I hear the same argument about property taxes -- "Why should I support public schools?" I don't have children, but I thank the school system every time I get correct change back from some pimply faced kid. And I support after-school programs so teenagers have less chance to get bored. Bored teenagers are the only critters more destructive than a Labrador Retriever puppy.
Y'know, I started reading/. because I was loosing my internal sense of geek. Sure, I can cut DNA up and put it back together, or measure picoamps of current from a neuron in a petri dish, but my data analysis software is all Mac based. I was in danger of weenie-dom.
I found I was using our Linux box at home the way I play guitar: I've memorized a bunch of chords and can transpose a bit, but I don't know music theory. Similarly I can get around the computer and do what I want, but should in no way be trusted with root.
So what the hell does that have to do with Signal 11?/. doesn't teach me how to use Linux effectively, but it does help teach me what I don't know and where to learn it. It does what I wanted a forum like this to do. I liked the lively minds and learned quickly how to filter the noise. (It takes more work here than flipping a 10 kHz setting on my electrophysiology rig, because not all posts of interest to me are >=2.) Eventually it dawned on me that there were people who seemed to live in a Slashdot universe. There were people whose self-worth seemed related to their karma points. Clearly, there were people who needed a life.
This doesn't bother me. As a phenomenon it interests me because I'm an armchair internet anthropologist. The admissions of Signal 11, Enoch Root, et al that they purposefully Karma whore with inflammatory posts reminds me (in substance, though not style) of sociological experiments I've carried out on other lists. My armchair studies show me that/. seems to have followed the usual pattern laid out in a "life cycle of mailing lists" I saw long ago. Most of you have seen it, the description of the cycle from not enough posters, to good informative posts, to lots of noise and the old timers complaining that we've had discussion X before, to (sometimes) the eventual dissolution of the list. What do you know? You can change the interface style, but the human pattern stays the same.
I have a karma of 1 (woo-hoo!). I have posted fewer than a dozen times. I have a life. I will continue to check in with/. on a regular basis. I laugh, I cry, I learn a lot about myself.
Remember that the term technocrat carries serious negative connotations.:->
I'm not sure that anyone today could be a Jefferson. The scope of knowledge needed is now too big. Sure there are many people who manage to do several things well (David Brin is respected in his academic field as well as being a fine writer, eg). However the call for a technical president reminds me of Perot's "Just lift up the hood and fix it!" mentality, which calls for an autocratic technocrat.
I am both joking and serious. Most of the technical people I know prefer to do a job thoroughly and well. Many of them dislike management positions because they feel as if they have to think shallowly about 100 things rather than deeply about 5 or 10. But to their infinite credit, most technical people I know (at least the good ones) are willing to take responsibility when also given the authority.
That is where I agree with you. Give a a good engineer the responsibility, the authority, the resources and the necessary information on starting conditions and goals, and you'll get one hell of a job done.
IMO the job of president would drive a good engineer up the wall. American presidents do not have all the things I listed above -- some by circumstance, some by choice. And it's the ultimate management position.
First HP points out that the Powers That Be -- ie the established wealthy -- pretty much have things sewn up and are most involved in protecting their status. Even the super-rich who are not part of the Insiders have trouble pushing their agendas effectively (Ted Turner serves as an example there), because of the difficulty in changing the momentum of the current system. Make no mistake that both Bush and Gore are members of political and corporate dynasties.
Which brings me to my second point. Maul mentioned that for those of us who self-select to forums like this one, libertarianism and apathy loom more largely than they do in the general populace. In my experience Middle America also contributes to the momentum of the current system.
Some people of religious faith take a very strong interest in politics in order to preserve their so-called "Family Values" agenda. This may explain why the Republicans have such a social conservative bent despite the fact that polls tend to indicate that Americans prefer some level of freedom of reproductive choice and some level of gun control.
