I hate Microsoft's software and their business tactics, but I actually liked Ballmer's letter. He is personally in favor of diversity and will do everything possible to ensure that Microsoft is a diverse environment. But he will not use the vehicle of the Microsoft corporation to advance any particular social policy because (1) this is not appropriate and (2) because his personal views might be different than the personal views of others (employees, shareholders) with a financial stake. This is a moderate approach that I find hard to criticize.
According to ETS, the e-rater agrees with the human grader 98% of the time.
This is the key point. For several years now there have been algorithms capable of assigning grades to expository essays written by high school, college, and I believe even medical school students. The mark of success is that these grades correlate with the grades assigned by a human grader at the same level as the grades assigned by two human graders correlated with one another.
These algorithms do not take the standard AI/NLP route. They do not attempt to parse essays, represent their meaning, and compare this against a standard. Instead, they are statistical in nature. They are given a huge database of texts in the area being grade. Word collocations are tabulated (e.g., how many times the words "Linux" and "GNU" appear in the same text). This information is then reduced via Singular Value Decomposition. The result is effectively a "semantic space" for the domain.
To grade a student's essay, just reduce it to its unique words. This defines a vector in the semantic space. Compute the angle between this vector and vectors representing a range of essays that have been graded by humans. Assign the student's essay a grade based on these similarities (e.g., the grade of the essay to which it is most congruent).
What's remarkable about these techniques is that they're pretty robust against deliberate attempts to game them. You can just write a nonsense essay that seems to have the correct words. There are many controlled studies on this by many different labs. Google "LSA grading" for more. One of the developers of LSA now head a research group at Microsoft (Susan Dumais). Many of the others have started a company.
Many of the protestors keeping a vigil outside of Terry's hospice are Democrats. Among the Roman Catholics who have tried to bring more attention to the case there are just as many Democrats as Republicans.
This is all irrelevant. What proportion of the protestors are Democrats (versus Republicans)? What proportion of the Roman Catholics who are bringing more attention to the case are Democrats (versus Republicans)?
Furthermore, the core constituency of the Republican party has been pretty silent on this issue, with 37% of evangelicals supporting the removal of Terry's feeding tube.
This is better. You gave us a number. Unfortunately, it contradicts your argument. 63% of evangelicals support the parents over the husband.
However, a little Googling does provide support for your position. 44% of all people, 46% of Republicans, and 45% of churchgoers support the parents over the husband. So at the level of the citizenry, party affiliation contributes only moderately to one's position.
The problem is with the Republican congressmen. The House voted 203-58 to transfer juridiction of the case to a Federal court. 47 of the 203 were Democrats. So 77% of representatives who support the parents are Republican (versus Democrat). This can be interpreted in several ways.
First, it might mean nothing if the 58 opposed votes followed the same 77%-23% split along party lines. I couldn't quickly find this information, but I'm assuming this is not the case.
Second, it might mean nothing if the 170 odd missing representatives would have voted in a way which would have made the final results commensurate with the preferences of the citizenry. Again, I assume this not the case. (Otherwise, there would have been a loud outcry from the missing reps.)
Third, it might mean the congressmen whom Republican citizens elect do not reflect the full spectrum of their beliefs, but rather concentrate in one part of the ideological pool. This may be the case, especially given that the recent round of elections was largely a referendum on the war in Iraq and the fight against terrorism, and on this topic many traditional conservatives (i.e., small government, fiscal responsibility, limited foreign involvement) were less-than-appealing to Republican voters, and perhaps lost in the primaries/caucases to more hawkish competitors.
Fourth, it might mean that the Republican leadership has seized upon this as an issue that will activate the social conservatives (including evangelicals) while not turning off other segments of the base to the degree that they defect to other parties. In other words, it is the 2005 analog of gay marriage.
In my mind, the third and fourth explanations are most likely. Adopting the last of these does not make one a reactionary.
I think Microsoft is offering some good advice. And best of all, it applies not just to MP3 players, but to all computer hardware you might be considering. For example, I am in the market for a new desktop.
