Heheh. Really getting a kick out of all those people trying to explain away the embarrasing 18% figure. Trying to downplay that figure is almost as much head-in-the-sand as clinging to the belief that the Earth is the center of the Universe. Goes to show that the same principles (not willing to acknowledge the uncomfortable truth when it clashes with your own ideology) also work in the/. geek world.
I, for one, have no doubt that 18% of Americans (and 19% of Britains, and 17% of Germans) truely think the Earth is the center of the universe. Hell, half of the US population will belief any stupid position simply "because Oprah said so". And half of the British population finds truth at the bottom of a beer barrel. About the Germans, not so sure, but they have been in trouble deciding on their opinions ever since Der Führer committed suicide....
Back in the early '50-ies my dad was serving in (the then) Dutch New Guinea, at the time that the Indonesians started their commando infiltration campaigns.
My dad told me how on night patrols they used to put some fireflies in their breast pockets, shining through the fabric, so that they could identify each other in the dark without being obviously visible from afar.
Actually, apart from reaction thrust you can use a 2nd way of manoeuvring in LEO orbit: adjusting your drag parameters.
Satellites in LEO still experience some drag from the outer layers of the atmosphere (this is why they decay if the orbit is not maintained by manoeuvres).
In theory, you can use that to adjust your orbit (e.g. by adjusting the attitude of the satellite so a larger surface points forward: or by temporarily increasing that forward facing surface, e.g. with adjustable or inflattable panels). It is rumoured that the US Navy NOSS satellites (see my comment elswhere in the comments to this topic) use manoeuvring techniques of that kind to maintain their thight formation
The US Navy has quite some experience (decades, actually) with formation flying with their NOSS (Naval Ocean Surveillance System) SIGINT satellites (http://www.satobs.org/noss.html). The old one flew in tight triangular formations of three (quite a sight to see), the newer ones do it with two. They serve to pinpoint ships based on their radio communications.
Data on new objects, even before they have meaningful orbital solutions are made public by the International Astronomical Union's Minor Planet Center at Harvard (which is not a government entity, for the conspiracy mindset among us) via the NEOCP list, a list of freshly discovered objects in desperate need of follow-up by as much observatories as possible). As are any follow-up data (often by non-US observatories). From they get propagated into various databases worlwide almost immediately. So yeah - it will be known, even before it is clear it is an object with potential impact solutions. This is something that "they" (in gub'ment conspiracy freaks parlance) really cannot hide
So you can put your tinfoil hat away.
Earl Wahlquist, associate director of the Department of Energys Space and Defense Power Systems Office, said July 23 [2002] that 7 kilograms of Plutonium 238 slightly more than half of the U.S. inventory is being reassigned for use by an undisclosed national security agency.
The agency in question is probably the NRO. So basically, it has gone from NASA into the NRO black space project.
Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make unwelcome truths go away.
What you call "ignorant bias" is an informed assessment by a well-travelled person who knows both the US and Europe. The US is starting to seriously lag behind in many areas. They are no longer the forefront of education and technology, as they once were. Other countries pass them left and right. Your space program is lying flat on it's arse, in a few months from now you need other countries again (as a few years ago) to launch your astronauts. The life expectancy of the average American is lower than in many European countries. The chances of getting murdered are considerably higher.
Compared to us Europeans, you guys are increasingly receding into new Dark Ages.
But if you insist on doing your money transfers by engraving them in clay tablets: youre welcome to that. Just don't pretend it is the epitome of modern.
Seriously, if you Yanks think this is the epitome of modern banking: we Europeans are doubling up in laughter here.
We do things completely electronic here, by direct bank transfers. No need to take photographs of a paper cheque. In fact, I haven't seen a cheque since childhood (when an aunt from Australia sent one. We had a hell of a trouble cashing it).
Seriously. This security scare has gotten to the point where you actually have more to fear, as an air passenger, of security forces than of actual terrorists....
