Breakthrough proofs tend to be completed by kids in their early to mid 20's, it's when the brain is still plastic enough for truly out of the box thinking but where enough knowledge has been gathered to actually work on the hard problems.
Perhaps also because they actually have the opportunity.
Older people, who may still be plenty capable while having much more experience, seldom have the opportunity (due to mortgage, family, etc.)
Almost all incentives are given to youth (which makes sense). But older people seldom get a break. I think this, more than anything else, is what causes peoples brains to go stale.
You write like you're a responsible and respectful smoker. Hats off to you, seriously. Unfortunately, your kind is rare. Most smokers have no idea how disgusting and pervasive their habit is. I think it's partly because their olfactory systems are so damaged that they simply don't understand how bad it smells to others.
A tiny selection of my experiences:
- Smoker sitting right next to a non-smoking sign: "Oh, I'll just finish this one."
- In a restaurant (no longer legal, thank goodness) before I've finished eating: "Oh stop being silly. It's just a cigarette."
- Burning butts being thrown where pidgeons are foraging nearby.
etc. etc. etc.
When cigarettes are banned outright, many more people will benefit than just the smokers.
Mark this Flamebait if you like. But this is my honest opinion.
Environmentalist love to complain about new methods while offering up nothing in return. It is simply something for them to do so they can feel important.
Depends what kind of environmentalist you're referring to. (I agree, there are many people who would rather wrangle about the details without compromise, than get something that is better than nothing.)
Those transmission lines will have to be well protected, otherwise the Mediterranean could become a very big salty bathtub. One might get a buzz from swimming in it.;)
Which is an idiotic argument since "deep thinking" simply means that you keep going over the same thing over and over again
Oh, I sooo disagree.
I can shallow think something for ages and only go round in circles, rethinking the same things, and end up with little to show for my "effort".
"Deep" thinking is not different than "shallow" thinking, it just means that you keep thinking about something longer and understanding it on a deeper level
I find they're different states of mind.
When I'm shallow thinking, distractions aren't a problem. But I also understand only simple concepts.
When I'm in deep thought, disturbances break my concentration when I'm trying to get my head around something complex. So, I can sit down for a lesser amount of time to concentrate on one topic to really gain a deeper understanding of it.
They're both important for solving problems though, as they both have different uses:
Shallow thought is good for bringing in different ideas. (for example: brainstorming)
Deep thought is good for understanding complex ideas. (for example: analysing ideas from brainstorming)
But definately I find them to be different states of mind.
During the day you hang it from the metal clip on a branch (with no foliage) or a string (like a washing line). Or, simply place it on a safe surface somewhere that catches the sun.
At night you either hang it from the metal clip or screw it in. By the picture, it looks like there is a black "on" button at the top that may work such that screwing it in further switches it on (would have to remove the clip though).
This kind of software, if it really is so accurate and if it were commonly affordable to even small traders, would become almost a requirement to trade successfully, especially if you were a small trader who trades on the side. Wouldn't that make software traders more common than human traders? If so, then human decisions would be drowned out by software decisions.
What sense would that make? If some companies are (even temporarily) ignored by humans, then what would the bots do with its stock?
In my eyes that highlights two things:
- the stock market is now gambling where players are permitted to use bots.
- the need to give humans a chance to research companies and innovation before trading (as has been mentioned so often by others).
He recognizes the incredible value of having personal information on the majority of people connected to the internet, and he wants to capitalize on that.
Either a brave new world (to trust giving out so much personal information), or a naive new world (to trust giving out so much personal information).
I don’t think the experiment is so much about whether mobile phone networks affect bees. Possibly they do, and some proper research is, I think, warranted.
The experiment tries (with a tiny sample size) to shows something else:
In the experiment, the phone was as close as it could get to the hive, and was only active for 15 mins/day. This resembles more of somebody talking on a mobile phone for 15 mins/day. And if that could adversely affect bees, then it could also adversely affect humans, right?
After all, we're all living beeings. (I had to put that pun in somewhere. I just had to.;)
Looking at chimps, it seems that laughter and threat response are very closely linked. Also, looking at baboons (and the same seems to apply to humans), feeling superior seems to be good for ones health, while feeling inferior seems to be damaging to ones health.