1. Understand the basics.
OK.
2. Make sure you're getting all the goodies.
Like iLife?
3. You'll want a display.
Wait, are you saying I should get an iMac?
4. Let a professional make your next playlist.
Well, Apple does seem willing to sell and support most of the hardware and software I'll need.
5. Pick the right size for you.
Capacity Number of songs Hours of play 128 MB 60 4 256 MB 100 8 512 MB 250 16 1 gigabyte Over 500 30+
Cuz no one will ever need more than 1 gigabyte.
6. Don't get locked into one online store.
Because consumers deserve multiple choices and open standards.
I think whoever wrote this wasn't actually using PCs in the 80s, because I know for a fact that even though the DG/One had a damn near unreadable screen, it was still the coolest piece of computing hardware you could get for any price at the time..
Exactly. The DG/One had an unreadable screen and an astronomical pricetag and this PC-hater wanted one anyway.
Pretty good article though. Some other points/thoughts:
I might have added the poqet, hp 95, or IBM PC100, but these (and the atari portfolio and psion) really defined a new handheld market.
Same with the gateway handbook, toshiba libretto, and apple duo -- these defined subnotebooks.
Although the Epson was first, the tandy 100 was ubiquitous for a time in this form factor.
For a while, it seemed like every PC laptop was a Toshiba.
Some british firm sold huge, heavy SPARC-based laptops.
The Mac 128 was no less (trans)portable than an Osborne or a Compaq -- a travel bag was one of the first accessories!
In my experience, a program that fills 90% of the need for 10% of the effort will nearly always win out, even if the extra 10% costs another 90%. The Linux kernel was a quick hack (and I don't mean that in a bad way), whereas Hurd was trying for perfection...
See Richard Gabriel's essay "Worse is Better," widely available on the net.
>How the British greed created the current problems in the mid-east by creating states
Again, I think our colonial past has been covered extensively. We are fairly aware of the consequences of the decisions of our ancestors. They are all around us, after all.
Underfunding NASA is a pretty clear message, for example.
Which, I repeat, is what Congress does. The President has almost no control over funding!
You are either a lemming or a political operative.
For citizens of other countries who are reading this but are confused, the reality is that in the US at the moment, the executive and legislative (and very nearly the judicial) branches are held by the same party ("Republicans").
The parent is trying to absolve any one party of responsibility for the mess these yahoos have gotten us into by essentially dissolving it, i.e., if no one person is to blame, then no one at all is to blame.[*]
[*] Except perhaps Dan Rather, Hilary Clinton, celebrities, homosexual, communists, the French, and other bogeymen.
I think you should re-read your post. It is brilliant. I am not joking. Do you see how it undercuts and disarms me?
This started with an arrogant post of your's. (But it was arrogance of the best kind of post -- more on that in a second.) I dashed off a fast and firey response, you responded, and then I upped the ante with an all-out assault -- the grandparent to this post.
Your response -- the parent to this post -- was beautiful. It did not just shed the arrogance of your prior posts. It was apologetic. It demonstrated that you indeed possess humility and are indeed capable of empathy. This is remarkable. Frankly, it is more than I would have given you credit for. You have earned the right to be called a human being. (I think this is a reference to Dune, but I forget.)
Your post showed humility and empathy when none of mine did. That is an example of what your Christianity can do. It is the only thing that will interest others in your message. Conventional apolgetics aren't worth shit.
The reason the arrogance of your first post was of the best kind was that it suggested ever so slightly that you have taken the first step away from the prejudices of your upbringing, the profoundly egocentric, holier-than-thou attitude of many conservative American Protestant flavors of Christianity.
If I may extrapolate wildly for a moment, I imagine you to be a young guy who, when walking down the street, doesn't "look like a Christian." This is something you take a guilty pride in. But you also take your faith very seriously -- and always have. You are a student of the Bible and theological writings. You and your close group of friends view yourselves as outside mainstream Christendom, present day Martin Luthers disgusted by the hypocrisies you see in church. You dare to confront Christ head-on using just your intellect. You believe you are less racist, sexist and homophobic than other Christians (and you are correct). You gather in coffeeshops, look like members of the alternative nation, and go to museums. But you consider yourselves superior to your counterparts in the secular intellgentsia, and not just because they smoke and drink and swear. No, you alone are on a vital quest for your God.