And the latter are sitting back and laughing their arse off...
The laptop, I mean? If so, have fun with customs when you come back to the US.
Best ways to avoid trouble coming back is:
a) encrypting all your files;
b) name a few "jihad.doc" or "kiddieP.jpg" or "U238centrifuge.pdf";
c) make a picture of Ahmedinajabad your desktop image
This will ensure a speedy travel home from the airport.
It's an easy point to miss because psychology, especially when it comes to therapy, consistently positions itself far beyond the scope you describe.
In what way? What else is therapy but, as I wrote: "map why a certain person does not feel well and/or function well within his social surroundings, and help solve that"?
it's an assortment of often anecdotal and deeply biased observations based on whatever cultural norms the researchers happen to believe in.
Modern psychological diagnostics are far from anecdotical. The DSM-IV diagnostic criteria are based on statistical treatment of large samples of clinical data and a diagnosis includes standardized tests on these points.
In that sense it is really not different from the diagnostics in medical sciences. DSM-IV recognized disorders and mental ilnesses consist of sets of co-occuring symptoms providing a classification into several categories of disorder/illness.
I should also point out here that several of the DSM-IV mental ilnesses turn out to express themselves as recognizable categories in other venues of research (e.g. genetics, brain neurology) as well. So evidently DSM-IV categories are not all BS, unlike suggested by some.
"anything brain-related which cannot be medicated or operated on is within the scope of psychology"
Wrong. Depression can be medicated, but is in the realm of psychology. Anxiety disorders can be medicated, but is in the realm of psychology. To name just a few.
And yes, there are cognitive and behavioural issues that cannot be operated on, and not or only limited medicated. Those are indeed in the realm of psychology. They are also real. Several of those are not just visible as the result of a psychological test, but also as deviant patterns of brain activity in an fMRI. They exists, even if we don't know how they come about, and even though they express as brain activity patterns rather than physical brain pathologies. Human conscience, cognition and personality differences all exist, but you are highly ignorant if you think all aspects of these express themselves in terms that can be easily gleaned and explained from a brain autopsy or MRI scan.
By the way, in answer to a post by an anonymous coward in this subthread: I am not a psychologist myself (I am an archaeologist) so it is not "my trade". I do have a strong interest in psychology and psychiatry however, notably from the aspect of evolutionary psychology & neurology.
I do not know who gave this a score "4: informative", but even as a joke it is a bit lame. Psychopathy is not the same as a psychosis c.q. schizophrenia. Psychopaths do not hear voices in their head. Schizophrenics (sometimes) do.
Let me ad to this that ambiguity is also part of all forms of science. There is not a single science that does not work with an invented framework of criteria and grey areas between classes (see for example the ongoing debate whether Pluto is a planet or not, as a reminder). In that sense, the natural (and medic) sciences really fool themselves if they think they are different in that aspect from the social sciences.
First, sociopathy is not a mental illness. It is a personality disorder.
And yes, the assignment of a personality disorder depends on the culture you are part of. In some cultures for example it is acceptible to be very emotional and theatric, while in for example Calvinistic north European cultures like mine it is not. In the one culture people will see nothing wrong, while in my country such a person could (if it is deemed disruptive to his social environment) be deemed to have a "Histrionic personality disorder".
The point (and many people seem to mis this point) of psychology is to map why a certain person does not feel well and/or funtion well within his social surroundings, and help solve that. So a diagnosis being tied to the culture you deal with is not strange and simply valid science actually. many sciences, including the natural sciences, actually employ criteria and diagnostics valid for a particular context only.
You were not born in a socialist country: you were born in a communist country. This common confusion is exactly why I put on that sarcastic remark about "commies"
There are major differences between Soviet Russia and the European countries you call "socialist" anyway. For one thing, the countries in question are true democracies, unlike Soviet Russia. For that reason alone you already can't compare the two and predict a similar future.
No they are not, they are two different (albeit closely related) things.
