fMRIs have also allowed researchers to study neuroplasticity without having to perform tests that involve inflicting brain and neural damage on animals. It's allowed neuroplasticity research to progress faster after being stalled for 20 years by faked PETA propaganda.
True, enough. However we do know which parts of the brain have primary roles in various types of information processing (sensual, spatial, etc.). While there is significant variation between individuals, to a certain rough extent you can also pre-map those locations with fMRIs during various types of stimulation. That's how we've been able to confirm, for instance, that people with a non-functioning sense (eyesight, hearing, etc.) re-purpose the standard brain centre for that sense to process other senses. fMRIs provide a major new tool for the study of the brain, providing rapid objective data on what was previously either painstakingly and slowly collected through the study of individuals with brain damage, or even worse - unsupported conjecture. While the response of fMRIs to brain activity is not instantaneous or temporally fine-grained, it is nonetheless a huge advance for many types of observations.
Would you prefer to go back to a couch, a pad of paper and a pen?
I think that more than the short term memory use, handwriting requires "symbolization". You look up at the blackboard/screen to read a bit, look down at your paper to make sure you are writing correctly in an aligned form and adjust, rinse and repeat. To go into your short term memory, your brain will "symbolize" the words (i.e. activiate the neural regions associated with that word/concept), and in doing so activates many regions of the brains associated with those symbols through established pathways.
That process doesn't need to happen with touch typists who never look at the keyboard. They can just go from letter to letter without significant symbolization activity. That's would explain recent studies reporting that fMRIs show significantly more brain activity during writing than typing.
By forcing symbolization and activating related symbol paths in temporal proximity, neuroplasticity indicates that writing would facilitate/activate the formation of new paths for memorization. A good way to test this would be to repeat those fMRI tests with people who aren't touch typists. By having to look at the keyboard to type they would presumably still have to perform some level of symbolization but perhaps less so than with printing or cursive writing (which also triggers more brain activity for fine motor control and cursive tying between letters), with expected results being somewhere between writing and touch-typing.
Except that the researcher seems to not provide any data to back up his assumption (at least none made it into the summary). However there have been recent MRI studies that indicated that writing activates many more regions of the brain than typing. In doing so, it could very well require more focus and stimulate the release of neurotransmitters that facilitate the forming of short and long term memories. MRIs have really opened a lot of new avenues of research and analysis when it comes to neuroplasticity and learning.
Which part is he not supposed to know what he's talking about? The neuroscience of learning while writing, or the part about smart pens? Because I've read a number of popularization articles on recent research using MRIs to study brain activity and learning during writing vs typing, which seems to back up what he says in his post (certainly more so than the apparent guesses of the study authors) . Now regarding his opinion on smart pens, that seems perhaps subjective, but then your blank assertion that he doesn't know about his own preferences seems to be "not even wrong".
Yeah? I think you need to refresh you memory about Arthur Andersen. Reading the Wikipedia article, it's sad how far the firm had strayed from the co-founder's principles.
Every grocery store loyalty card I've seen uses a bar code scanner - not NFC.
That's because they're loyalty cards. They don't really care about security and they want something that's cheap for them and which doesn't require their customers to own a smartphone.
But as of a year+ ago, all new/renewed Visa and Mastercard plastic in Canada comes with "contact" transaction capability.
Unfortunately, NFC also happens to be fundamentally insecure and makes it easy for somebody to charge up to $100 on your card elsewhere. I have a Faraday cage wallet because I've been burned once and the last thing I want is the same thing on my phone.
Because there are no alternatives. Many markets have one or two providers at most so collusion and price fixing are likely, and legislators have been bought off to ensure regulators have too limited powers to do anything about it.
So apparently, based on the GP, some people don't "put up with it" and use less than legal alternatives.
There is no association here, this is a strawman argument.
