I actually agree with you to some extent. But now I want to hear your explanation for The A-Team, Dukes of Hazzard, Starsky and Hutch, and Pirates of the Caribbean IV.
Why? Because Hollywood is incapable of coming up with an original idea. Apparently all the good stories have been used up. Now we are left with movie remakes of TV shows, 10th sequels, or plots that have been re-made for the 3rd or 4th time.
Why? Because it's less of a gamble - they have an assured audience $$$ using the known formulas.
I've done a little bit of research on the transfer of training from video simulations to real life. Research has shown that not everything transfers to real life, but what does transfer is procedural knowledge. If you're practicing on a flight simulator, you will learn the correct order to pull out the carb heat, drop the RPMs, lower flaps and gear. But it's a pretty rich environment up there, and there is no substitute for feeling the bumps of turbulence and engine vibration.
I've also done some practicing on an RC simulator, and it's a great way to learn without wrecking your kite. Different mental model, as you don't have the "first person" perspective of being in the plane, though.
While the study assumes that the gamers learn bad habits like tailgating and driving over curbs from GTA, overconfidence may be another factor (assuming causation = correlation here, which I'm not completely convinced). How many teens have spent hours driving around in virtual worlds and think it will be a piece of cake when they get behind the wheel of a car made out of atoms instead of bits/bytes.
My daughter is an expert driver in Ralley GT, but she came within 3 feet of taking out our fence the other day by mistaking the gas pedal for the brake. The pucker factor was pretty high.
Hey Spun, I have an advanced degree in psych, so I'm fully aware of the definition of SA. And I still think it's poorly defined. I mean "the full realization of one's potential"?? seriously? How do you operationalize that? Sorry, I've been in the biz for a while, and I think the whole hierarchy sounds good in theory, but not so much in practice. Also, according to Maslow, there were only a handful of people that were SA (Elanor Roosevelt? How'd he come up with that one?). I also know many artists that starve for their art. It would seem to me that this behavior would be counter to the MH - starving in order to obtain SA. Anyway - sorry, a little off topic.
I would totally agree with you that there are some serious social ills out there. And given the ever increasing world population, I think it's going to get worse before it gets better.
Although I know what you mean, I think "self actualization" is a term that has always been somewhat poorly defined to me. But I digress...
Actually, I think you've somewhat painted yourself into a corner with that last definition. Because I think it is very possible for someone to be "successful" ( = self actualized) in the current workforce. I know plenty of folks who might be considered self actualized that have low paying jobs. And they meet your requirements for the three areas of happiness - jobs, good social structure, and go to church, etc.
OK Spun, I think you won me over to your way of thinking (wore me down??;^) Which is a feat considering I am something of an eternal optimist.
Let me just throw a twist on it, though - it also depends on your definition of "success". If success = $$$$, than what you are saying is true. However, if success = satisfaction with life, than maybe not. If it does = $$$, than you will not be satisfied no matter what you do.
Hrmmm..great points - now you make me ponder. It would seem that there are 5 different categories:
(1) Motivated to improve -> actually improve (2) Motivated to improve -> can't improve (3) Want to improve -> unmotivated (want easy $$$) (4) Unmotivated to improve -> don't improve (5) Unmotivated to improve -> accidentally improve(e.g., nepotism, win lottery)
So, obviously the group that should be targeted is (2). The point is that there are plenty of folks out there who don't have the motivation, skill, or attitude to take advantage of the opportunities. Speaking as an American, I've seen folks come to this country with absolutely nothing and build fortunes for themselves and their kids. I've always been a firm believer that persistence and attitude can win any battles.
And you can start from the bottom - I was literally at a point where I could not afford shoes when I started.
I definitely see your point, and I agree with you on not undervaluing the "less important" jobs. But I think you're missing some key factors - motivation and desire. What gets some people up in the morning is the thought that you can improve your lot in life, maybe by going to school to get a better job. Not all people, mind you. Some are pretty happy being construction workers, truck drivers, whatever. I was a dishwasher for a number of years, until I decided that I really needed to do something with my life. A few degrees later and presto, a very satisfying IT job.