Robert Hare, an expert on psychopathy and the author of the PCL (Psychopathy Check List) that is (internationally) used by psychiatrists and psychologists to diagnose someone as a psychopath, makes a clear distinction between sociopath and psychopath.
The most notable distinction is in short (in details, there is more) that "psychopaths are without conscience and incapable of empathy, guilt, or loyalty to anyone but themselves". They are emotionally very shallow.
Sociopaths on the other hand behave in a way that is regarded as anti-social and criminal by society, but not by the sub-culture to which the sociopath belongs. Morover, sociopaths can have a well-developed conscience and a normal capacity for empathy, guilt, and loyalty: "but their sense sense of right and wrong is based on the norms and expectations of their subculture or group".
RCL, if you are implying that things are better in the US than Europe and this reflects in unemployment rates: you have smoked too much.
Unemployment rates in most European countries are (sometimes drastically) lower than those of the US.
The CIA factbook gives a 2008 unemployment rate of 7.2% for the USA.
Compare this to for example:
6.4% for Sweden (2008);
6.2% for Ireland (2008);
5.5% for the UK (2008);
4.7 for Luxemburg (2008);
4.5 for the Netherlands (2008);
3.7 for Austria (2008);
3.0 for Switserland (2008);
2.6 for Norway (2008);
2.0 for Denmark;
For the European Union as a whole, it is 7.5%, which is not that much different from the US's 7.2%
European countries with higher unemployement rates are most notably the southern European countries, not the Northwest or East European ones (the ones that you dub "socialist"). These S-European countries are the ones with, in general, lower levels of education. Former East European countries like Latvia (5.0 %), Estonia (6.2%) or the Czech republic (6.0 %) score better than the USA.
So I am very sorry, but your remark is total bollocks as it is not supported by any facts, and instead countered by the facts. It is merely your ideology speaking here, the typical American delusion that everything is of course best in the US (newsflash: it isn't! In many fields!) and every country where they actually invest tax money into proper education, healthcare and social welfare is [derisive]"socialist"[/derisive]* : and hence something abhorrent that should be opposed. Because it would result into "wrong" things, like: healthy people, a general high level of education, and a general high standard of welfare for the whole population as opposed to a 15% top of the population only. And you still wonder why Europeans feel that Americans (a part of whom we know are more enlightened nothwithstanding) typically are arrogant and ignorant? You just proved it again Brother!
* note: not so long ago it would have been "commie" but you know you would be laughed away if you use that word now.
Studies show that in their pre-psychotic phases (i.e. before the onset of the first psychotic signs in late adolescence) schizophrenia patients show significantly more academic abilities. Also, first degree relatives of schizophrenia patients show a significant higher degree of academic scholarship. See e.g. Karlsson, Acta Psychiatrica Scandianavia 104 (2001), 466-468.
Similar studies find similar correlations with artistic capabilities. Both art and academic abilities tap creativity, so that shouldn't surprise.
Science is creativity as well. Without a hightened degree of creativity you cannot do innovative science really. In many ways, science is a form of art.
Sorry, but all parietal cave art is younger than 31 000 years ago, not 40 000 as you mention. In fact one could make an argument that the 31 000 year age is inflated as it hinges solely on the Grotte de Chauvet, which is an anomaly, and for which Paul Pettitt recently argued (with good arguments imho) it is a flawed date. Parietal cave art is younger than the last Neandertals. I am not talking of portable art of course (neither are you evidently). That is somewhat older, but in Europe not older than 35 000 yrs either.
.
That Neandertals "were ineffective hunters" has long been argued (and this idea is still paramount in the popular press), but is increasingly falsified by recent archaeological and bioarchaeological research. Again, this idea has more to do with stereotypical thinking about "us" and "them" than that it is underpinned by current evidence.