Actually there is a demonstrated probable causal path: exposure to lead if the first 5 years of human brain development (and particularly in the first 2 years) is likely to cause faulty development of parts of the forebrain that control emotional outbursts. But hey, you keep on cleaning your gun on the kitchen table and bottle feeding your newborn after firing some bullets at the range. I'm sure you're right and there won't be any repercussions.
I don't think that lead is often found in metallic form in the ground (unlike gold for instance, since gold doesn't tend to dissolve or oxidize in water much). This is because lead does in fact dissolve in water. When lead is in the ground naturally, it would normally be chemically bound to other elements as part of a mineral.
No, it's that the payment structure/incentives for the USPTO (and patent examiners within the USPTO) have been changed in a way that favour patent approval unless prior art is ridiculously obvious.
I think there's a lot of merit to describing the risks of computer science in a course, from exploitable security vulnerabilities in applications and operating systems, to bugs/failures in life-critical systems. Having students understanding that bugs have consequences and that there is a potential downside to computer use should be part of any introduction to computer science. It doesn't have to veer off into sociology, but lack of risk awareness is at the root of many current problems with computers, so some awareness that it isn't all fun and video games, is important. If that discussion happens to touch on current events like NSA spying and digital voting machines to make the subject relevant to students, so be it.
A factor affecting model predictions would have been that the normal 11 year solar cycle was somehow unexpectedly stuck in minimal activity for quite a few extra years until 2010. This factor could not have been anticipated by climate scientists in their models (and the same factor in past has ironically been claimed by some climate change "skeptics" as an alternative theory for higher global average temperatures measured during a period of solar minimum). Note that the last time an extended solar activity minimum happened for an 70 year period it caused the Little Ice Age, whereas we're still seeing a yearly decrease in North polar ice.
Age does not automatically confer wisdom. However wisdom is often gained through a process of trial and error over a period of elapsed time.
Why would you need to change UIDs on a yearly basis? One possibility is that you are poor at remembering passwords and also frequently changing e-mail addresses (since otherwise you could reset the password). Another possibility is that you create more posts that get down-rated than up-rated posts, and decide to start afresh when your karma is so low it makes your posts automatically downgraded to the level of ACs. If the latter has been happening for 10 years, then you have a persistent knack for being either flat out wrong or offensive, which appears to denote a certain lack of wisdom.
Would you care to provide any alternate hypothesis for your needing to change accounts on a yearly basis that does not indicate poor judgment?
"You aren't in a position to be dictating the conditions of the conversation to others."
Bullshit. I *AM* in a position to decide whether I ignore you.
Those two statements are not mutually exclusive. Conversations, by their very nature involve more than one person, and require agreement over the conditions of conversations. So while you can ignore him, you also cannot dictate the conditions of conversations to others (if those "others" are the scientific community and public at large) since those others also get to set their own conditions. People who attempt to do so are generally regarded as crackpots who mutter to themselves on street corners.
At the time the Romans occupied Britain they had vineyards near Manchester.
Shipping wine from southern Gaul was effectively much more expensive in resources then than it is now. Transport breakage/loss was probably higher too, which would have made lower local productivity acceptable. So it was economically feasible to grow grapes for so-so wines used for local consumption that would not find a market anywhere nowadays. Past performance is not indicative of future performance.
Way too cold for that now.
Now? Last I heard, England was having quite the heat wave.
If you have a genetic condition, then your ethnicity may have some relevance. However in the case of nearly all germ infections, what you did in the last week has much more relevance. But yes, women do have an extremely low incidence of testicular or prostate cancer.
Why is it so difficult for Ballmer and Gates to admit that they can't compete anymore, no matter how many times they restructure their company? It's one company vs the world at this point.
Because they've always thought that way. Back in the early days of the Microsoft Network, they thought they could take on the Internet and win. The managers in that division really thought that, because all they had seen up until then was Compuserve and AOL. The organizations which could be their technical competition were small in number and Microsoft could either out-innovate relative giants like IBM and SUN, or else use their bigger warchest to out-market/out-last/undercut smaller competitors like Apple, Atari, Commodore, Lotus, and Wordperfect.
