I believe they did the same experiment with various treats including marshmallows, Oreo cookies, and other things that I can't recall off the top of my head.
I heard a segment about this study on Radio Lab a while back. Very interesting, but the conclusions aren't quite as dramatic as the summary really makes them out to be
What you describe is called underwriting and is quite common on public radio and television. I have somewhat mixed feelings about it. At least if the process introduces bias into the news, you are told who the people giving them money are and you can make a decision about the legitimacy of the story on your own.
I don't think "tragic accident" is the most appropriate way to describe what happened to that kid. Tragic? Yes. Accident? No, this word does not accurately describe the situation.
It seems pretty clear that the cop was grossly negligent. Read the article. Watch the news footage.
The cop was doing 72 miles per hour when the speed limit was 40. Even if he had his lights and siren on, which he did not, he should have not been going more than 30 miles per hour over the speed limit. Not only that, but he didn't even swerve to avoid the kid.
I clicked your link... The kid was struck crossing a busy, unlit road at night, by a car coming around a blind corner. Sounds like tragic accident to me. If anybody is to blame it's the kid's parents for letting him out at night on a bike, without proper safety instruction.
Read the article. The cop was speeding around a blind corner without his lights or siren on. Yes, he was responding to a call, but he was breaking police protocol, and probably state and local laws, by speeding and by failing to turn on his lights and siren. Should the kid have been in the street? Well, there's no law against riding your bike in the street that I've heard of. How do you know that the child had no safety instruction? It seems to me that the cop is the one without adequate safety instruction. Hitting and killing that child seems to have been caused by the officer's negligence - driving too fast without his lights and siren on.
So what's your point? That we should be punishing people severely for things they have no control over? I presume you believe the punishment for violating the DMCA to be disproportionate, but you picked a poor example.
My main point is that there is a severe lack of parity in the US justice system. Those with money and/or power (cops, giant corporations) can basically do what they want while the little guy (kid on a bike, hardware hacker) get screwed or worse. A side point would be that a crime that has actually caused significant harm (the cop killing the kid) goes basically unpunished while the "crime" of modifying game consoles which hurts basically nobody can be punished by 10 years in jail.
It may not cost you anything, but not everyone has the luxury of being on an unlimited or high limit plan. In fact, there's a good number of people that don't have a traditional cell phone contract and use the rechargeable/calling card/by the minute/pay as you go type phones.
Personally, I have an older contract that doesn't have a ton of minutes each month. I don't regularly use more than half of my minutes each month, but then again I hardly talk on the phone. I know a good sized chunk of people who have gone over their minutes pretty regularly.
Finally, even if you're only billed in 1-minute increments, that 15 seconds can still push an otherwise 1 minute call into the 2 minute range.
As another poster said, this means that your phone is triangulating your location based on cell tower signals and is not reading from the GPS.
I'll bet you have Verizon as your carrier. They won't allow you to use the device GPS with Google Maps. They want you to pay for their "VZ Navigator" application. I think you can use the GPS with Blackberry Maps, though.
I have a Blackberry Pearl and have the same problem on the Verizon network.
You might want to RTFA before typing out such a long post. If you did, you'd notice a few things.
1) He's specifically advocating this for login forms on the web 2) He specifically says that security trumps usability in some instances 3) He gives a very clear example of a way to enable/disable this feature
With the proliferation of mobile devices with tiny, sometimes virtual, keyboards, typos are very common. When you can't even see that you've made a typo because it is obscured by dots, then you have no chance of correcting it.
Wouldn't it be nice if you could uncheck a little box that says "Obsure my password"? If you're paranoid, you could just check the box before entering your password or leave it checked, depending on the default.
This kind of attitude is why our rights are slowly crumbling away. The Ron Paul staffer was not legally obligated to answer these questions. The notion that simply caving in and answering the questions anyway would have sped his passage through airport security has no bearing on any of this. He was clearly in the right and the TSA drones were in the wrong. He did nothing illegal and therefore should not have been held, searched, or subjected to questioning.
By giving in to the seemingly small intrusions on our civil liberties that happen on a daily basis, we are willingly giving up our rights. Unless we stand up for ourselves, even at the cost of possible inconvenience, the rights that we enjoy will eventually disappear.
I'm sure they have a verification step just like many other services. Just a guess, but they probably place a call to the number you want to register and you have to key in a code that they have given to you to prove that you are in control of the phone number in question.
The University should just scrap the system and go with a commercial payroll vendor. Bigger organizations have done the same, and there's no shame in it.
That's exactly what they're doing. They are trying to switch to PeopleSoft.