This is not to say the other people of religious faith take a strong interest in politics to promote the so-called Liberal agenda, but the "Family Values" camp tends to have more fervor and voice because they invoke fear of Other. In this case the Other is the "teenage immigrant welfare mothers on drugs" (to borrow from the Austin Lounge Lizards.
Controling populations by fear isn't anyting new. Loads of dynasties have done it. Come to think of it dynasties have been cracked by it. It's an effective tool.
I freelance in medical information writing, and occasionally work in-house with my main client. It's a very typical tech setting, so typical that the "perk's" -- free sodas and snacks, fooseball -- have been lampooned in local recruiting adds. What I found surprising was how little work got done in the meantime, despite looming deadlines. Sure there was bonding with the CEO, but did that get the job done? I was glad to be on an hourly-rate clock to avoid all that.
I grew up near Disney, and have had my fill of the "Rah-Rah" crap. In my arrogant opinion, it only works with those firmly under the middle of the bell curve.
So why give the/. guys a hard time? On the ArtWithBrainInMind list, someone recently asked why popular science writers like Sagan, Damasio, and Gould (who are/were serious academic scientist as well) get dissed by their peers for speaking publically. My answer was that it was like the response of a contemplative monastic to a fellow monk who decided to become a TV preacher one day a month. I get a similar feeling from the geek community -- recognition by and interaction with the outside world gets treated as sin, heresy!
/. has provided a very interesting forum that differs from usenet in significant ways. The tone set by the founders has much to do with it. Sure there's fluff, first posts and Natalie Portman crap, but people here tend to appear intellectually playful, honest, and interested. I have learned a lot.
I'll miss the talks because I have band practice, but these things at MIT are usually good.
Oh, and I second the rec for the MIT museum. The holograms are closed, but the Hall of Hacks and kinetic sculptures are well worth it.
Cognitive scientists and hard core neurobiologists can sometime have trouble talking with one another. In the "forest for the trees" analogy, think of me as someone quite interested in the structure of individual leaves and control of photosynthesis, not an ecologist looking at the system. It's not that I'm not interested in whole brain function -- I am -- but what I study are the properties of individual neural connections. If the brain were a computer, I'd be an electrical or materials engineer, and you'd be interested in software theory.
That said-- eralch said:Is it not true though that after the cell reaches its threshold and fires, if the activation potential of the neuron continues to increase, the neuron fires more often? Each firing is digital, but the frequency is analog.
Mostly analog. What I said was: Ability to reach threshold and probability of release can both be tuned by feedback loops which change the electrical properties of the cells, or which enhance or depress the chance of transmitter release. In different parts of the brain there are different mechanisms involved. By this I mean two things: First is is just what I said, that things like firing threshold and frequency can be tuned by feedback inputs, both from other neurons and from the neuron onto iteself. Second is that once you figure out the feedback mechanisms in one part of the brain it does not follow that those mechanisms are globally true. If the neuron in question doesn't have receptors for dopamine, it doesn't matter how much dopamine you dump on the cell.
And egerlach ended with: It would seem to me therefore that every neuron is both a digital and analog device. Strange.
Strange, indeed. In the brain it seems to be a combination of the two, but mostly analog, imo.
My prejudice is that because individual synapses are so damn complicated and variable, then the idea that anyone can claim to know how entire systems in the brain work makes me laugh behind my hand. On the other hand, what I study may seem chaotic and non-linear, but when viewed from more of a distance the sum of activity might resolve into apparent linearity.
I am a neurobiologist. Dave is right, and see also his longer reply in this subthread. For two semesters of physiological psych, he picked up a lot more than many psychologists I've met.
The "tentacles", "onion", etc. Chakotay talks about are the dendrites, cell body and axon. These can be modeled quite effectively using cable properties, and the inputs he mentions can be described as variable resistors, etc. The math of just one multi-branched neuron can be reasonably complex, and putting together a model of a system requires some simplification. Computational neural networks are not constrained by the biology, which is often wet and squishy and multi-dimensional.