The Internet has changed the equation in a number of ways.
blogs have weakened their marketing punch by making it harder for them to control the media by buying off columnists (whether directly through advertising purchases or by limiting access to executives and product releases),
blogs can also go into much more details about the relative strengths, merits, and limitations of Microsoft vs. competing products, allowing corporate and private buyers to make more informed decisions, as compared to magazine reports and typical sales demos.
The Internet has also made it easier for competition to build user communities where they reach a critical self-supporting mass because geographical dispersal isn't as much of an issue,
That last item critically applies even more for developer communities, because you no longer need to be a giant to create a big product (although it still helps with financing if some giants see benefits in providing support).
So Microsoft still has a big warchest and can use it to good effect, but there are good examples (i.e. XBox) that it can only get them so far. Most of their traditional techniques for gaining advantage are much weaker. However most villains feel they are the heroes of their own stories, and for Microsoft executives to admit that the above is true, they would have to admit that their products are not always the best and that they are not heroes trying to provide the best for their customers (even if their customers can't recognize it), but that their tricks are purely self-serving. Cognitive dissonance just won't let them admit that.
Re: acting like a psychopath - It would seem that would be the case only if you somehow somehow thought that having compassion and empathy for others and letting it modify your behaviour and actions was somehow equivalent to "fear". They admittedly can be congruent if fear of upsetting someone prevents you from acting for the benefit of all, but generally compassion and empathy are VERY different emotions from fear and acting without fear should have very different outcomes than acting without fear and empathy. It' the latter which is done by psychopaths.
Well, French/Belgian people do actually tend to learn English with a British accent, as opposed to a North American accent, because England is closer. I initially learned with a British accent using BBC tapes for instance, even though these days I normally speak with a Western Canadian accent. I can do passable British, French and German accents in English, as well as standard (Parisian) and southern French accents. My accent in speaking my (very limited) Spanish is probably closer to a Spanish accent than a Central American one for similar reasons.
If Picard had been young enough when he learned English, a British accent is perfectly plausible. Of course, his accent in "French" is abominable, but you only hear that in a few episodes when he visits with relatives, such as the one following his de-Borgification.
It appears that is frequently in the case in the UK. I have yet to encounter that requirement in this particular location in North America. Admittedly, I prefer to avoid moving and have only done so 4 times in 20 years.
Slashdot Mirror
fMRIs show that writing and typing are handled very differently by the brain.
fMRIs have also allowed researchers to study neuroplasticity without having to perform tests that involve inflicting brain and neural damage on animals. It's allowed neuroplasticity research to progress faster after being stalled for 20 years by faked PETA propaganda.
True, enough. However we do know which parts of the brain have primary roles in various types of information processing (sensual, spatial, etc.). While there is significant variation between individuals, to a certain rough extent you can also pre-map those locations with fMRIs during various types of stimulation. That's how we've been able to confirm, for instance, that people with a non-functioning sense (eyesight, hearing, etc.) re-purpose the standard brain centre for that sense to process other senses. fMRIs provide a major new tool for the study of the brain, providing rapid objective data on what was previously either painstakingly and slowly collected through the study of individuals with brain damage, or even worse - unsupported conjecture. While the response of fMRIs to brain activity is not instantaneous or temporally fine-grained, it is nonetheless a huge advance for many types of observations.
Would you prefer to go back to a couch, a pad of paper and a pen?
I think that more than the short term memory use, handwriting requires "symbolization". You look up at the blackboard/screen to read a bit, look down at your paper to make sure you are writing correctly in an aligned form and adjust, rinse and repeat. To go into your short term memory, your brain will "symbolize" the words (i.e. activiate the neural regions associated with that word/concept), and in doing so activates many regions of the brains associated with those symbols through established pathways.
That process doesn't need to happen with touch typists who never look at the keyboard. They can just go from letter to letter without significant symbolization activity. That's would explain recent studies reporting that fMRIs show significantly more brain activity during writing than typing.