My take on laughter is that, when one conquers a threat, one can display the threat response to show that one is superior, and this is healthy. This applies regardless of whether one has just done something wild that gives an adrenaline kick, or whether one hears a good joke.
Adrenaline example:
A physical “threat”. (Some joyride or other.)
Wohoo! What a ride! Adrenaline is pumping hard. That felt like a real kick, with an adrenaline burst and all. I knew I’d be okay, ‘cos I was in control the whole time. Yeah, sure I was!
Joke example:
An intellectual “threat”. (More like a challenge).
Was the joke funny?
It would not have been funny if it was too easy, because there’d be no challenge to be superior to.
It would not have been funny if it was too hard, because I’d have failed to be superior to it.
It was funny because it was just at my level, and I got the joke (beat the “challenge”).
If I’m a jug head, then I can’t conquer clever jokes. But I do understand thumping things.
If I’m an intellectual, then I like clever jokes, because they challenge me a little.
Of course, the adrenaline example felt more real, and so the enjoyment was therefore greater.
This is why laughter is so important when under pressure. It is also why humour changes depending on culture and circumstances. Soldiers and doctors may have what the rest of us might consider more morbid/black sense of humour, but it helps them stay on top of what could otherwise be pretty damaging experiences.
But if something turns out to not be so surmountable, then suddenly the situation is not funny anymore. (“Haha, you fell down. Hey, why aren’t you getting up? Are you okay?”)
So, as a health cure, why not go to a theme park (and claim it as medical expense) ?;)
Could this delay be something like loading a spring? So that when the sun does complete its cycle, it then gives us an unusually big burn to make up for this extended cold period?
Exactly what you describe is the most commonly described technique for astral projection that I've come across... with one additional step.
(Note: I sleep so deeply that I've never been able try it properly to see if it really works.)
When you day dream, you kind of... see the dream in your head instead of what's in front of your eyes. When you snap out of your day dream, you then become aware (again) of what is really going on around you.
Likewise...
When you have the "This can't be right" realisation in a sleep dream, then if you snap yourself out of your dream (but not out of your sleep), then you can see the non-physical world the way it really is.
Businesses with no patents at all, or those with the most worthless patents (in case you need at least one patent as a membership requirement).
Some ideas clearly are a good match for each other. So, what if...
- an entry requirement into a DPL is a patent that the existing members in the DPL agree would be good to introduce, because it would strengthen the complete suite of patents?
- a scoring system is introduced to allow more "generous" members greater control over the direction of the DPL and a greater portion of the potential profits to the DPL itself (such as licence fees for using the patents in the DPL)?
- DPL's allowed other businesses to use the patents in return for licence fees (or for free, to protect from patent trolls)
- the original patent owner retains the right to add the patent to other DPL's
It seems that a DPL would become a business entity in it's own right.
A scoring system might be tricky to design/define, but I think doable. Different DPL's might also use different scoring systems.
When I first started using a mobile phone, I didn't know it was going to affect me. But very soon I discovered that whenever it was switched on and in my trouser pocket, I'd get a severe hip ache after half an hour. If I talk for more than 5-15 minutes, I can feel my ear being affected, and after an hour I'll have a headache. This does not happen if I'm using a cord-phone or headset, as I can talk for hours on end without any of the symptoms that I get from using a mobile phone. (Bluetooth seems fine to me.)
And I'm not alone.
I don't know if mobile phones cause cancer.
I don't know why only some people seem affected.
I don't know how it happens.
I don't know if it's even harmful at all.
But I do know that, when switched on and close by, mobile phones do cause aches to some people.
(And the irony is that I write software for mobile phones.)
Slashdot Mirror
Breakthrough proofs tend to be completed by kids in their early to mid 20's, it's when the brain is still plastic enough for truly out of the box thinking but where enough knowledge has been gathered to actually work on the hard problems.
Perhaps also because they actually have the opportunity.
Older people, who may still be plenty capable while having much more experience, seldom have the opportunity (due to mortgage, family, etc.)
Almost all incentives are given to youth (which makes sense). But older people seldom get a break. I think this, more than anything else, is what causes peoples brains to go stale.
You write like you're a responsible and respectful smoker. Hats off to you, seriously. Unfortunately, your kind is rare. Most smokers have no idea how disgusting and pervasive their habit is. I think it's partly because their olfactory systems are so damaged that they simply don't understand how bad it smells to others.