I don't really see what you're objecting to. Physics, Chemistry, and Engineering students aren't being taught programming for the sake of programming. It is being taught as a data crunching/modeling/analysis tool. This certainly is something that they should have in their proverbial toolbox if they want to do research that requires analyzing large quantities of data. I'd tweak your analogy to say that it could well be useful to teach a carpenter to use software that would assist them in the design/visualization/structural analysis of what they are going to build.
Maybe it is just me, but cutscenes are the worst part of a game. When the whole game is pretty much cutscenes, I'm turned off. When I'm playing a game, I want to play not watch a movie. Forcing you to participate in the cutscenes by pressing buttons at the right time makes this even worse.
A whole bunch of times in the video, the narrator is talking about "giving the player the idea that they are in control" when all they are really doing is hitting a button or making a joystick motion when the game asks for it. I remember some other games that were just like this. They came out over 20 years ago. The graphics look great, but honestly, what's the point? This is like watching a movie but having to keep pressing buttons on the remote to "make it" to the next scene.
Guo's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America onto a spot the size of a needle point.
So, by only using as much power as the entire grid of North America, we can make a "less than 60 watt" bulb as bright as a 100 watt bulb? Perhaps it operates more efficiently, but it doesn't sound like it is so efficient to produce. Unless I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting the verbiage from the summary.
The way to deal with police mistakes is with sanctions and fines.
So, the police get a slap on the wrist and an innocent person goes to the electric chair? No. Absolutely no. We have to err on the side of caution and give the accused the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty, and you can't be proven guilty with illegally obtained evidence.
This is the way it was before the 1960s.
I'd like to see a citation for this. Even if it is true, so what? Who cares what it was like before the 1960s. We didn't have high speed internet before the 1960s either. Should we also go back to computers that take up a whole room and aren't connected to one another?
Improper procedures should not cause a case to be overturned unless of course it could be shown that the person was guilty only because of the improper procedures.
You're essentially contradicting yourself. You say "sure, evidence collected using improper (that is, illegal) procedures is admissible in court!" and then contradict it with "but evidence collected using improper procedures can't be used to show guilt."
The police need to follow the law. If they don't, then they are the ones out of luck. If this is not the case, then there is no incentive for the police to follow the law. In fact, there is considerable incentive for them to break the law. If they are able to collect more compelling evidence by breaking the law, have it allowed in a court case, and then result in a guilty verdict that they may not have gotten by following the law, then what is the incentive for them to follow the law?
This makes sense if it is applied as a mulch, allowing the desired plant to grow while preventing weeds and other invasive plants. There's plenty of other similar products on the marked made from a variety of materials from plastic to woven fiber to paper. However, I'm suspicious of the claim that the product works if you place it at the bottom of the pot. How is this going to prevent weeds?
I don't know what city you live in, but $8.33 for a movie is unheard of where I am. You're looking at around $10 for a ticket. That's $240 for a year of movie tickets for two people. Throw in gas and an occasional soda, popcorn, or snack at theater and you've easily paid for that $300 TV.
Always moving manufacturing to the location that has the lowest labor costs is bad for a bunch of reasons.
First, it isn't sustainable. There are a finite number of places with cheap labor. Once a place has been exploited for some period of time, the labor will eventually become expensive enough to force labor somewhere else. Eventually, you'll run out of places to shift the manufacturing to and you'll have to find some other way to cut costs.
Second, it sets up a boom and bust cycle. Manufacturing is great while it lasts. It provides comparably high wage jobs for comparably easy work requiring little education. However, it doesn't last. Since manufacturing will always move to where the labor is cheapest, the bubble will eventually burst and the factories will be closed and moved to the next cheap labor market.
Third, it has terrible consequences for the environment. Since the people making pennies a day to manufacture this stuff are too poor to buy it, it has to be shipped half way around the world to the markets where it will be sold. Not only do we have to ship stuff all over the world, but the pollution controls in the areas where the labor is cheap are usually much lower than the rest of the world. This is the hidden cost of this strategy that will be coming due very soon.
Fourth, it has terrible consequences for the people in the factories. Similar to the lax environmental regulations enjoyed by these manufacturing operations, there are also very lax workplace safety and worker protection laws.
For a long time, we have enjoyed cheap products at the expense of the environment and of the poor in developing countries. The seeds we have sewn are now starting to sprout. Our own economic well being is crumbling.
Slashdot Mirror
I think 100% of study participants managed to avoid the temptation of dumping the hot grits down their pants
I believe they did the same experiment with various treats including marshmallows, Oreo cookies, and other things that I can't recall off the top of my head.