The question I have -- or at least had -- was whether you are willing to take the second step. The first step is impossible for most and hard for many, but it was natural for you, given your philosophical interests and internal skepticism. You see the broader world. The second step is to engage it with humility and with empathy. If you can do this, then you will demonstrate to non-believers that there is value to Christianity. And just as important, you will learn to see the value in what others believe, and what they believe as strongly as you your own beliefs. No, I don't mean the sterile, disinterested step of "keeping an open mind." I mean something much more than that.
I used 'we' there because the standards are not set by Christians themselves.
Got it now. You're original paragraph was ambiguous.
Did I ever suggest that censorship was a good thing? Did I ever demonstrate a lack of open-mindedness as I defined it?
Frankly, I couldn't understand the definition of open-mindedness you gave:
Open-mindedness--and by that I mean the willingess to suppose any possiblility without accepting it dogmatically
What does suppose mean? It sounds like you try not to laugh out loud when someone says something you disagree with.
I have little time for people that talk a lot about being open-minded, but never actually change their mind, and who walk around calling everyone else close-minded. Let me catalog the insults you've hurled at others already in this thread:
My guess is that you called me a hypocrite because you assume that I fail to meet my definition of open-mindedness, because you believe that most Christians don't.
Your assumption is wrong. My wife is a Christian. My children are Christians. My in-laws are Christians. I attended a Church of Christ for a number of years and even co-led the class for college students for two of them. Many of the people who are closest to me are Christians. But none are evangelical/fundamentalist types. I found that when I get to know people of this persuasion sufficiently well, I find hatred in their hearts and thoughts of controlling/punishing others in their minds.
The Christians in your mind are.
Maybe the Christians he's met in the world and seen on TV and who are actively attempting to curtail his freedom are.
because you have not been able to see the world through my perspective, you can only explain my value system by attacking my character.
Hypocrite. You have repeatedly refused to take people at face value. When they've expressed sentiments you disagree with, you've closed your mind and branded them Christian haters.
Look at how evangelical/fundamental types in the US are trying to use the law to enfore their belief system on everyone else -- atheists, agnostics, Jews, Catholics, mainline Protestants. Their agenda is to make this country a theocracy safe for their precious children. These are the folks who give all Christians a bad name. It's unfair. It's more than unfair. It should kill you that these people are debasing the Word.
Before you castigate others for making assumptions about you based on your religious brand, you should accept the greater Christian community for what it is, including those with whom you disagree, and you should clean up your own house before you accuse others of misrepresenting the Christian faith.
So, to answer your question, I'd say that Christians are no more weak-minded than you are. We have different standards that constitute what is acceptible or not, and because you have not been able to see the world through my perspective, you can only explain my value system by attacking my character.
Who's we? I thought you said there is no protoypical Christian...
The problem with the evangelical fundamentalist Christians who cluster in the middle of the US is their ego-centric view of their religion tends to overwhelm their sense of civic responsibility. Censorship of the kind being proposed is wrong. Full stop. Whether "The Sopranos" offends you or the "Weather Channel" offends me or "ET" offends your God is immaterial.
Open-mindedness--and by that I mean the willingess to suppose any possiblility without accepting it dogmatically--is not something to be feared, friend. Try looking at the world from someone else's perspective.
Lordy you are a hypocrite. Would you kiss your Lord with that mouth? Try living the Word instead of preaching it.
Texas is considered to be in the midwest. I know this because I live in South Carolina, which is part of the south, ask a southerner about texas.
I grew up in Illinois and lived for 14 years in Nashville. IMO, Texas is not part of the Midwest or the South. It is a world unto itself...
1. There are no major tech schools, as such there is no major talent pool to draw from.
Well there is Georgia Tech...