I don't think I would have been a very motivated/satisfied worker if I hadn't been able give it a go for myself. That being said - I'd much rather see the sanitation worker get the six digit paycheck than the douchbag that comes up with that garbage they pass for entertainment/advertising on the tube nowadays.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't, actually. I believe it's radar guided, so your jammer should actually work if that's the missile used. I was actually basing my comment on the high-tech video on YouTube.
I agree. But imagine what a difficult task that would be. According to Wiki itself, it contains 14 million articles. You would have to find experts in each of the fields to check each article, which are supposedly the people who wrote them in the first place. Hopefully, anyway.
FTA: The team told him to use "motor" imagery like a tennis match to indicate "yes" and "spatial" imagery like thinking about roaming the streets for a "no".
I've done a little bit of research in the area of spatial vs motor visualization. I think they could have chosen a better discriminator for the "spatial" task - it could be that the physical act of "wandering the streets" could be confounded with "playing tennis". There are many more tasks that I believe would have tapped into a more pure measure of the spatial component (e.g., imagine rotating an object).
Hrmmm...that makes it even more curious. I'm assuming that what they want is the cybernetic equivalent of a private sector space launch, you know? But I wonder what that could be? Maybe complete control of a UI where you can press buttons and write sentences just by using precognitive functions? As you and some of the other posts have pointed out, many of the building blocks are already in place.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually agree with you to some extent. But now I want to hear your explanation for The A-Team, Dukes of Hazzard, Starsky and Hutch, and Pirates of the Caribbean IV.
Hmmm...that's likely to ignite a debate at the office.
Why? Because Hollywood is incapable of coming up with an original idea. Apparently all the good stories have been used up. Now we are left with movie remakes of TV shows, 10th sequels, or plots that have been re-made for the 3rd or 4th time.
Why? Because it's less of a gamble - they have an assured audience $$$ using the known formulas.
That's funny - we should coordinate these type o' graphic comments
# Press 1 for heart attacks
# Press 2 for aneurysm symptoms
# Press 3 for severed limbs or profuse bleeding
Please stay on hold while we contact a physician for you
[..musak...]
I've done a little bit of research on the transfer of training from video simulations to real life. Research has shown that not everything transfers to real life, but what does transfer is procedural knowledge. If you're practicing on a flight simulator, you will learn the correct order to pull out the carb heat, drop the RPMs, lower flaps and gear. But it's a pretty rich environment up there, and there is no substitute for feeling the bumps of turbulence and engine vibration.
I've also done some practicing on an RC simulator, and it's a great way to learn without wrecking your kite. Different mental model, as you don't have the "first person" perspective of being in the plane, though.
While the study assumes that the gamers learn bad habits like tailgating and driving over curbs from GTA, overconfidence may be another factor (assuming causation = correlation here, which I'm not completely convinced). How many teens have spent hours driving around in virtual worlds and think it will be a piece of cake when they get behind the wheel of a car made out of atoms instead of bits/bytes.
My daughter is an expert driver in Ralley GT, but she came within 3 feet of taking out our fence the other day by mistaking the gas pedal for the brake. The pucker factor was pretty high.
...I'm here for the debriefing sir.
Yeah, that was definitely a case of Mod abuse. There was absolutely nothing resembling trolling in that post. I guess someone had an axe to grind.
Best post I've seen on /. yet. I'm actually surprised you got a mod point for this ;^)
Just keep in mind that the mach number will change based on the altitude of the aircraft (note the value C in the formula).
Hey Spun, I have an advanced degree in psych, so I'm fully aware of the definition of SA. And I still think it's poorly defined. I mean "the full realization of one's potential"?? seriously? How do you operationalize that? Sorry, I've been in the biz for a while, and I think the whole hierarchy sounds good in theory, but not so much in practice. Also, according to Maslow, there were only a handful of people that were SA (Elanor Roosevelt? How'd he come up with that one?). I also know many artists that starve for their art. It would seem to me that this behavior would be counter to the MH - starving in order to obtain SA. Anyway - sorry, a little off topic.