Current evidence (taphonomic studies of bone assemblages) shows that Neandertals at various places (e.g. Mauran, Salzgitter-Lebenstedt) hunted deliberately specific species, including sometimes large prey, and targetted prime-aged individuals. We have remains of wooden spears (even pre-dating Neandertals) from Schöningen, Clacton and Lehringen. And stable isotope studies of Neandertal skeletal remains (over 15 different sites now studied) shows that their diet for a very high part must have consisted of meat - they score at very high tropic levels, in the top of the carnivore reaches. They clearly were very effective hunters.
It is therefore the opinion of more than one of my colleagues and myself, that Neandertals must have possessed language in order to be such an effective hunter.
Slashdot Mirror
Heheh. Really getting a kick out of all those people trying to explain away the embarrasing 18% figure. Trying to downplay that figure is almost as much head-in-the-sand as clinging to the belief that the Earth is the center of the Universe. Goes to show that the same principles (not willing to acknowledge the uncomfortable truth when it clashes with your own ideology) also work in the /. geek world.
I, for one, have no doubt that 18% of Americans (and 19% of Britains, and 17% of Germans) truely think the Earth is the center of the universe. Hell, half of the US population will belief any stupid position simply "because Oprah said so". And half of the British population finds truth at the bottom of a beer barrel. About the Germans, not so sure, but they have been in trouble deciding on their opinions ever since Der Führer committed suicide....
Back in the early '50-ies my dad was serving in (the then) Dutch New Guinea, at the time that the Indonesians started their commando infiltration campaigns.
My dad told me how on night patrols they used to put some fireflies in their breast pockets, shining through the fabric, so that they could identify each other in the dark without being obviously visible from afar.
Actually, apart from reaction thrust you can use a 2nd way of manoeuvring in LEO orbit: adjusting your drag parameters.
Satellites in LEO still experience some drag from the outer layers of the atmosphere (this is why they decay if the orbit is not maintained by manoeuvres).
In theory, you can use that to adjust your orbit (e.g. by adjusting the attitude of the satellite so a larger surface points forward: or by temporarily increasing that forward facing surface, e.g. with adjustable or inflattable panels). It is rumoured that the US Navy NOSS satellites (see my comment elswhere in the comments to this topic) use manoeuvring techniques of that kind to maintain their thight formation
The US Navy has quite some experience (decades, actually) with formation flying with their NOSS (Naval Ocean Surveillance System) SIGINT satellites (http://www.satobs.org/noss.html). The old one flew in tight triangular formations of three (quite a sight to see), the newer ones do it with two. They serve to pinpoint ships based on their radio communications.
Also, the Chinese appear to be experimenting with a similar concept (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/08/china-launches-military-satellite-yaogan-weixing-10/).
Here are two pictures I shot of two of the newer NOSS formations, NOSS 3-4 launched in 2007 and NOSS 3-2 launched in 2003:
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b176/marcoaliaslama/satellites/170109NOSS3_4.jpg
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b176/marcoaliaslama/satellites/131208NOSS3_2.jpg
Data on new objects, even before they have meaningful orbital solutions are made public by the International Astronomical Union's Minor Planet Center at Harvard (which is not a government entity, for the conspiracy mindset among us) via the NEOCP list, a list of freshly discovered objects in desperate need of follow-up by as much observatories as possible). As are any follow-up data (often by non-US observatories). From they get propagated into various databases worlwide almost immediately. So yeah - it will be known, even before it is clear it is an object with potential impact solutions. This is something that "they" (in gub'ment conspiracy freaks parlance) really cannot hide
So you can put your tinfoil hat away.
It is not tracking that is the problem. USSTRATCOM (formerly NORAD) tracks everything in LEO from decimeter size, plus a lot smaller stuff.
The real bottleneck is in the computer power to:
1) sort out which detections concern the same object;
2)calculate all the potential risk situations for these thousands of objects
The agency in question is probably the NRO. So basically, it has gone from NASA into the NRO black space project.
Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make unwelcome truths go away.
