Seriously, this study doesn't prove a genetic link or anything else; all it does is show that some monkeys are lazier than others (or conversely, that some monkeys are hyperactive).
We all know someone who's a bundle of energy, can't sit still, etc. And we probably know at least one person who's consistently lazy, as well. All this study proves is that the same thing exists in rhesus monkeys.
In other words: Move along, nothing to see here...
Unfortunately, legislation trumps precedent. My understanding is that unless the Supreme Court rules the DMCA itself unconstitutional, its specific restrictions apply regardless of what the general precedent would otherwise be.
Is anyone else bothered by the frequent use of the term "high-tech" in the article? Eg. converting the energy using a "high-tech transformer"? Last I checked, transformers were not really considered cutting-edge technology... I get the feeling that whenever they say "high-tech", they really mean "it hasn't been invented yet" (or even "then a miracle occurs...":)
You won't be laughing when the world goes to BluRay, and you can't backup your discs anymore...
Unlike BluRay, HD-DVD is specifically designed to allow hard-drive backups and media center playback. For once, the fair-use advocates should actually be supporting Micro$oft's side...
The funny thing is that you may be right; maybe $12.99 is a reasonable price in today's money. The problem is that rather than pricing CDs reasonably and then raising prices to match rising costs, the record companies kept the price at an artifically high $15+ from the birth of the format until just recently. In the process, they engendered so much consumer anger and distrust that no one will believe anything they claim about costs, etc., nor do we care.
And the only reason we're paying less now is because the "big-box" stores came in and started using music as a loss-leader. Otherwise we'd probably be paying $20 a disc by now...
I went through a phase just like this*, except that for me even the reputable medical sites were enough to induce symptom-panic. When you're convinced something is wrong with you, the last thing you should be doing is looking up symptoms or diseases online. Online searches are just as likely to turn up a reference to "Deadly SriLankan MumboJumbo Disease" as they are to show you the most common (usually trivial) cause. You really need an expert to filter all that information for you.
Of course, you can't go to the doctor for every trivial question either (trust me, I tried). So if you're as messed up as I was, it can be hard to regain your perspective...
(* To make a long story short: an (ultimately minor) incident in my life blew away my youthful sense of invincibility in rather spectacular fashion, and made me all too aware of the fragility of the human body. At that point, all the minor things I used to ignore suddenly became potential threats...)
I've always found it intriguing that a programmer who could master several arcane computer languages (especially since computers are notably intolerant of errors), could fail so utterly to master his own native human language.
Perhaps because the English language is so arbitrary and imprecise? I know I for one used to hate English and/or writing classes, mainly because you could never be sure whether what you wrote was the "right answer". And I'm not just talking about the content or creative style of a paper; even basic grammar and sentence structure rules seemed to change with every new teacher or grader! And the rules which are written down are full of exceptions and contradictions.
At least with programming languages, the compiler lets you know right away whether your stuff "works" or not. And most of the time the rules don't change (unless you're porting code, of course). It's not perfect, but at least computer languages are designed with some attempt at logical consistency! (Ok, ok, except for Perl...;-)
Actually I agree with this. I was an exceptional speller right up until my class switched over to a phonics-based program. It totally screwed me up, and I still have issues with words that I probably could have spelled perfectly in fourth grade...
BTW, part of the problem for me was that I was forced to conform to their system for combining word-parts. I had already evolved my own informal systems for doing this, and the new methods just caused confusion. Eventually this process rendered me incapable of using either system reliably.
The interesting thing about this is that it almost sounds like the "positronic brains" in Asimov's robot novels functioned. He decribed a system in which competing "potentials" in the robot's brain would rise and fall continuously in response to external input and the interaction of his Three Laws. If the potentials were conflicting, the robot could wind up in limbo, stuck between one path and another.
I always thought that this was a rather outdated, analog way of thinking about things. I felt that modern computer-ish concepts were more likely to govern future robots' behavior. But if our own brains work this way, it may be only natural for us to design robots that think this way as well. Maybe Asimov wasn't so far off?
(Of course the examples of conflicting potentials in Asimov's novels are still terribly simplistic compared to the level of complexity that would actually be involved...)
How do they know that the dogs have no brain damage? Do they have some sort of doggy IQ test to judge their before and after performance? With humans there are many sophisticated tests for various cognitive functions, but for dogs..? "Well, zombie-Fido scored 100 on the stick-fetching test, so he's obviously in perfect condition..."?
I don't know about other places, but around here the GIS information includes homeowners' names; maybe the rich & famous in Greenwich don't want the unwashed masses to find out exactly where they live?