[...] generally places like Myrtle Beach, Wilmington, Savannah, Nashville, Mobile etc etc just dont have the market to support it.
As far as Nashville goes, you're right. There's no interesting computer tech going on there. Even Vanderbilt University folded its computer science department back into its electrical engineering department a few years back -- an unheard of occurrence!
owever the use of the term "sixth sense" implies a paranormal explanation, when in fact you can pretty much bet that the true explanation, whatever it turns out to be, is going to be quite logical and rational. This is perhaps more likely just poor journalism rather than poor science.
Agreed. Once you get past the first paragraph, which is pure mularkey, you have a mundane story, another research study that adds a bit to our knowledge of what the anterior cingulate does. This brain area is "hot" right now, lots of good neuroscience labs are studying it, and Science, Nature, and PNAS, are more than willing to publish articles on it.
This area does conflict monitoring and provides error feedback. It's not the site of "the sixth sense."
(These stories with a 'pseudoscientific bent' seem to reveal a creeping trend away from rational thinking on slashdot, which several years ago used to feel like one of the few good places on the Net where one could get away from that sort of gullible mainstream uninformed discourse:/ Is Slashdot now officially "mainstream"?)
There's been a general dumbing of this forum over the years. Sure, we've always had "First Post!" types here, but I consider them amusing. What once was a technoscience community, with the kind of background knowledge that implies, now includes more than its share of people who discredit science for political, economic, and religious reasons.
You're dead on. The first Amiga shipped in July 1985.
This is well after Apple shipped the Lisa (arguably not a PC but a workstation), the Lisa 2 (January, 1984), the original 128K Macintosh (January, 1984), the 512K (Fat) Mac (September, 1984), and even the Macintosh XL (January, 1985).
Slashdot Mirror
I hate Microsoft's software and their business tactics, but I actually liked Ballmer's letter. He is personally in favor of diversity and will do everything possible to ensure that Microsoft is a diverse environment. But he will not use the vehicle of the Microsoft corporation to advance any particular social policy because (1) this is not appropriate and (2) because his personal views might be different than the personal views of others (employees, shareholders) with a financial stake. This is a moderate approach that I find hard to criticize.
OP is not specific to Java -- I've seen it done with Python
And it was invented by Kizcales working in Common Lisp. For example, see this brief history.
Those [like the grandparent] who do not know history...
'll admit that you make several valid points, but overall your post reaks of intellectualistic superiority.
"reeks", not "reaks"
Read my Pretentious Blog [blogspot.com]
You were saying?
According to ETS, the e-rater agrees with the human grader 98% of the time.
This is the key point. For several years now there have been algorithms capable of assigning grades to expository essays written by high school, college, and I believe even medical school students. The mark of success is that these grades correlate with the grades assigned by a human grader at the same level as the grades assigned by two human graders correlated with one another.
These algorithms do not take the standard AI/NLP route. They do not attempt to parse essays, represent their meaning, and compare this against a standard. Instead, they are statistical in nature. They are given a huge database of texts in the area being grade. Word collocations are tabulated (e.g., how many times the words "Linux" and "GNU" appear in the same text). This information is then reduced via Singular Value Decomposition. The result is effectively a "semantic space" for the domain.
To grade a student's essay, just reduce it to its unique words. This defines a vector in the semantic space. Compute the angle between this vector and vectors representing a range of essays that have been graded by humans. Assign the student's essay a grade based on these similarities (e.g., the grade of the essay to which it is most congruent).
What's remarkable about these techniques is that they're pretty robust against deliberate attempts to game them. You can just write a nonsense essay that seems to have the correct words. There are many controlled studies on this by many different labs. Google "LSA grading" for more. One of the developers of LSA now head a research group at Microsoft (Susan Dumais). Many of the others have started a company.
Interesting post.
Many of the protestors keeping a vigil outside of Terry's hospice are Democrats. Among the Roman Catholics who have tried to bring more attention to the case there are just as many Democrats as Republicans.