There are many ways in which the brain is both digital and analog. The misapprehension of the synapse as yes/no digital is based not on synapses in the brain, but on the connection between nerve and muscle. The neuromuscular junction has many fail-safes built in.
One aspect of neurons is certainly digital: Fire or not fire. There is a threshold based on the biophysics of voltage-gated channels. That same set of biophysical characters limit the waveform of the action potential (what we measure as a spike or "fire").
One aspect of neurotransmission is certainly stochastic: Transmitter release in certain areas of the cortex is not guaranteed in response to an action potential. Under normal circumstances some researchers have figured an average probability of only 1 in 3 that transmitter will be released in response to a spike. Even if transmitter is released, there is no guarantee it will be sufficient to bring the target cell to firing threshold.
Ability to reach threshold and probability of release can both be tuned by feedback loops which change the electrical properties of the cells, or which enhance or depress the chance of transmitter release. In different parts of the brain there are different mechanisms involved.
Just the engineering of the individual connections that make up the networks in the brain is very complicated. The article refers to the brain making "digital decisions" of car/not car, but even that is the result of complicated webs of signal input and processing.
If anyone tells you they understand how the brain works, they are either God or self-deluded.
Sinn Fein is the political (public, nicer, "we don't advocate violence") wing of the Irish Republican Army. The comparison of the relationship as PETA to ALF is not original.
Admittedly, ALF doesn't do things like blow up public spaces; they tend to stick to labs. There have been times, though, when people who do biomedical research have been as worried as a Belfast shopper in the 80's. Terrorism is terrorism, imo.
There are many artificial noses out there, and companies besides aromascan, such as Cyrano.
DARPA, the people who brought you the internet, recently sponsored the Dogs Nose Project involving several different artificial nose designs. The purpose of this project was to find something to replace dogs in finding land mines.
I will still wear leather and eat meat. That, to me, gets directly into the traditional food chain, and humans were designed to be omnivorous - with (as far as I can tell), a diet of grains, fruits, and vegetables supplemented by occasional meat.
One can think of animal-based biomedical and bioengineering research as a subset of general carnivorousness, with the point being feeding the hunger for information rather than just energy.
I mean, MS wouldn't have "invented" that little paper clip if there wasn't some sort of need for it.
As a Mac weenie (doing my job with no M$ products), let me remind you of the Moose that appeared on the original Mac's. It was a desk accessory, iirc, which could be set for frequency of appearance and obnoxiousness level. It was only intended for entertainment, which seems to be all the paper clip is marginally good for. Once again, Mac did it better and earlier...
[stolen.sig: "Why Macintosh? Because when I want to fight an operating system, I'll use VMS."]
Slashdot Mirror
I hear the same argument about property taxes -- "Why should I support public schools?" I don't have children, but I thank the school system every time I get correct change back from some pimply faced kid. And I support after-school programs so teenagers have less chance to get bored. Bored teenagers are the only critters more destructive than a Labrador Retriever puppy.
I found I was using our Linux box at home the way I play guitar: I've memorized a bunch of chords and can transpose a bit, but I don't know music theory. Similarly I can get around the computer and do what I want, but should in no way be trusted with root.
So what the hell does that have to do with Signal 11? /. doesn't teach me how to use Linux effectively, but it does help teach me what I don't know and where to learn it. It does what I wanted a forum like this to do. I liked the lively minds and learned quickly how to filter the noise. (It takes more work here than flipping a 10 kHz setting on my electrophysiology rig, because not all posts of interest to me are >=2.) Eventually it dawned on me that there were people who seemed to live in a Slashdot universe. There were people whose self-worth seemed related to their karma points. Clearly, there were people who needed a life.
