to complain about that, but realize it's not the researcher's fault. They did provide the pics. The journalists at Asahi and Yomuri didn't, but you're not reading real science papers if you're reading newspapers.
People read blurby summaries, which don't include the results, the full reasoning, methods, etc, and then act as if it's the fault of the researchers. It's absurd, that's neither the paper nor the direct work of the researchers, it's some non-scientist working for a news source. Read the actual paper, TFA in these cases are rarely any better than TFS.
There's the PDF. It does have the very pixelated images. I haven't had time to read through it.
As always, don't complain to me if you don't happen to have a subscription, and not having a subscription is no reason to act as if the results aren't real.
I see you got modded as a troll. It must be because you spoke out against the extremely popular gitmo situation, or because you insulted the venerable prison system guards who frequent idle slashdot.
Competition drives prices up!? Don't treat us like morons. If used sales went down why would they reduce the price? To make less money? I can see that being a great business strategy.
To be fair, they weren't saying that. They were CLAIMING (distinct from it being true) that the used industry is acting as a parasite on their industry. Used game sales going down wouldn't reduce the price, he's saying that used game sellers are stealing their profits.
It's complete lies, but they're at least more rational than you're summarizing. I point this out because criticisms of shenanigans like this are most effective when they're based on reality, not misinterpretations.
But who can he sue? John Doe? Even if John Doe is convicted of liable in abstinencia (err what ever it is called when you are tried with out being present) who would they punish for it?
Well yeah, that guy is a real jerk, comitted a lot of crimes.
After witnessing the amount of time and effort that went into a small suspension bridge spanning the river Thames in London (The Millenium Bridge [wikipedia.org]), the mere idea of this elevator scares the shit out of me.
Note to self: don't let the Brits design or build the space elevator. Especially not near the thames river.
You make a valid point, I didn't have a simple alternative in mind. Not being a chemical engineer, I assumed that was someone else's problem.
Having said that, if we can't make plastics without pthalates, and pthalates do hurt us, then the logical thing to do would be use less plastics. Naturally it has it's vital uses and I'm not about to suggest banning plastic, but you'd agree there are numerous tons of the stuff produced out of convinience, not necessity.
Analyzing only the disadvantages of the status quo (let alone focusing on unlikely, unproven disadvantages) without comparison to a possible alternative is a terrible way to make a decision.
You're quite right, given that there is no simple alternative to pthalates, it does become much less simple than I assumed.
Right now though, I would assume that our usage of plastics is poorly regulated, that the cost-benefit analysis is entirely on economics between the consumer and producer, without factoring in health. That strikes me as a little unbalanced. I'm doubtful as to whether these newly-raised questions as to the safety of pthalates is a factor in how much plastics we use, and it should be, even if we can't put an exact figure on it yet.
The health risks are still huge, even if we can't say for certain whether they're real or not, we need to be thinking about it and acting accordingly: we need to be using less plastics until we're certain they're not a threat.
Anyway, you seem to be taking my joke post seriously about an entirely hypothetical past, where we happened to develop internet before WWII. Unless your life resembles "Sliders," I don't see why this matters, really. Me misunderstanding Hitler's motivations is at worst going to make me more nervous around art students.
Re:Priorities, people, priorities
on
The Mouse Turns 40
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
correction... some people in the US...
That's why I said "quite a few," and did NOT say "People who live in the US, which is everyone on/." Not everyone does, but slashdot is pretty american-centric by visitors and stories.
I also didn't say "everyone who lives in the US cares about this." I wasn't making absolute statements, I don't know why you read them as such. Maybe to make yourself look smarter when you objected?
Re:Priorities, people, priorities
on
The Mouse Turns 40
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Answer: People who live in the US. Which happens to be quite a few around this neck of the interwoods. You might be looking for euroslashdot, which is that way -->
Slashdot Mirror
Saying this in public will end a scientist, politician or TV pundit's career though so we hear endless bleating about an energy crisis, running out of energy and global warming bullcrap intended to frighten us into doing things sane people would never do otherwise.
Nice conspiracy theory you have there. As a liberal, I'm always happy to hear that there is a well-organized liberal machine out there trying to corrupt our way of life. It's so comforting, since the alternative is that we're a wildly divergent group of individuals who can't put on our collective pants without arguing endlessly about it, let alone form a conspiracy.