Interesting, but comparing bitTorrent with http this way is misleading. BT is specifically used for downloading large binaries, so it dominates in terms of sheer data volume. However, protocols like http are used by a lot more people and in a lot more individual transactions each day.
I hate to be nasty here, but I have to point out that VCU is not exactly the most prestigious university for science, even among state schools. And his position as a Business School professor doesn't exactly qualify him to discuss cognitive neuroscience, either. This sounds like a goof-ball claim from a second-rate professor trying to pad his research quota.
Most people seem to be focusing on the impact of body mods on just getting a job. But what about advancement, especially in the direction of management? I can easily see rank-n-file techies being hired with piercings, etc. (although we don't really have any here --probably an East Coast thing). As someone once said: for engineers, the weirder you look, the smarter people assume you are!
However, when you are promoted to any sort of management role, there's a whole other level of "professionalism" that's expected. And while it's easy enough to go buy a new business-class wardrobe, those tats and large piercings are harder to change. As soon as you start dealing with suits, body modifications are gong to be a hinderance.
I know you're half joking here, but someone should mention that it's not the same thing; medical appliances get a totally different response compared to purely aesthetic modifications. It says something different about you if you choose to wear/change something as opposed to having a condition which requires it. Not to say that the latter doesn't have its own set of perception problems...
What happened to the proposed legislation making the offering of even a single file a felony, even if it was never downloaded? It seems like that bill was specifically designed to counteract this kind of ruling...
Re:Cooling off periods and Telesales
on
Trust in a Bottle
·
· Score: 1
As Dr. Damasio has suggested, current sales/marketing tactics may be (unwittingly) geared towards stimulating natural oxytocin production in the subject. For instance, images of sex and/or intimacy, which are often used even for unrelated products (ie. "sex sells"). It's not unreasonable to think that certain telemarketer tactics have the same effect on listeners...
I hope HD-DVD hits a stumbling block, no one wants format wars.
Unfortunately, BluRay is the one that's more likely to see problems. HD-DVD's main claim-to-fame is that it's very similar to DVD specs, to the point that existing equipment can be retrofitted to make the new discs cheaply & easily. I wouldn't expect any major surprises to come out at this late (yes, late) date.
I do think that the PS3 will give BluRay a huge advantage, however. If I were Toshiba, et al, right now, I'd be paying Microsoft or Nintendo major kickbacks to squeeze an HD-DVD drive into their design...
Compare this to the movie industry: with few exceptions every movie is just a variant of the one of a few formulas - Action, Romantic Comedy, Screwball Comedy, Horror, Tear-Jerkers and a couple of basic pretentious-art-house formulas...
Let me state this, I've either worked with or have seen (usually via resume) a large number of hardware guys who have moved over to software. I know of exactly 0 who have done the reverse.
I agree with you there. However, I wonder how much of it is that software is more lucrative, and how much is just the fact that switching to hardware is more difficult. It's fairly easy to learn a programming language, after which you can write at least passable code. But to do well in HW design, you have to know all about the intricate details of various parts, their behavior and interactions; much of this non-intuitive and needs to be taught.
As a BSEE software programmer, I know I'm not that great at software architecture design. There are still things I don't know that the CS majors do. But I can still make a living churning out code (it helps that I'm in embedded). Meanwhile, the hardware guys at my company wouldn't dream of letting a CS major design even the smallest bit of hardware; heck, after eight years in SW, they're reluctant to let me get involved.
Bottom line is that there will always be demand for both, right now (and for the near term), software seems to be the safer/"easier" bet.
I guess my feeling is that your conclusion here is exactly backward; if anything hardware is the safer (though maybe not easier) bet. Although I'd really recommend one of those hybrid "Computer Engineering" courses for someone who's on the fence. Traditional EE couses spend too much time on things like power-line transmission that we computer guys don't care about...
Then again, I tend to think of SPICE as a programming language that compiles to silicon.
But one of the benefits of EE courses is that you learn exactly where SPICE is dead wrong in some of its models. That's the kind of knowledge gap that trips up many software guys. Transferring to software is generally easier because the code does what it says it does, and you don't need advanced courses just to know how an IF statement is going to behave in a given environment.
The point of Hello World programs is to familiarize the student with the development environment and what it takes to get a program to compile. If you don't know that, then you're limited to cut&paste hacks when you want to create something new. OTOH, I do agree that students should be exposed to other people's code early on, including having to modify it, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
This just in: Some people are lazy!!