I heard a segment about this study on Radio Lab a while back. Very interesting, but the conclusions aren't quite as dramatic as the summary really makes them out to be
What you describe is called underwriting and is quite common on public radio and television. I have somewhat mixed feelings about it. At least if the process introduces bias into the news, you are told who the people giving them money are and you can make a decision about the legitimacy of the story on your own.
I don't think "tragic accident" is the most appropriate way to describe what happened to that kid. Tragic? Yes. Accident? No, this word does not accurately describe the situation.
It seems pretty clear that the cop was grossly negligent. Read the article. Watch the news footage.
The cop was doing 72 miles per hour when the speed limit was 40. Even if he had his lights and siren on, which he did not, he should have not been going more than 30 miles per hour over the speed limit. Not only that, but he didn't even swerve to avoid the kid.
I clicked your link... The kid was struck crossing a busy, unlit road at night, by a car coming around a blind corner. Sounds like tragic accident to me. If anybody is to blame it's the kid's parents for letting him out at night on a bike, without proper safety instruction.
Read the article. The cop was speeding around a blind corner without his lights or siren on. Yes, he was responding to a call, but he was breaking police protocol, and probably state and local laws, by speeding and by failing to turn on his lights and siren. Should the kid have been in the street? Well, there's no law against riding your bike in the street that I've heard of. How do you know that the child had no safety instruction? It seems to me that the cop is the one without adequate safety instruction. Hitting and killing that child seems to have been caused by the officer's negligence - driving too fast without his lights and siren on.
So what's your point? That we should be punishing people severely for things they have no control over? I presume you believe the punishment for violating the DMCA to be disproportionate, but you picked a poor example.
My main point is that there is a severe lack of parity in the US justice system. Those with money and/or power (cops, giant corporations) can basically do what they want while the little guy (kid on a bike, hardware hacker) get screwed or worse. A side point would be that a crime that has actually caused significant harm (the cop killing the kid) goes basically unpunished while the "crime" of modifying game consoles which hurts basically nobody can be punished by 10 years in jail.
This is insane. This kid is looking at 10 years for modifying hardware while another story linked right at the bottom of the same article describes a cop getting a one day suspension (with pay) for running down a child with his car
It may not cost you anything, but not everyone has the luxury of being on an unlimited or high limit plan. In fact, there's a good number of people that don't have a traditional cell phone contract and use the rechargeable/calling card/by the minute/pay as you go type phones.
Personally, I have an older contract that doesn't have a ton of minutes each month. I don't regularly use more than half of my minutes each month, but then again I hardly talk on the phone. I know a good sized chunk of people who have gone over their minutes pretty regularly.
Finally, even if you're only billed in 1-minute increments, that 15 seconds can still push an otherwise 1 minute call into the 2 minute range.
The problem of cars "clumping" is due to the "rule abiding" drivers following each other too closely. This is in fact not rule abiding.
If they're "following too close", then they aren't "rule abiding." You can't have it both ways.
Damn. Those bastards. I wish they'd unlock my Pearl...
As another poster said, this means that your phone is triangulating your location based on cell tower signals and is not reading from the GPS.
I'll bet you have Verizon as your carrier. They won't allow you to use the device GPS with Google Maps. They want you to pay for their "VZ Navigator" application. I think you can use the GPS with Blackberry Maps, though.
I have a Blackberry Pearl and have the same problem on the Verizon network.
You might want to RTFA before typing out such a long post. If you did, you'd notice a few things.
1) He's specifically advocating this for login forms on the web
2) He specifically says that security trumps usability in some instances
3) He gives a very clear example of a way to enable/disable this feature
With the proliferation of mobile devices with tiny, sometimes virtual, keyboards, typos are very common. When you can't even see that you've made a typo because it is obscured by dots, then you have no chance of correcting it.
Wouldn't it be nice if you could uncheck a little box that says "Obsure my password"? If you're paranoid, you could just check the box before entering your password or leave it checked, depending on the default.
Stop complaining and buy yourself a hammer
This kind of attitude is why our rights are slowly crumbling away. The Ron Paul staffer was not legally obligated to answer these questions. The notion that simply caving in and answering the questions anyway would have sped his passage through airport security has no bearing on any of this. He was clearly in the right and the TSA drones were in the wrong. He did nothing illegal and therefore should not have been held, searched, or subjected to questioning.
By giving in to the seemingly small intrusions on our civil liberties that happen on a daily basis, we are willingly giving up our rights. Unless we stand up for ourselves, even at the cost of possible inconvenience, the rights that we enjoy will eventually disappear.