This is all irrelevant. What proportion of the protestors are Democrats (versus Republicans)? What proportion of the Roman Catholics who are bringing more attention to the case are Democrats (versus Republicans)?
Furthermore, the core constituency of the Republican party has been pretty silent on this issue, with 37% of evangelicals supporting the removal of Terry's feeding tube.
This is better. You gave us a number. Unfortunately, it contradicts your argument. 63% of evangelicals support the parents over the husband.
However, a little Googling does provide support for your position. 44% of all people, 46% of Republicans, and 45% of churchgoers support the parents over the husband. So at the level of the citizenry, party affiliation contributes only moderately to one's position.
The problem is with the Republican congressmen. The House voted 203-58 to transfer juridiction of the case to a Federal court. 47 of the 203 were Democrats. So 77% of representatives who support the parents are Republican (versus Democrat). This can be interpreted in several ways.
First, it might mean nothing if the 58 opposed votes followed the same 77%-23% split along party lines. I couldn't quickly find this information, but I'm assuming this is not the case.
Second, it might mean nothing if the 170 odd missing representatives would have voted in a way which would have made the final results commensurate with the preferences of the citizenry. Again, I assume this not the case. (Otherwise, there would have been a loud outcry from the missing reps.)
Third, it might mean the congressmen whom Republican citizens elect do not reflect the full spectrum of their beliefs, but rather concentrate in one part of the ideological pool. This may be the case, especially given that the recent round of elections was largely a referendum on the war in Iraq and the fight against terrorism, and on this topic many traditional conservatives (i.e., small government, fiscal responsibility, limited foreign involvement) were less-than-appealing to Republican voters, and perhaps lost in the primaries/caucases to more hawkish competitors.
Fourth, it might mean that the Republican leadership has seized upon this as an issue that will activate the social conservatives (including evangelicals) while not turning off other segments of the base to the degree that they defect to other parties. In other words, it is the 2005 analog of gay marriage.
In my mind, the third and fourth explanations are most likely. Adopting the last of these does not make one a reactionary.
Meanwhile, any Bush joke gets +5 funny in any article, no matter the topic.
Hehehehe.
You said "bush."
I think Microsoft is offering some good advice. And best of all, it applies not just to MP3 players, but to all computer hardware you might be considering. For example, I am in the market for a new desktop.
1. Understand the basics.
OK.
2. Make sure you're getting all the goodies.
Like iLife?
3. You'll want a display.
Wait, are you saying I should get an iMac?
4. Let a professional make your next playlist.
Well, Apple does seem willing to sell and support most of the hardware and software I'll need.
5. Pick the right size for you.
Capacity Number of songs Hours of play
128 MB 60 4
256 MB 100 8
512 MB 250 16
1 gigabyte Over 500 30+
Cuz no one will ever need more than 1 gigabyte.
6. Don't get locked into one online store.
Because consumers deserve multiple choices and open standards.
;-)
Well one person got it (or read this deeply into the comments)...
I think whoever wrote this wasn't actually using PCs in the 80s, because I know for a fact that even though the DG/One had a damn near unreadable screen, it was still the coolest piece of computing hardware you could get for any price at the time..
Exactly. The DG/One had an unreadable screen and an astronomical pricetag and this PC-hater wanted one anyway.
Pretty good article though. Some other points/thoughts:
I might have added the poqet, hp 95, or IBM PC100, but these (and the atari portfolio and psion) really defined a new handheld market.
Same with the gateway handbook, toshiba libretto, and apple duo -- these defined subnotebooks.
Although the Epson was first, the tandy 100 was ubiquitous for a time in this form factor.
For a while, it seemed like every PC laptop was a Toshiba.
Some british firm sold huge, heavy SPARC-based laptops.
The Mac 128 was no less (trans)portable than an Osborne or a Compaq -- a travel bag was one of the first accessories!
The original Mac laptop was (in)famous.
I hate projects with names like R. I used R a while back, and it's a great program, but try searching for "R" plugins on Google. Not fun.
This is why I do all my statistics using S.