Seriously, saying a lot of untrue things in public will end a lot of careers. A scientist saying creationism is real will get him shunned, as it should. A scientist saying "we need nukes, there is no possible way anything else can work" is not a scientific statement. Those that do risk joining the "scientists" that said man would never achieve flight, right before the wright brothers.
You are so closed minded, you're using your own convictions as proof for your convictions.
Why don't we just put all the state primaries on the same day? The importance of the Iowa primary is no longer vastly inflated, presidential canidates no longer have to pledge to Big Corn, and ethanol stops getting subsidies.
Farmers can get mad all they like, it's bad for the rest of us.
Of course the ones getting the most attention can be much more easily controlled by those who provide it.
I smell a vague conspiracy theory that doesn't hold water compared to more simple explanations. Specifically that those which are attracting more attention are doing so in general because they're more viable in the short-term, or rather appeared that way.
Ethanol got a lot of attention (read: subsidies) because of exactly one thing: the iowa primary. Traditionally, politicians hoping to run for president supported ethanol because Iowa grows corn. The thinking was "If I support ethanol, I'll get big numbers in Iowa, one of the first primaries, and that will get me big campaign contributions!" Who cares about whether it is a real solution. Although not a good reason, it's not that "THEY" can controll you better. And to be honest, you can add it to your current car and put it into the infrastructure, that's a plus it has over other energies. Of course as the article points out, it's a waste of time for numerous reasons.
Nuclear: again, not evil white men out to control you, it was a big thing for a while. Of course it's going to get attention: we can do it right now.
Clean coal: you know who is pushing big for this? Everyone who is currently supported by coal, which is a lot of people. Say you own a coal-fired power plant. Which is more attractive: being forced to dismantle your plant completely in a few years (IE if solar power wins) or spend a few million on researching "clean" coal and convincing congressmen on your payroll that you're on the way to making coal which has all of the upsides of renewables but none of the downsides without raising taxes? If your answer is "going bankrupt" instead of "clean coal" you are either a saint, a liar, or are badly deluded.
In short, we can see it's not about population control, it's about money, laziness, and semi-corruption. It's not evil crafty men in suits trying to turn off your power if you stumble onto their secrets, its about fat lazy men in suits being greedy.
Subtle difference I guess, but be realistic and you won't sound like you wear a tinfoil hat.
I'm conCERNed that this think may never stay functional long enough to destroy the earth.
On an unrelated note, if there's two things I love, one is pointless, likely redundant puns, and the other is shouting "the sky is falling!"
Seriously, if you break your TV with a remote, its your fault.
What are you talking about? Common sense like this has no place in discussions of lawsuits.
Welcome to "being a politician 101."
If something good happens in your term, your friends say it's because of you, your enemies say it was coincidence or take credit for it themselves. If something bad happens during your term, your friends say it's coincidence while denying personal responsibility, your enemies say it's your fault while denying personal responsibility. Who is right? Well, that's hard to say. In practice, it's whichever side is more convincing to the voting public.
Your final: figure out if regan defeated communism or it happened to fall apart on it's own by flipping a coin.
Class dismissed.
You mean "The subject was an underpaid, overworked grad student/postdoc, and the image was 'NEURON' in a blatant example of pandering to a specific high-impact journal to increase the likelyhood of acceptance."
Didn't read the full article, but from the abstract
The article you linked to seems to only be able to tell which object a person saw from their fMRI. I believe it required established measurements too, IE "this part of the brain lights up when they see a face. In blind studies, that part of the brain lit up, so they must have seen a face."
Whether it required a calibration for each individual or not, no image reconstruction was done: it's not the same thing at all.
Maybe this image will not require a subscription, although I suspect it will.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/cache/MiamiImageURL/B6WSS-4V4113M-P-7/0?wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkzk
On the off chance it does, keep in mind this is not the full article. Critiques along the lines of "this doesn't prove anything," or "They should have done X" are premature if you haven't read the full (journal) article. If you thought of it, they probably covered that in the article you're not willing to pay for.
http://download.cell.com/neuron/pdf/PIIS0896627308009586.pdf
There are the pics. Haven't had time to read through the text yet, but I did see 3 pixelated reconstructions next to the original image.
Not very good quality, but better than what we had before (nothing.)
Probably requires a subscription to get it. As most do on this site, feel free to complain about that, but realize it's not the researcher's fault. They did provide the pics. The journalists at Asahi and Yomuri didn't, but you're not reading real science papers if you're reading newspapers.