I'm sure they have a verification step just like many other services. Just a guess, but they probably place a call to the number you want to register and you have to key in a code that they have given to you to prove that you are in control of the phone number in question.
The University should just scrap the system and go with a commercial payroll vendor. Bigger organizations have done the same, and there's no shame in it.
That's exactly what they're doing. They are trying to switch to PeopleSoft.
I don't really see what you're objecting to. Physics, Chemistry, and Engineering students aren't being taught programming for the sake of programming. It is being taught as a data crunching/modeling/analysis tool. This certainly is something that they should have in their proverbial toolbox if they want to do research that requires analyzing large quantities of data. I'd tweak your analogy to say that it could well be useful to teach a carpenter to use software that would assist them in the design/visualization/structural analysis of what they are going to build.
Maybe it is just me, but cutscenes are the worst part of a game. When the whole game is pretty much cutscenes, I'm turned off. When I'm playing a game, I want to play not watch a movie. Forcing you to participate in the cutscenes by pressing buttons at the right time makes this even worse.
A whole bunch of times in the video, the narrator is talking about "giving the player the idea that they are in control" when all they are really doing is hitting a button or making a joystick motion when the game asks for it. I remember some other games that were just like this. They came out over 20 years ago. The graphics look great, but honestly, what's the point? This is like watching a movie but having to keep pressing buttons on the remote to "make it" to the next scene.
So, by only using as much power as the entire grid of North America, we can make a "less than 60 watt" bulb as bright as a 100 watt bulb? Perhaps it operates more efficiently, but it doesn't sound like it is so efficient to produce. Unless I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting the verbiage from the summary.
So, the police get a slap on the wrist and an innocent person goes to the electric chair? No. Absolutely no. We have to err on the side of caution and give the accused the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty, and you can't be proven guilty with illegally obtained evidence.
I'd like to see a citation for this. Even if it is true, so what? Who cares what it was like before the 1960s. We didn't have high speed internet before the 1960s either. Should we also go back to computers that take up a whole room and aren't connected to one another?
You're essentially contradicting yourself. You say "sure, evidence collected using improper (that is, illegal) procedures is admissible in court!" and then contradict it with "but evidence collected using improper procedures can't be used to show guilt."
The police need to follow the law. If they don't, then they are the ones out of luck. If this is not the case, then there is no incentive for the police to follow the law. In fact, there is considerable incentive for them to break the law. If they are able to collect more compelling evidence by breaking the law, have it allowed in a court case, and then result in a guilty verdict that they may not have gotten by following the law, then what is the incentive for them to follow the law?
This makes sense if it is applied as a mulch, allowing the desired plant to grow while preventing weeds and other invasive plants. There's plenty of other similar products on the marked made from a variety of materials from plastic to woven fiber to paper. However, I'm suspicious of the claim that the product works if you place it at the bottom of the pot. How is this going to prevent weeds?
I don't know what city you live in, but $8.33 for a movie is unheard of where I am. You're looking at around $10 for a ticket. That's $240 for a year of movie tickets for two people. Throw in gas and an occasional soda, popcorn, or snack at theater and you've easily paid for that $300 TV.
Always moving manufacturing to the location that has the lowest labor costs is bad for a bunch of reasons.
First, it isn't sustainable. There are a finite number of places with cheap labor. Once a place has been exploited for some period of time, the labor will eventually become expensive enough to force labor somewhere else. Eventually, you'll run out of places to shift the manufacturing to and you'll have to find some other way to cut costs.
Second, it sets up a boom and bust cycle. Manufacturing is great while it lasts. It provides comparably high wage jobs for comparably easy work requiring little education. However, it doesn't last. Since manufacturing will always move to where the labor is cheapest, the bubble will eventually burst and the factories will be closed and moved to the next cheap labor market.
Third, it has terrible consequences for the environment. Since the people making pennies a day to manufacture this stuff are too poor to buy it, it has to be shipped half way around the world to the markets where it will be sold. Not only do we have to ship stuff all over the world, but the pollution controls in the areas where the labor is cheap are usually much lower than the rest of the world. This is the hidden cost of this strategy that will be coming due very soon.
Fourth, it has terrible consequences for the people in the factories. Similar to the lax environmental regulations enjoyed by these manufacturing operations, there are also very lax workplace safety and worker protection laws.
For a long time, we have enjoyed cheap products at the expense of the environment and of the poor in developing countries. The seeds we have sewn are now starting to sprout. Our own economic well being is crumbling.