A tiny selection of my experiences:
- Smoker sitting right next to a non-smoking sign: "Oh, I'll just finish this one."
- In a restaurant (no longer legal, thank goodness) before I've finished eating: "Oh stop being silly. It's just a cigarette."
- Burning butts being thrown where pidgeons are foraging nearby.
etc. etc. etc.
When cigarettes are banned outright, many more people will benefit than just the smokers.
Mark this Flamebait if you like. But this is my honest opinion.
Environmentalist love to complain about new methods while offering up nothing in return. It is simply something for them to do so they can feel important.
Depends what kind of environmentalist you're referring to. (I agree, there are many people who would rather wrangle about the details without compromise, than get something that is better than nothing.)
I still consider myself an environmentalist, yet I still joke/comment about things ( http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1693540&cid=32661302 ). Not criticizing, just highlighting the importance of doing the job right.
I like this idea, and many others including fission power, as long as they hurt the biosphere less than what we have now.
Those transmission lines will have to be well protected, otherwise the Mediterranean could become a very big salty bathtub. One might get a buzz from swimming in it. ;)
Thanks for your answers. :)
Which is an idiotic argument since "deep thinking" simply means that you keep going over the same thing over and over again
Oh, I sooo disagree.
I can shallow think something for ages and only go round in circles, rethinking the same things, and end up with little to show for my "effort".
"Deep" thinking is not different than "shallow" thinking, it just means that you keep thinking about something longer and understanding it on a deeper level
I find they're different states of mind.
When I'm shallow thinking, distractions aren't a problem. But I also understand only simple concepts.
When I'm in deep thought, disturbances break my concentration when I'm trying to get my head around something complex. So, I can sit down for a lesser amount of time to concentrate on one topic to really gain a deeper understanding of it.
They're both important for solving problems though, as they both have different uses:
Shallow thought is good for bringing in different ideas. (for example: brainstorming)
Deep thought is good for understanding complex ideas. (for example: analysing ideas from brainstorming)
But definately I find them to be different states of mind.
During the day you hang it from the metal clip on a branch (with no foliage) or a string (like a washing line). Or, simply place it on a safe surface somewhere that catches the sun.
At night you either hang it from the metal clip or screw it in. By the picture, it looks like there is a black "on" button at the top that may work such that screwing it in further switches it on (would have to remove the clip though).
All the brilliant engineering in the world won't fix laziness, apathy
Yep, totally agree. I'm an excellent engineer, and yet here I sit reading Slashdot.
Ah, finally someone I can ask. Hope you don't mind.
1. What's your verdict on focus fusion? http://focusfusion.org/
2. What do DT and DD stand for?
This kind of software, if it really is so accurate and if it were commonly affordable to even small traders, would become almost a requirement to trade successfully, especially if you were a small trader who trades on the side. Wouldn't that make software traders more common than human traders? If so, then human decisions would be drowned out by software decisions.
What sense would that make? If some companies are (even temporarily) ignored by humans, then what would the bots do with its stock?
In my eyes that highlights two things:
- the stock market is now gambling where players are permitted to use bots.
- the need to give humans a chance to research companies and innovation before trading (as has been mentioned so often by others).
So my question is... where will this lead?
He recognizes the incredible value of having personal information on the majority of people connected to the internet, and he wants to capitalize on that.
Either a brave new world (to trust giving out so much personal information), or a naive new world (to trust giving out so much personal information).
Oh, I thought rooted meant f*#!ed. ;)
Okay, so neutrinos have a tiny mass. But if a particle has actually no mass and no charge, how could one find out that it even exists? (Just curious.)
It would be good if those lessons (the more general ones at least) could be made public to game developers, so that other games could have better AI.
I don’t think the experiment is so much about whether mobile phone networks affect bees. Possibly they do, and some proper research is, I think, warranted.
;)
The experiment tries (with a tiny sample size) to shows something else:
In the experiment, the phone was as close as it could get to the hive, and was only active for 15 mins/day. This resembles more of somebody talking on a mobile phone for 15 mins/day. And if that could adversely affect bees, then it could also adversely affect humans, right?
After all, we're all living beeings. (I had to put that pun in somewhere. I just had to.