Seriously, this study doesn't prove a genetic link or anything else; all it does is show that some monkeys are lazier than others (or conversely, that some monkeys are hyperactive).
We all know someone who's a bundle of energy, can't sit still, etc. And we probably know at least one person who's consistently lazy, as well. All this study proves is that the same thing exists in rhesus monkeys.
In other words: Move along, nothing to see here...
Not sure about Outlook, but I do know that Lotus Notes insists on spawning IE for web links, even if you've set another browser as your default...
Unfortunately, legislation trumps precedent. My understanding is that unless the Supreme Court rules the DMCA itself unconstitutional, its specific restrictions apply regardless of what the general precedent would otherwise be.
Is anyone else bothered by the frequent use of the term "high-tech" in the article? Eg. converting the energy using a "high-tech transformer"? Last I checked, transformers were not really considered cutting-edge technology... I get the feeling that whenever they say "high-tech", they really mean "it hasn't been invented yet" (or even "then a miracle occurs..." :)
You won't be laughing when the world goes to BluRay, and you can't backup your discs anymore...
Unlike BluRay, HD-DVD is specifically designed to allow hard-drive backups and media center playback. For once, the fair-use advocates should actually be supporting Micro$oft's side...
If they can afford to donate $10,000 US just to prove a point!?!
The funny thing is that you may be right; maybe $12.99 is a reasonable price in today's money. The problem is that rather than pricing CDs reasonably and then raising prices to match rising costs, the record companies kept the price at an artifically high $15+ from the birth of the format until just recently. In the process, they engendered so much consumer anger and distrust that no one will believe anything they claim about costs, etc., nor do we care.
And the only reason we're paying less now is because the "big-box" stores came in and started using music as a loss-leader. Otherwise we'd probably be paying $20 a disc by now...
I went through a phase just like this*, except that for me even the reputable medical sites were enough to induce symptom-panic. When you're convinced something is wrong with you, the last thing you should be doing is looking up symptoms or diseases online. Online searches are just as likely to turn up a reference to "Deadly SriLankan MumboJumbo Disease" as they are to show you the most common (usually trivial) cause. You really need an expert to filter all that information for you.
Of course, you can't go to the doctor for every trivial question either (trust me, I tried). So if you're as messed up as I was, it can be hard to regain your perspective...
(* To make a long story short: an (ultimately minor) incident in my life blew away my youthful sense of invincibility in rather spectacular fashion, and made me all too aware of the fragility of the human body. At that point, all the minor things I used to ignore suddenly became potential threats...)
I've always found it intriguing that a programmer who could master several arcane computer languages (especially since computers are notably intolerant of errors), could fail so utterly to master his own native human language.
;-)
Perhaps because the English language is so arbitrary and imprecise? I know I for one used to hate English and/or writing classes, mainly because you could never be sure whether what you wrote was the "right answer". And I'm not just talking about the content or creative style of a paper; even basic grammar and sentence structure rules seemed to change with every new teacher or grader! And the rules which are written down are full of exceptions and contradictions.
At least with programming languages, the compiler lets you know right away whether your stuff "works" or not. And most of the time the rules don't change (unless you're porting code, of course). It's not perfect, but at least computer languages are designed with some attempt at logical consistency! (Ok, ok, except for Perl...
Actually I agree with this. I was an exceptional speller right up until my class switched over to a phonics-based program. It totally screwed me up, and I still have issues with words that I probably could have spelled perfectly in fourth grade...
BTW, part of the problem for me was that I was forced to conform to their system for combining word-parts. I had already evolved my own informal systems for doing this, and the new methods just caused confusion. Eventually this process rendered me incapable of using either system reliably.
The interesting thing about this is that it almost sounds like the "positronic brains" in Asimov's robot novels functioned. He decribed a system in which competing "potentials" in the robot's brain would rise and fall continuously in response to external input and the interaction of his Three Laws. If the potentials were conflicting, the robot could wind up in limbo, stuck between one path and another.
I always thought that this was a rather outdated, analog way of thinking about things. I felt that modern computer-ish concepts were more likely to govern future robots' behavior. But if our own brains work this way, it may be only natural for us to design robots that think this way as well. Maybe Asimov wasn't so far off?
(Of course the examples of conflicting potentials in Asimov's novels are still terribly simplistic compared to the level of complexity that would actually be involved...)
How do they know that the dogs have no brain damage? Do they have some sort of doggy IQ test to judge their before and after performance? With humans there are many sophisticated tests for various cognitive functions, but for dogs..? "Well, zombie-Fido scored 100 on the stick-fetching test, so he's obviously in perfect condition..."?