By forcing symbolization and activating related symbol paths in temporal proximity, neuroplasticity indicates that writing would facilitate/activate the formation of new paths for memorization. A good way to test this would be to repeat those fMRI tests with people who aren't touch typists. By having to look at the keyboard to type they would presumably still have to perform some level of symbolization but perhaps less so than with printing or cursive writing (which also triggers more brain activity for fine motor control and cursive tying between letters), with expected results being somewhere between writing and touch-typing.
Except that the researcher seems to not provide any data to back up his assumption (at least none made it into the summary). However there have been recent MRI studies that indicated that writing activates many more regions of the brain than typing. In doing so, it could very well require more focus and stimulate the release of neurotransmitters that facilitate the forming of short and long term memories. MRIs have really opened a lot of new avenues of research and analysis when it comes to neuroplasticity and learning.
Which part is he not supposed to know what he's talking about? The neuroscience of learning while writing, or the part about smart pens? Because I've read a number of popularization articles on recent research using MRIs to study brain activity and learning during writing vs typing, which seems to back up what he says in his post (certainly more so than the apparent guesses of the study authors) . Now regarding his opinion on smart pens, that seems perhaps subjective, but then your blank assertion that he doesn't know about his own preferences seems to be "not even wrong".
Yeah? I think you need to refresh you memory about Arthur Andersen. Reading the Wikipedia article, it's sad how far the firm had strayed from the co-founder's principles.
That's because they're loyalty cards. They don't really care about security and they want something that's cheap for them and which doesn't require their customers to own a smartphone. But as of a year+ ago, all new/renewed Visa and Mastercard plastic in Canada comes with "contact" transaction capability. Unfortunately, NFC also happens to be fundamentally insecure and makes it easy for somebody to charge up to $100 on your card elsewhere. I have a Faraday cage wallet because I've been burned once and the last thing I want is the same thing on my phone.
Because there are no alternatives. Many markets have one or two providers at most so collusion and price fixing are likely, and legislators have been bought off to ensure regulators have too limited powers to do anything about it.
So apparently, based on the GP, some people don't "put up with it" and use less than legal alternatives.
OK, but lead does dissolve in the presence of oxygen and water, which would seem quite plausible in the open-air scenarios being discussed here.
Actually there is a demonstrated probable causal path: exposure to lead if the first 5 years of human brain development (and particularly in the first 2 years) is likely to cause faulty development of parts of the forebrain that control emotional outbursts. But hey, you keep on cleaning your gun on the kitchen table and bottle feeding your newborn after firing some bullets at the range. I'm sure you're right and there won't be any repercussions.
I don't think that lead is often found in metallic form in the ground (unlike gold for instance, since gold doesn't tend to dissolve or oxidize in water much). This is because lead does in fact dissolve in water. When lead is in the ground naturally, it would normally be chemically bound to other elements as part of a mineral.
No, it's that the payment structure/incentives for the USPTO (and patent examiners within the USPTO) have been changed in a way that favour patent approval unless prior art is ridiculously obvious.
I'm sorry, Who's zooming who?
I think there's a lot of merit to describing the risks of computer science in a course, from exploitable security vulnerabilities in applications and operating systems, to bugs/failures in life-critical systems. Having students understanding that bugs have consequences and that there is a potential downside to computer use should be part of any introduction to computer science. It doesn't have to veer off into sociology, but lack of risk awareness is at the root of many current problems with computers, so some awareness that it isn't all fun and video games, is important. If that discussion happens to touch on current events like NSA spying and digital voting machines to make the subject relevant to students, so be it.
I guess that's why Venus is so cool at the surface, that really high concentration of CO2.
A factor affecting model predictions would have been that the normal 11 year solar cycle was somehow unexpectedly stuck in minimal activity for quite a few extra years until 2010. This factor could not have been anticipated by climate scientists in their models (and the same factor in past has ironically been claimed by some climate change "skeptics" as an alternative theory for higher global average temperatures measured during a period of solar minimum). Note that the last time an extended solar activity minimum happened for an 70 year period it caused the Little Ice Age, whereas we're still seeing a yearly decrease in North polar ice.