What you call "ignorant bias" is an informed assessment by a well-travelled person who knows both the US and Europe. The US is starting to seriously lag behind in many areas. They are no longer the forefront of education and technology, as they once were. Other countries pass them left and right. Your space program is lying flat on it's arse, in a few months from now you need other countries again (as a few years ago) to launch your astronauts. The life expectancy of the average American is lower than in many European countries. The chances of getting murdered are considerably higher.
So stick your head in the sand, my boy....
Compared to us Europeans, you guys are increasingly receding into new Dark Ages.
But if you insist on doing your money transfers by engraving them in clay tablets: youre welcome to that. Just don't pretend it is the epitome of modern.
Seriously, if you Yanks think this is the epitome of modern banking: we Europeans are doubling up in laughter here.
We do things completely electronic here, by direct bank transfers. No need to take photographs of a paper cheque. In fact, I haven't seen a cheque since childhood (when an aunt from Australia sent one. We had a hell of a trouble cashing it).
It is a spherical auxiliary fuel tank.
Both the Tranquility unit and the observation deck are Italian built
So it is not very likely this is a Metric / Imperial mixup problem, as Italy uses Metric only and built both objects.
Seriously. This security scare has gotten to the point where you actually have more to fear, as an air passenger, of security forces than of actual terrorists....
And the latter are sitting back and laughing their arse off...
The laptop, I mean? If so, have fun with customs when you come back to the US.
Best ways to avoid trouble coming back is:
a) encrypting all your files;
b) name a few "jihad.doc" or "kiddieP.jpg" or "U238centrifuge.pdf";
c) make a picture of Ahmedinajabad your desktop image
This will ensure a speedy travel home from the airport.
I do not know who gave this a score "4: informative", but even as a joke it is a bit lame. Psychopathy is not the same as a psychosis c.q. schizophrenia. Psychopaths do not hear voices in their head. Schizophrenics (sometimes) do.
Let me ad to this that ambiguity is also part of all forms of science. There is not a single science that does not work with an invented framework of criteria and grey areas between classes (see for example the ongoing debate whether Pluto is a planet or not, as a reminder). In that sense, the natural (and medic) sciences really fool themselves if they think they are different in that aspect from the social sciences.
First, sociopathy is not a mental illness. It is a personality disorder.
And yes, the assignment of a personality disorder depends on the culture you are part of. In some cultures for example it is acceptible to be very emotional and theatric, while in for example Calvinistic north European cultures like mine it is not. In the one culture people will see nothing wrong, while in my country such a person could (if it is deemed disruptive to his social environment) be deemed to have a "Histrionic personality disorder".
The point (and many people seem to mis this point) of psychology is to map why a certain person does not feel well and/or funtion well within his social surroundings, and help solve that. So a diagnosis being tied to the culture you deal with is not strange and simply valid science actually. many sciences, including the natural sciences, actually employ criteria and diagnostics valid for a particular context only.
You were not born in a socialist country: you were born in a communist country. This common confusion is exactly why I put on that sarcastic remark about "commies"
There are major differences between Soviet Russia and the European countries you call "socialist" anyway. For one thing, the countries in question are true democracies, unlike Soviet Russia. For that reason alone you already can't compare the two and predict a similar future.
Indeed they have! There is a book about it by two experts, Bubiak and Hare, called "Snakes in Suits" (ISBN 978-0-06-114789-0)
No they are not, they are two different (albeit closely related) things.
Robert Hare, an expert on psychopathy and the author of the PCL (Psychopathy Check List) that is (internationally) used by psychiatrists and psychologists to diagnose someone as a psychopath, makes a clear distinction between sociopath and psychopath.
The most notable distinction is in short (in details, there is more) that "psychopaths are without conscience and incapable of empathy, guilt, or loyalty to anyone but themselves". They are emotionally very shallow.
