The problem with this study is that it's comparing self-selected groups: those who drink lots, little, and no coffee/tea. Their conclusions, drawn from comparing coffee addicts to people who don't drink coffee is a little silly. It assumes that everyone's "baseline" is the same, and ignores the well-known fact that people to take caffeine are, like people who smoke cigarettes for nicotine, often self-medicating for a neurobiological deficiency (i.e. in this case probably dopamine). To compare the levels of someone who self-medicates taken off their medication to someone who doesn't need to self-medicate is a complete load of B.S..
Did you even read the article or look at the game the article is about? The objectives and actions in the game are far too open-ended to be called a groupthink training program like some of the others in the genre may be.
It seems like the way a person was taught to type and their experience with a keyboard would determine to a large extent their speed and rhythm (and accuracy). Not to mention what they're doing besides typing on MSN or whatever. If you're drinking a cup of coffee with one hand... or switching between windows. There are way too many factors at play. Phrenology at least had the advantage of a theoretical framework. Hell, even hand-writing analysis had fewer confounding factors.
These images and this concept have been floating around for years now. The only new pitch is the solar-poweredness. Besides that, this is old hat just sitting on the back burner. Call me when there's a press demonstration
Maybe I'm missing something here, but if the point is to calculate more digits than the last guy, can't the algorithm (efficient or not) just run for a longer time?
He didn't have 300k, so I don't think he will get that in return. You're confusing the figures: 300k was what was earned by donations through the site. When he was arrested he only had 20k in savings.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tees/8457260.stm
I imagine they froze his account, but that he will be returned to his pittance of a savings account.
If you'll notice at the top of the page there's what's called an Impact Factor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor
3.24 is nothing to brush aside. That in itself shows a certain "legitimacy" of this journal.
Also: the fact that this data CAN go both ways is enough to bring the original conclusions (that it is safe) into question and prompt new research.
Maybe this has less to do with consumers, and more to do with the pressure salespeople are under to sell extended warranties (i.e. Best Buy, where I've heard each salesperson has a quota to meet)? As a salesperson, and if I were morally bankrupt, I would certainly use the recession to persuade a customer to get a warranty.
What a terribly simplistic and fear-mongering account you've provided here. Of course you can achieve privacy. Anonymity is not a mythical beast, even on the internet.
You can also use other search engine proxies, like Blackle or Znout where the data that is stored is not stored on Google servers, and is pruned regularly rather than stored indefinitely.
it's meaningless to say that 50,000 wikipedia editors left, unless you know the base number that it's drawn from.
They didn't say merely that 50,000 had left, even the summary mentions that it is a net loss of 50,000, and further, that's a net loss 10x larger than the previous year: which is then evidence of a trend. It doesn't matter then so much what the base number is, so much as the trend is worrying enough as it is, especially if it's exponential.
The most likely result of memorizing a book, and reproducing it by verbalization, unless said book is a novella, is that you would produce a derivative work (ala the Homeric bards), not a 1:1 copy.
But please, for the love of the gods, don't sing Happy Birthday or they'll sue.
>But we don't do we ?
There is a reason for that. It's a lot of hard work and cost bringing a product to market and generally, the real dogs are killed long before they hit the shelves. I've been reviewing hardware/software for 20 odd years now and I can only remember giving a score of less than 4 a handful of times. Equally, 9 & 10 is rare (for me). The vast majority of stuff is 'good enough' and merits 7 or 8 out of 10. TBH, I get really frustrated by constantly dishing out 7s and 8s and the few times something has turned up for review that's truly bad, I'm been delighted as it gives me a chance to have a real opinion.
And this is exactly the mentality that has invalidated reviewer sites: you're looking out for the developers of these games, not the consumers who are your audience. Who cares if "it was a lot of hard work" when that hard work amounts to shit? If it's shit, say so, don't pretend its worthy because it was effortful shit.
Glad to hear that guys. Way to go. Good work telling everyone that fixing things fixes them.
The conclusion isn't just that they're fixed. It's that because they are fix-able, that we don't need to pour money down the R&D drain for modern variants, which would just sit on the same shelves these old ones now occupy.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm confused.
Quick, someone set-up a proxy of their proxy.
Uh. The ASICs that are about to hit the market start at less than $200.
The problem with this study is that it's comparing self-selected groups: those who drink lots, little, and no coffee/tea. Their conclusions, drawn from comparing coffee addicts to people who don't drink coffee is a little silly. It assumes that everyone's "baseline" is the same, and ignores the well-known fact that people to take caffeine are, like people who smoke cigarettes for nicotine, often self-medicating for a neurobiological deficiency (i.e. in this case probably dopamine). To compare the levels of someone who self-medicates taken off their medication to someone who doesn't need to self-medicate is a complete load of B.S..