Looking at chimps, it seems that laughter and threat response are very closely linked. Also, looking at baboons (and the same seems to apply to humans), feeling superior seems to be good for ones health, while feeling inferior seems to be damaging to ones health.
;)
My take on laughter is that, when one conquers a threat, one can display the threat response to show that one is superior, and this is healthy. This applies regardless of whether one has just done something wild that gives an adrenaline kick, or whether one hears a good joke.
Adrenaline example:
A physical “threat”. (Some joyride or other.)
Wohoo! What a ride! Adrenaline is pumping hard. That felt like a real kick, with an adrenaline burst and all. I knew I’d be okay, ‘cos I was in control the whole time. Yeah, sure I was!
Joke example:
An intellectual “threat”. (More like a challenge).
Was the joke funny?
It would not have been funny if it was too easy, because there’d be no challenge to be superior to.
It would not have been funny if it was too hard, because I’d have failed to be superior to it.
It was funny because it was just at my level, and I got the joke (beat the “challenge”).
If I’m a jug head, then I can’t conquer clever jokes. But I do understand thumping things.
If I’m an intellectual, then I like clever jokes, because they challenge me a little.
Of course, the adrenaline example felt more real, and so the enjoyment was therefore greater.
This is why laughter is so important when under pressure. It is also why humour changes depending on culture and circumstances. Soldiers and doctors may have what the rest of us might consider more morbid/black sense of humour, but it helps them stay on top of what could otherwise be pretty damaging experiences.
But if something turns out to not be so surmountable, then suddenly the situation is not funny anymore. (“Haha, you fell down. Hey, why aren’t you getting up? Are you okay?”)
So, as a health cure, why not go to a theme park (and claim it as medical expense) ?
Well, if it were an european swallow, it would be running GSM. But you see it is sprint
If it's such a fast sprint, wouldn't it be cheetah?
Could this delay be something like loading a spring? So that when the sun does complete its cycle, it then gives us an unusually big burn to make up for this extended cold period?
Mad Max!
Plenty of fuel to drive sand buggies, but water is scarce.
And if the Frisbeetarians are right
There's a religion based on frisbees?!? Man, that totally spins me out.
Exactly what you describe is the most commonly described technique for astral projection that I've come across... with one additional step.
(Note: I sleep so deeply that I've never been able try it properly to see if it really works.)
When you day dream, you kind of... see the dream in your head instead of what's in front of your eyes. When you snap out of your day dream, you then become aware (again) of what is really going on around you.
Likewise...
When you have the "This can't be right" realisation in a sleep dream, then if you snap yourself out of your dream (but not out of your sleep), then you can see the non-physical world the way it really is.
Businesses with no patents at all, or those with the most worthless patents (in case you need at least one patent as a membership requirement).
Some ideas clearly are a good match for each other. So, what if...
- an entry requirement into a DPL is a patent that the existing members in the DPL agree would be good to introduce, because it would strengthen the complete suite of patents?
- a scoring system is introduced to allow more "generous" members greater control over the direction of the DPL and a greater portion of the potential profits to the DPL itself (such as licence fees for using the patents in the DPL)?
- DPL's allowed other businesses to use the patents in return for licence fees (or for free, to protect from patent trolls)
- the original patent owner retains the right to add the patent to other DPL's
It seems that a DPL would become a business entity in it's own right.
A scoring system might be tricky to design/define, but I think doable. Different DPL's might also use different scoring systems.
When I first started using a mobile phone, I didn't know it was going to affect me. But very soon I discovered that whenever it was switched on and in my trouser pocket, I'd get a severe hip ache after half an hour. If I talk for more than 5-15 minutes, I can feel my ear being affected, and after an hour I'll have a headache. This does not happen if I'm using a cord-phone or headset, as I can talk for hours on end without any of the symptoms that I get from using a mobile phone. (Bluetooth seems fine to me.)
And I'm not alone.
I don't know if mobile phones cause cancer.
I don't know why only some people seem affected.
I don't know how it happens.
I don't know if it's even harmful at all.
But I do know that, when switched on and close by, mobile phones do cause aches to some people.
(And the irony is that I write software for mobile phones.)
Plus, think of the enourmous phone bill!
YAAAY!!! =D