I don't know about other places, but around here the GIS information includes homeowners' names; maybe the rich & famous in Greenwich don't want the unwashed masses to find out exactly where they live?
Interesting, but comparing bitTorrent with http this way is misleading. BT is specifically used for downloading large binaries, so it dominates in terms of sheer data volume. However, protocols like http are used by a lot more people and in a lot more individual transactions each day.
I hate to be nasty here, but I have to point out that VCU is not exactly the most prestigious university for science, even among state schools. And his position as a Business School professor doesn't exactly qualify him to discuss cognitive neuroscience, either. This sounds like a goof-ball claim from a second-rate professor trying to pad his research quota.
Most people seem to be focusing on the impact of body mods on just getting a job. But what about advancement, especially in the direction of management? I can easily see rank-n-file techies being hired with piercings, etc. (although we don't really have any here --probably an East Coast thing). As someone once said: for engineers, the weirder you look, the smarter people assume you are!
However, when you are promoted to any sort of management role, there's a whole other level of "professionalism" that's expected. And while it's easy enough to go buy a new business-class wardrobe, those tats and large piercings are harder to change. As soon as you start dealing with suits, body modifications are gong to be a hinderance.
I know you're half joking here, but someone should mention that it's not the same thing; medical appliances get a totally different response compared to purely aesthetic modifications. It says something different about you if you choose to wear/change something as opposed to having a condition which requires it. Not to say that the latter doesn't have its own set of perception problems...
What happened to the proposed legislation making the offering of even a single file a felony, even if it was never downloaded? It seems like that bill was specifically designed to counteract this kind of ruling...
As Dr. Damasio has suggested, current sales/marketing tactics may be (unwittingly) geared towards stimulating natural oxytocin production in the subject. For instance, images of sex and/or intimacy, which are often used even for unrelated products (ie. "sex sells"). It's not unreasonable to think that certain telemarketer tactics have the same effect on listeners...
Err, I thought C-3PO was the one channelling Marvin? :)
I hope HD-DVD hits a stumbling block, no one wants format wars.
Unfortunately, BluRay is the one that's more likely to see problems. HD-DVD's main claim-to-fame is that it's very similar to DVD specs, to the point that existing equipment can be retrofitted to make the new discs cheaply & easily. I wouldn't expect any major surprises to come out at this late (yes, late) date.
I do think that the PS3 will give BluRay a huge advantage, however. If I were Toshiba, et al, right now, I'd be paying Microsoft or Nintendo major kickbacks to squeeze an HD-DVD drive into their design...
Compare this to the movie industry: with few exceptions every movie is just a variant of the one of a few formulas - Action, Romantic Comedy, Screwball Comedy, Horror, Tear-Jerkers and a couple of basic pretentious-art-house formulas...
Let me state this, I've either worked with or have seen (usually via resume) a large number of hardware guys who have moved over to software. I know of exactly 0 who have done the reverse.
I agree with you there. However, I wonder how much of it is that software is more lucrative, and how much is just the fact that switching to hardware is more difficult. It's fairly easy to learn a programming language, after which you can write at least passable code. But to do well in HW design, you have to know all about the intricate details of various parts, their behavior and interactions; much of this non-intuitive and needs to be taught.
As a BSEE software programmer, I know I'm not that great at software architecture design. There are still things I don't know that the CS majors do. But I can still make a living churning out code (it helps that I'm in embedded). Meanwhile, the hardware guys at my company wouldn't dream of letting a CS major design even the smallest bit of hardware; heck, after eight years in SW, they're reluctant to let me get involved.
Bottom line is that there will always be demand for both, right now (and for the near term), software seems to be the safer/"easier" bet.
I guess my feeling is that your conclusion here is exactly backward; if anything hardware is the safer (though maybe not easier) bet. Although I'd really recommend one of those hybrid "Computer Engineering" courses for someone who's on the fence. Traditional EE couses spend too much time on things like power-line transmission that we computer guys don't care about...
Then again, I tend to think of SPICE as a programming language that compiles to silicon.
But one of the benefits of EE courses is that you learn exactly where SPICE is dead wrong in some of its models. That's the kind of knowledge gap that trips up many software guys. Transferring to software is generally easier because the code does what it says it does, and you don't need advanced courses just to know how an IF statement is going to behave in a given environment.
The point of Hello World programs is to familiarize the student with the development environment and what it takes to get a program to compile. If you don't know that, then you're limited to cut&paste hacks when you want to create something new. OTOH, I do agree that students should be exposed to other people's code early on, including having to modify it, etc.