This doesn't bother me. As a phenomenon it interests me because I'm an armchair internet anthropologist. The admissions of Signal 11, Enoch Root, et al that they purposefully Karma whore with inflammatory posts reminds me (in substance, though not style) of sociological experiments I've carried out on other lists. My armchair studies show me that /. seems to have followed the usual pattern laid out in a "life cycle of mailing lists" I saw long ago. Most of you have seen it, the description of the cycle from not enough posters, to good informative posts, to lots of noise and the old timers complaining that we've had discussion X before, to (sometimes) the eventual dissolution of the list. What do you know? You can change the interface style, but the human pattern stays the same.
I have a karma of 1 (woo-hoo!). I have posted fewer than a dozen times. I have a life. I will continue to check in with /. on a regular basis. I laugh, I cry, I learn a lot about myself.
I'm not sure that anyone today could be a Jefferson. The scope of knowledge needed is now too big. Sure there are many people who manage to do several things well (David Brin is respected in his academic field as well as being a fine writer, eg). However the call for a technical president reminds me of Perot's "Just lift up the hood and fix it!" mentality, which calls for an autocratic technocrat.
I am both joking and serious. Most of the technical people I know prefer to do a job thoroughly and well. Many of them dislike management positions because they feel as if they have to think shallowly about 100 things rather than deeply about 5 or 10. But to their infinite credit, most technical people I know (at least the good ones) are willing to take responsibility when also given the authority.
That is where I agree with you. Give a a good engineer the responsibility, the authority, the resources and the necessary information on starting conditions and goals, and you'll get one hell of a job done.
IMO the job of president would drive a good engineer up the wall. American presidents do not have all the things I listed above -- some by circumstance, some by choice. And it's the ultimate management position.
Precisely, which is why I noted it had been used to bring down empires as well.
First HP points out that the Powers That Be -- ie the established wealthy -- pretty much have things sewn up and are most involved in protecting their status. Even the super-rich who are not part of the Insiders have trouble pushing their agendas effectively (Ted Turner serves as an example there), because of the difficulty in changing the momentum of the current system. Make no mistake that both Bush and Gore are members of political and corporate dynasties.
Which brings me to my second point. Maul mentioned that for those of us who self-select to forums like this one, libertarianism and apathy loom more largely than they do in the general populace. In my experience Middle America also contributes to the momentum of the current system.
Some people of religious faith take a very strong interest in politics in order to preserve their so-called "Family Values" agenda. This may explain why the Republicans have such a social conservative bent despite the fact that polls tend to indicate that Americans prefer some level of freedom of reproductive choice and some level of gun control.
This is not to say the other people of religious faith take a strong interest in politics to promote the so-called Liberal agenda, but the "Family Values" camp tends to have more fervor and voice because they invoke fear of Other. In this case the Other is the "teenage immigrant welfare mothers on drugs" (to borrow from the Austin Lounge Lizards.
Controling populations by fear isn't anyting new. Loads of dynasties have done it. Come to think of it dynasties have been cracked by it. It's an effective tool.
It's not just company picnics.
I freelance in medical information writing, and occasionally work in-house with my main client. It's a very typical tech setting, so typical that the "perk's" -- free sodas and snacks, fooseball -- have been lampooned in local recruiting adds. What I found surprising was how little work got done in the meantime, despite looming deadlines. Sure there was bonding with the CEO, but did that get the job done? I was glad to be on an hourly-rate clock to avoid all that.
I grew up near Disney, and have had my fill of the "Rah-Rah" crap. In my arrogant opinion, it only works with those firmly under the middle of the bell curve.
I'll miss the talks because I have band practice, but these things at MIT are usually good.
Oh, and I second the rec for the MIT museum. The holograms are closed, but the Hall of Hacks and kinetic sculptures are well worth it.
That said-- eralch said:Is it not true though that after the cell reaches its threshold and fires, if the activation potential of the neuron continues to increase, the neuron fires more often? Each firing is digital, but the frequency is analog.