People read blurby summaries, which don't include the results, the full reasoning, methods, etc, and then act as if it's the fault of the researchers. It's absurd, that's neither the paper nor the direct work of the researchers, it's some non-scientist working for a news source. Read the actual paper, TFA in these cases are rarely any better than TFS.
http://download.cell.com/neuron/pdf/PIIS0896627308009586.pdf
There's the PDF. It does have the very pixelated images. I haven't had time to read through it.
As always, don't complain to me if you don't happen to have a subscription, and not having a subscription is no reason to act as if the results aren't real.
Fools! Don't they know it will just interfere with the first stargate?!?
Er... I mean... starwhat now? Nonsense, we don't have a stargate, and we don't send Macgyver to other planets through it!
I see you got modded as a troll. It must be because you spoke out against the extremely popular gitmo situation, or because you insulted the venerable prison system guards who frequent idle slashdot.
I'm pretty sure "push button on Mr. Coffee" is open source already.
Competition drives prices up!? Don't treat us like morons. If used sales went down why would they reduce the price? To make less money? I can see that being a great business strategy.
To be fair, they weren't saying that. They were CLAIMING (distinct from it being true) that the used industry is acting as a parasite on their industry. Used game sales going down wouldn't reduce the price, he's saying that used game sellers are stealing their profits.
It's complete lies, but they're at least more rational than you're summarizing. I point this out because criticisms of shenanigans like this are most effective when they're based on reality, not misinterpretations.
But who can he sue? John Doe? Even if John Doe is convicted of liable in abstinencia (err what ever it is called when you are tried with out being present) who would they punish for it?
Well yeah, that guy is a real jerk, comitted a lot of crimes.
Forutnatley, I hear he died the other day.
You would have to exceed the force of the downward momentum with your jump which is physically impossible.
Sure it is... with THAT attitude.
After witnessing the amount of time and effort that went into a small suspension bridge spanning the river Thames in London (The Millenium Bridge [wikipedia.org]), the mere idea of this elevator scares the shit out of me.
Note to self: don't let the Brits design or build the space elevator. Especially not near the thames river.
Well, space crocs would get sucked into them, potentially killing space kids
(http://abcnews.go.com/gma/consumer/Story?id=2530368&page=1)
So... bonus.
What is it you wish to replace phthalates with?
You make a valid point, I didn't have a simple alternative in mind. Not being a chemical engineer, I assumed that was someone else's problem.
Having said that, if we can't make plastics without pthalates, and pthalates do hurt us, then the logical thing to do would be use less plastics. Naturally it has it's vital uses and I'm not about to suggest banning plastic, but you'd agree there are numerous tons of the stuff produced out of convinience, not necessity.
Analyzing only the disadvantages of the status quo (let alone focusing on unlikely, unproven disadvantages) without comparison to a possible alternative is a terrible way to make a decision.
You're quite right, given that there is no simple alternative to pthalates, it does become much less simple than I assumed.
Right now though, I would assume that our usage of plastics is poorly regulated, that the cost-benefit analysis is entirely on economics between the consumer and producer, without factoring in health. That strikes me as a little unbalanced. I'm doubtful as to whether these newly-raised questions as to the safety of pthalates is a factor in how much plastics we use, and it should be, even if we can't put an exact figure on it yet.
The health risks are still huge, even if we can't say for certain whether they're real or not, we need to be thinking about it and acting accordingly: we need to be using less plastics until we're certain they're not a threat.
Why is it that everyone assumes Hitler would've died a peaceful, quiet painter if he'd been better at art?
Answer: if it's not true, then this XKCD isn't as funny http://xkcd.com/29/
Anyway, you seem to be taking my joke post seriously about an entirely hypothetical past, where we happened to develop internet before WWII. Unless your life resembles "Sliders," I don't see why this matters, really. Me misunderstanding Hitler's motivations is at worst going to make me more nervous around art students.
correction... some people in the US...
That's why I said "quite a few," and did NOT say "People who live in the US, which is everyone on /." Not everyone does, but slashdot is pretty american-centric by visitors and stories.
I also didn't say "everyone who lives in the US cares about this." I wasn't making absolute statements, I don't know why you read them as such. Maybe to make yourself look smarter when you objected?
Answer: People who live in the US. Which happens to be quite a few around this neck of the interwoods. You might be looking for euroslashdot, which is that way -->
Wait, USB has been around 20 years? I didn't know they were even an item, I just thought they were fooling around.
Uh... I didn't know yourSQL was actually a thing, I was trying to make a joke.