In my experience, a program that fills 90% of the need for 10% of the effort will nearly always win out, even if the extra 10% costs another 90%. The Linux kernel was a quick hack (and I don't mean that in a bad way), whereas Hurd was trying for perfection...
See Richard Gabriel's essay "Worse is Better," widely available on the net.
>How the British greed created the current problems in the mid-east by creating states
;-)
Again, I think our colonial past has been covered extensively. We are fairly aware of the consequences of the decisions of our ancestors. They are all around us, after all.
Mostly in the British Museum.
PS: Check out the poll at the bottom of http://www.parthenonuk.com/!
Underfunding NASA is a pretty clear message, for example.
Which, I repeat, is what Congress does. The President has almost no control over funding!
You are either a lemming or a political operative.
For citizens of other countries who are reading this but are confused, the reality is that in the US at the moment, the executive and legislative (and very nearly the judicial) branches are held by the same party ("Republicans").
The parent is trying to absolve any one party of responsibility for the mess these yahoos have gotten us into by essentially dissolving it, i.e., if no one person is to blame, then no one at all is to blame.[*]
[*] Except perhaps Dan Rather, Hilary Clinton, celebrities, homosexual, communists, the French, and other bogeymen.
You've been condemned to my friend's list.
As long as you don't ask me what the third step is...
I think you should re-read your post. It is brilliant. I am not joking. Do you see how it undercuts and disarms me?
This started with an arrogant post of your's. (But it was arrogance of the best kind of post -- more on that in a second.) I dashed off a fast and firey response, you responded, and then I upped the ante with an all-out assault -- the grandparent to this post.
Your response -- the parent to this post -- was beautiful. It did not just shed the arrogance of your prior posts. It was apologetic. It demonstrated that you indeed possess humility and are indeed capable of empathy. This is remarkable. Frankly, it is more than I would have given you credit for. You have earned the right to be called a human being. (I think this is a reference to Dune, but I forget.)
Your post showed humility and empathy when none of mine did. That is an example of what your Christianity can do. It is the only thing that will interest others in your message. Conventional apolgetics aren't worth shit.
The reason the arrogance of your first post was of the best kind was that it suggested ever so slightly that you have taken the first step away from the prejudices of your upbringing, the profoundly egocentric, holier-than-thou attitude of many conservative American Protestant flavors of Christianity.
If I may extrapolate wildly for a moment, I imagine you to be a young guy who, when walking down the street, doesn't "look like a Christian." This is something you take a guilty pride in. But you also take your faith very seriously -- and always have. You are a student of the Bible and theological writings. You and your close group of friends view yourselves as outside mainstream Christendom, present day Martin Luthers disgusted by the hypocrisies you see in church. You dare to confront Christ head-on using just your intellect. You believe you are less racist, sexist and homophobic than other Christians (and you are correct). You gather in coffeeshops, look like members of the alternative nation, and go to museums. But you consider yourselves superior to your counterparts in the secular intellgentsia, and not just because they smoke and drink and swear. No, you alone are on a vital quest for your God.
The question I have -- or at least had -- was whether you are willing to take the second step. The first step is impossible for most and hard for many, but it was natural for you, given your philosophical interests and internal skepticism. You see the broader world. The second step is to engage it with humility and with empathy. If you can do this, then you will demonstrate to non-believers that there is value to Christianity. And just as important, you will learn to see the value in what others believe, and what they believe as strongly as you your own beliefs. No, I don't mean the sterile, disinterested step of "keeping an open mind." I mean something much more than that.
I apologize for underestimating you.
I used 'we' there because the standards are not set by Christians themselves.
Got it now. You're original paragraph was ambiguous.
Did I ever suggest that censorship was a good thing? Did I ever demonstrate a lack of open-mindedness as I defined it?
Frankly, I couldn't understand the definition of open-mindedness you gave:
Open-mindedness--and by that I mean the willingess to suppose any possiblility without accepting it dogmatically
What does suppose mean? It sounds like you try not to laugh out loud when someone says something you disagree with.