Mostly analog. What I said was: Ability to reach threshold and probability of release can both be tuned by feedback loops which change the electrical properties of the cells, or which enhance or depress the chance of transmitter release. In different parts of the brain there are different mechanisms involved. By this I mean two things: First is is just what I said, that things like firing threshold and frequency can be tuned by feedback inputs, both from other neurons and from the neuron onto iteself. Second is that once you figure out the feedback mechanisms in one part of the brain it does not follow that those mechanisms are globally true. If the neuron in question doesn't have receptors for dopamine, it doesn't matter how much dopamine you dump on the cell.
And egerlach ended with: It would seem to me therefore that every neuron is both a digital and analog device. Strange.
Strange, indeed. In the brain it seems to be a combination of the two, but mostly analog, imo.
My prejudice is that because individual synapses are so damn complicated and variable, then the idea that anyone can claim to know how entire systems in the brain work makes me laugh behind my hand. On the other hand, what I study may seem chaotic and non-linear, but when viewed from more of a distance the sum of activity might resolve into apparent linearity.
The "tentacles", "onion", etc. Chakotay talks about are the dendrites, cell body and axon. These can be modeled quite effectively using cable properties, and the inputs he mentions can be described as variable resistors, etc. The math of just one multi-branched neuron can be reasonably complex, and putting together a model of a system requires some simplification. Computational neural networks are not constrained by the biology, which is often wet and squishy and multi-dimensional.
There are many ways in which the brain is both digital and analog. The misapprehension of the synapse as yes/no digital is based not on synapses in the brain, but on the connection between nerve and muscle. The neuromuscular junction has many fail-safes built in.
One aspect of neurons is certainly digital: Fire or not fire. There is a threshold based on the biophysics of voltage-gated channels. That same set of biophysical characters limit the waveform of the action potential (what we measure as a spike or "fire").
One aspect of neurotransmission is certainly stochastic: Transmitter release in certain areas of the cortex is not guaranteed in response to an action potential. Under normal circumstances some researchers have figured an average probability of only 1 in 3 that transmitter will be released in response to a spike. Even if transmitter is released, there is no guarantee it will be sufficient to bring the target cell to firing threshold.
Ability to reach threshold and probability of release can both be tuned by feedback loops which change the electrical properties of the cells, or which enhance or depress the chance of transmitter release. In different parts of the brain there are different mechanisms involved.
Just the engineering of the individual connections that make up the networks in the brain is very complicated. The article refers to the brain making "digital decisions" of car/not car, but even that is the result of complicated webs of signal input and processing.
If anyone tells you they understand how the brain works, they are either God or self-deluded.
Sinn Fein is the political (public, nicer, "we don't advocate violence") wing of the Irish Republican Army. The comparison of the relationship as PETA to ALF is not original.
Admittedly, ALF doesn't do things like blow up public spaces; they tend to stick to labs. There have been times, though, when people who do biomedical research have been as worried as a Belfast shopper in the 80's. Terrorism is terrorism, imo.
PETA is to the ALF what SinnFein is to the IRA.
The Animal Liberation Front is a terrorist organization.
The plot was perhaps less dumb that SW:PM, mostly because it didn't pretend to be anything more than a predictable SF-ish plot.
It was very pretty, and there was some nice attention to detail, like the baseball rolling after he puts it down.
And most importantly:
The comic relief is the smartest character in the movie.
There are many artificial noses out there, and companies besides aromascan, such as Cyrano.
DARPA, the people who brought you the internet, recently sponsored the Dogs Nose Project involving several different artificial nose designs. The purpose of this project was to find something to replace dogs in finding land mines.
One can think of animal-based biomedical and bioengineering research as a subset of general carnivorousness, with the point being feeding the hunger for information rather than just energy.
As a Mac weenie (doing my job with no M$ products), let me remind you of the Moose that appeared on the original Mac's. It was a desk accessory, iirc, which could be set for frequency of appearance and obnoxiousness level. It was only intended for entertainment, which seems to be all the paper clip is marginally good for. Once again, Mac did it better and earlier...
[stolen