Sociopaths on the other hand behave in a way that is regarded as anti-social and criminal by society, but not by the sub-culture to which the sociopath belongs. Morover, sociopaths can have a well-developed conscience and a normal capacity for empathy, guilt, and loyalty: "but their sense sense of right and wrong is based on the norms and expectations of their subculture or group".
RCL, if you are implying that things are better in the US than Europe and this reflects in unemployment rates: you have smoked too much.
Unemployment rates in most European countries are (sometimes drastically) lower than those of the US.
The CIA factbook gives a 2008 unemployment rate of 7.2% for the USA.
Compare this to for example:
6.4% for Sweden (2008);
6.2% for Ireland (2008);
5.5% for the UK (2008);
4.7 for Luxemburg (2008);
4.5 for the Netherlands (2008);
3.7 for Austria (2008);
3.0 for Switserland (2008);
2.6 for Norway (2008);
2.0 for Denmark;
For the European Union as a whole, it is 7.5%, which is not that much different from the US's 7.2%
European countries with higher unemployement rates are most notably the southern European countries, not the Northwest or East European ones (the ones that you dub "socialist"). These S-European countries are the ones with, in general, lower levels of education. Former East European countries like Latvia (5.0 %), Estonia (6.2%) or the Czech republic (6.0 %) score better than the USA.
So I am very sorry, but your remark is total bollocks as it is not supported by any facts, and instead countered by the facts. It is merely your ideology speaking here, the typical American delusion that everything is of course best in the US (newsflash: it isn't! In many fields!) and every country where they actually invest tax money into proper education, healthcare and social welfare is [derisive]"socialist"[/derisive]* : and hence something abhorrent that should be opposed. Because it would result into "wrong" things, like: healthy people, a general high level of education, and a general high standard of welfare for the whole population as opposed to a 15% top of the population only. And you still wonder why Europeans feel that Americans (a part of whom we know are more enlightened nothwithstanding) typically are arrogant and ignorant? You just proved it again Brother!
* note: not so long ago it would have been "commie" but you know you would be laughed away if you use that word now.
Studies show that in their pre-psychotic phases (i.e. before the onset of the first psychotic signs in late adolescence) schizophrenia patients show significantly more academic abilities. Also, first degree relatives of schizophrenia patients show a significant higher degree of academic scholarship. See e.g. Karlsson, Acta Psychiatrica Scandianavia 104 (2001), 466-468.
Similar studies find similar correlations with artistic capabilities. Both art and academic abilities tap creativity, so that shouldn't surprise.
Science is creativity as well. Without a hightened degree of creativity you cannot do innovative science really. In many ways, science is a form of art.
Sorry, but all parietal cave art is younger than 31 000 years ago, not 40 000 as you mention. In fact one could make an argument that the 31 000 year age is inflated as it hinges solely on the Grotte de Chauvet, which is an anomaly, and for which Paul Pettitt recently argued (with good arguments imho) it is a flawed date. Parietal cave art is younger than the last Neandertals. I am not talking of portable art of course (neither are you evidently). That is somewhat older, but in Europe not older than 35 000 yrs either.
. That Neandertals "were ineffective hunters" has long been argued (and this idea is still paramount in the popular press), but is increasingly falsified by recent archaeological and bioarchaeological research. Again, this idea has more to do with stereotypical thinking about "us" and "them" than that it is underpinned by current evidence.
Current evidence (taphonomic studies of bone assemblages) shows that Neandertals at various places (e.g. Mauran, Salzgitter-Lebenstedt) hunted deliberately specific species, including sometimes large prey, and targetted prime-aged individuals. We have remains of wooden spears (even pre-dating Neandertals) from Schöningen, Clacton and Lehringen. And stable isotope studies of Neandertal skeletal remains (over 15 different sites now studied) shows that their diet for a very high part must have consisted of meat - they score at very high tropic levels, in the top of the carnivore reaches. They clearly were very effective hunters.
It is therefore the opinion of more than one of my colleagues and myself, that Neandertals must have possessed language in order to be such an effective hunter.