I would totally agree with you that there are some serious social ills out there. And given the ever increasing world population, I think it's going to get worse before it gets better.
Although I know what you mean, I think "self actualization" is a term that has always been somewhat poorly defined to me. But I digress...
Actually, I think you've somewhat painted yourself into a corner with that last definition. Because I think it is very possible for someone to be "successful" ( = self actualized) in the current workforce. I know plenty of folks who might be considered self actualized that have low paying jobs. And they meet your requirements for the three areas of happiness - jobs, good social structure, and go to church, etc.
It reminds me of the story of the Mexican Fisherman
OK Spun, I think you won me over to your way of thinking (wore me down?? ;^) Which is a feat considering I am something of an eternal optimist.
Let me just throw a twist on it, though - it also depends on your definition of "success". If success = $$$$, than what you are saying is true. However, if success = satisfaction with life, than maybe not. If it does = $$$, than you will not be satisfied no matter what you do.
Hrmmm..great points - now you make me ponder. It would seem that there are 5 different categories:
(1) Motivated to improve -> actually improve
(2) Motivated to improve -> can't improve
(3) Want to improve -> unmotivated (want easy $$$)
(4) Unmotivated to improve -> don't improve
(5) Unmotivated to improve -> accidentally improve(e.g., nepotism, win lottery)
So, obviously the group that should be targeted is (2). The point is that there are plenty of folks out there who don't have the motivation, skill, or attitude to take advantage of the opportunities. Speaking as an American, I've seen folks come to this country with absolutely nothing and build fortunes for themselves and their kids. I've always been a firm believer that persistence and attitude can win any battles.
And you can start from the bottom - I was literally at a point where I could not afford shoes when I started.
I definitely see your point, and I agree with you on not undervaluing the "less important" jobs. But I think you're missing some key factors - motivation and desire. What gets some people up in the morning is the thought that you can improve your lot in life, maybe by going to school to get a better job. Not all people, mind you. Some are pretty happy being construction workers, truck drivers, whatever. I was a dishwasher for a number of years, until I decided that I really needed to do something with my life. A few degrees later and presto, a very satisfying IT job.
I don't think I would have been a very motivated/satisfied worker if I hadn't been able give it a go for myself. That being said - I'd much rather see the sanitation worker get the six digit paycheck than the douchbag that comes up with that garbage they pass for entertainment/advertising on the tube nowadays.
Hey SoupGuru - how can you not trust advice like that from someone with your sig????
...somebody get Mitchell over here. He can shuttle back and forth between the two camps if he's not too busy
Great points RichO. The bad part is that your points 1-4 would be almost irrelevant in the truck/train scenario. Especially against soft targets.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't, actually. I believe it's radar guided, so your jammer should actually work if that's the missile used. I was actually basing my comment on the high-tech video on YouTube.
Only problem is that this is a radar jammer. According to the vid, the missiles will have sat guidance.
The 2D aspect was a result of the shape of the clouds that formed the sundog, not the shape of the sonic wave. Sonic waves are indeed conical.
I agree. But imagine what a difficult task that would be. According to Wiki itself, it contains 14 million articles. You would have to find experts in each of the fields to check each article, which are supposedly the people who wrote them in the first place. Hopefully, anyway.
FTA: The team told him to use "motor" imagery like a tennis match to indicate "yes" and "spatial" imagery like thinking about roaming the streets for a "no".
I've done a little bit of research in the area of spatial vs motor visualization. I think they could have chosen a better discriminator for the "spatial" task - it could be that the physical act of "wandering the streets" could be confounded with "playing tennis". There are many more tasks that I believe would have tapped into a more pure measure of the spatial component (e.g., imagine rotating an object).
Hrmmm...that makes it even more curious. I'm assuming that what they want is the cybernetic equivalent of a private sector space launch, you know? But I wonder what that could be? Maybe complete control of a UI where you can press buttons and write sentences just by using precognitive functions? As you and some of the other posts have pointed out, many of the building blocks are already in place.