Did you even read the article or look at the game the article is about? The objectives and actions in the game are far too open-ended to be called a groupthink training program like some of the others in the genre may be.
It seems like the way a person was taught to type and their experience with a keyboard would determine to a large extent their speed and rhythm (and accuracy). Not to mention what they're doing besides typing on MSN or whatever. If you're drinking a cup of coffee with one hand... or switching between windows. There are way too many factors at play. Phrenology at least had the advantage of a theoretical framework. Hell, even hand-writing analysis had fewer confounding factors.
These images and this concept have been floating around for years now. The only new pitch is the solar-poweredness. Besides that, this is old hat just sitting on the back burner. Call me when there's a press demonstration
Maybe I'm missing something here, but if the point is to calculate more digits than the last guy, can't the algorithm (efficient or not) just run for a longer time?
What's wrong with having an agenda? Objectivity and having goals as a scientist are not mutually exclusive.
That scenario you just described ought to be put into a YT video, ffs.
He didn't have 300k, so I don't think he will get that in return. You're confusing the figures: 300k was what was earned by donations through the site. When he was arrested he only had 20k in savings.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tees/8457260.stm
I imagine they froze his account, but that he will be returned to his pittance of a savings account.
It's also ironic that you're stereotyping an entire demographic (Slashdot) based on the comments expressed by a vast minority.
If you'll notice at the top of the page there's what's called an Impact Factor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor 3.24 is nothing to brush aside. That in itself shows a certain "legitimacy" of this journal. Also: the fact that this data CAN go both ways is enough to bring the original conclusions (that it is safe) into question and prompt new research.
Maybe this has less to do with consumers, and more to do with the pressure salespeople are under to sell extended warranties (i.e. Best Buy, where I've heard each salesperson has a quota to meet)? As a salesperson, and if I were morally bankrupt, I would certainly use the recession to persuade a customer to get a warranty.
What a terribly simplistic and fear-mongering account you've provided here. Of course you can achieve privacy. Anonymity is not a mythical beast, even on the internet.
You can also use other search engine proxies, like Blackle or Znout where the data that is stored is not stored on Google servers, and is pruned regularly rather than stored indefinitely.
... with their crisp printlike displays can’t handle textbook staples"
I for one welcome crisp printlike displays that can handle textbook staples.
Resolving this "bug" would seem to be a task of utmost urgency.
it's meaningless to say that 50,000 wikipedia editors left, unless you know the base number that it's drawn from.
They didn't say merely that 50,000 had left, even the summary mentions that it is a net loss of 50,000, and further, that's a net loss 10x larger than the previous year: which is then evidence of a trend. It doesn't matter then so much what the base number is, so much as the trend is worrying enough as it is, especially if it's exponential.
The most likely result of memorizing a book, and reproducing it by verbalization, unless said book is a novella, is that you would produce a derivative work (ala the Homeric bards), not a 1:1 copy. But please, for the love of the gods, don't sing Happy Birthday or they'll sue.
>But we don't do we ? There is a reason for that. It's a lot of hard work and cost bringing a product to market and generally, the real dogs are killed long before they hit the shelves. I've been reviewing hardware/software for 20 odd years now and I can only remember giving a score of less than 4 a handful of times. Equally, 9 & 10 is rare (for me). The vast majority of stuff is 'good enough' and merits 7 or 8 out of 10. TBH, I get really frustrated by constantly dishing out 7s and 8s and the few times something has turned up for review that's truly bad, I'm been delighted as it gives me a chance to have a real opinion.
And this is exactly the mentality that has invalidated reviewer sites: you're looking out for the developers of these games, not the consumers who are your audience. Who cares if "it was a lot of hard work" when that hard work amounts to shit? If it's shit, say so, don't pretend its worthy because it was effortful shit.
Because the Old Robotic Muscle Suit we've been using all this time just isn't good enough anymore.
I'm not entirely sure what there is to discuss. Semantics? Videos can have central storylines as evidenced by, er, movies.
Preview fails me again!
Blogs will still continue to report on news that is reported on at NewsCorp sites, and blogs sure aren't being de-indexed. So why will t
Glad to hear that guys. Way to go. Good work telling everyone that fixing things fixes them.
The conclusion isn't just that they're fixed. It's that because they are fix-able, that we don't need to pour money down the R&D drain for modern variants, which would just sit on the same shelves these old ones now occupy.