Age does not automatically confer wisdom. However wisdom is often gained through a process of trial and error over a period of elapsed time.
Why would you need to change UIDs on a yearly basis? One possibility is that you are poor at remembering passwords and also frequently changing e-mail addresses (since otherwise you could reset the password). Another possibility is that you create more posts that get down-rated than up-rated posts, and decide to start afresh when your karma is so low it makes your posts automatically downgraded to the level of ACs. If the latter has been happening for 10 years, then you have a persistent knack for being either flat out wrong or offensive, which appears to denote a certain lack of wisdom.
Would you care to provide any alternate hypothesis for your needing to change accounts on a yearly basis that does not indicate poor judgment?
Those two statements are not mutually exclusive. Conversations, by their very nature involve more than one person, and require agreement over the conditions of conversations. So while you can ignore him, you also cannot dictate the conditions of conversations to others (if those "others" are the scientific community and public at large) since those others also get to set their own conditions. People who attempt to do so are generally regarded as crackpots who mutter to themselves on street corners.
Shipping wine from southern Gaul was effectively much more expensive in resources then than it is now. Transport breakage/loss was probably higher too, which would have made lower local productivity acceptable. So it was economically feasible to grow grapes for so-so wines used for local consumption that would not find a market anywhere nowadays. Past performance is not indicative of future performance.
Now? Last I heard, England was having quite the heat wave.
If you have a genetic condition, then your ethnicity may have some relevance. However in the case of nearly all germ infections, what you did in the last week has much more relevance. But yes, women do have an extremely low incidence of testicular or prostate cancer.
Because they've always thought that way. Back in the early days of the Microsoft Network, they thought they could take on the Internet and win. The managers in that division really thought that, because all they had seen up until then was Compuserve and AOL. The organizations which could be their technical competition were small in number and Microsoft could either out-innovate relative giants like IBM and SUN, or else use their bigger warchest to out-market/out-last/undercut smaller competitors like Apple, Atari, Commodore, Lotus, and Wordperfect.
The Internet has changed the equation in a number of ways.
So Microsoft still has a big warchest and can use it to good effect, but there are good examples (i.e. XBox) that it can only get them so far. Most of their traditional techniques for gaining advantage are much weaker. However most villains feel they are the heroes of their own stories, and for Microsoft executives to admit that the above is true, they would have to admit that their products are not always the best and that they are not heroes trying to provide the best for their customers (even if their customers can't recognize it), but that their tricks are purely self-serving. Cognitive dissonance just won't let them admit that.
Re: acting like a psychopath - It would seem that would be the case only if you somehow somehow thought that having compassion and empathy for others and letting it modify your behaviour and actions was somehow equivalent to "fear". They admittedly can be congruent if fear of upsetting someone prevents you from acting for the benefit of all, but generally compassion and empathy are VERY different emotions from fear and acting without fear should have very different outcomes than acting without fear and empathy. It' the latter which is done by psychopaths.
Well, French/Belgian people do actually tend to learn English with a British accent, as opposed to a North American accent, because England is closer. I initially learned with a British accent using BBC tapes for instance, even though these days I normally speak with a Western Canadian accent. I can do passable British, French and German accents in English, as well as standard (Parisian) and southern French accents. My accent in speaking my (very limited) Spanish is probably closer to a Spanish accent than a Central American one for similar reasons.
If Picard had been young enough when he learned English, a British accent is perfectly plausible. Of course, his accent in "French" is abominable, but you only hear that in a few episodes when he visits with relatives, such as the one following his de-Borgification.
It appears that is frequently in the case in the UK. I have yet to encounter that requirement in this particular location in North America. Admittedly, I prefer to avoid moving and have only done so 4 times in 20 years.