I have little time for people that talk a lot about being open-minded, but never actually change their mind, and who walk around calling everyone else close-minded. Let me catalog the insults you've hurled at others already in this thread:
My guess is that you called me a hypocrite because you assume that I fail to meet my definition of open-mindedness, because you believe that most Christians don't.
Your assumption is wrong. My wife is a Christian. My children are Christians. My in-laws are Christians. I attended a Church of Christ for a number of years and even co-led the class for college students for two of them. Many of the people who are closest to me are Christians. But none are evangelical/fundamentalist types. I found that when I get to know people of this persuasion sufficiently well, I find hatred in their hearts and thoughts of controlling/punishing others in their minds.
The Christians in your mind are.
Maybe the Christians he's met in the world and seen on TV and who are actively attempting to curtail his freedom are.
because you have not been able to see the world through my perspective, you can only explain my value system by attacking my character.
Hypocrite. You have repeatedly refused to take people at face value. When they've expressed sentiments you disagree with, you've closed your mind and branded them Christian haters.
Look at how evangelical/fundamental types in the US are trying to use the law to enfore their belief system on everyone else -- atheists, agnostics, Jews, Catholics, mainline Protestants. Their agenda is to make this country a theocracy safe for their precious children. These are the folks who give all Christians a bad name. It's unfair. It's more than unfair. It should kill you that these people are debasing the Word.
Before you castigate others for making assumptions about you based on your religious brand, you should accept the greater Christian community for what it is, including those with whom you disagree, and you should clean up your own house before you accuse others of misrepresenting the Christian faith.
Hehehe.
I'd moderate you "+1 Funny" but I've already posted on this story and don't want to lose it.
So, to answer your question, I'd say that Christians are no more weak-minded than you are. We have different standards that constitute what is acceptible or not, and because you have not been able to see the world through my perspective, you can only explain my value system by attacking my character.
Who's we? I thought you said there is no protoypical Christian...
The problem with the evangelical fundamentalist Christians who cluster in the middle of the US is their ego-centric view of their religion tends to overwhelm their sense of civic responsibility. Censorship of the kind being proposed is wrong. Full stop. Whether "The Sopranos" offends you or the "Weather Channel" offends me or "ET" offends your God is immaterial.
Open-mindedness--and by that I mean the willingess to suppose any possiblility without accepting it dogmatically--is not something to be feared, friend. Try looking at the world from someone else's perspective.
Lordy you are a hypocrite. Would you kiss your Lord with that mouth? Try living the Word instead of preaching it.
Just pickin' nits.
Texas is considered to be in the midwest. I know this because I live in South Carolina, which is part of the south, ask a southerner about texas.
I grew up in Illinois and lived for 14 years in Nashville. IMO, Texas is not part of the Midwest or the South. It is a world unto itself...
1. There are no major tech schools, as such there is no major talent pool to draw from.
Well there is Georgia Tech...
[...] generally places like Myrtle Beach, Wilmington, Savannah, Nashville, Mobile etc etc just dont have the market to support it.
As far as Nashville goes, you're right. There's no interesting computer tech going on there. Even Vanderbilt University folded its computer science department back into its electrical engineering department a few years back -- an unheard of occurrence!
owever the use of the term "sixth sense" implies a paranormal explanation, when in fact you can pretty much bet that the true explanation, whatever it turns out to be, is going to be quite logical and rational. This is perhaps more likely just poor journalism rather than poor science.
:/ Is Slashdot now officially "mainstream"?)
Agreed. Once you get past the first paragraph, which is pure mularkey, you have a mundane story, another research study that adds a bit to our knowledge of what the anterior cingulate does. This brain area is "hot" right now, lots of good neuroscience labs are studying it, and Science, Nature, and PNAS, are more than willing to publish articles on it.
This area does conflict monitoring and provides error feedback. It's not the site of "the sixth sense."
(These stories with a 'pseudoscientific bent' seem to reveal a creeping trend away from rational thinking on slashdot, which several years ago used to feel like one of the few good places on the Net where one could get away from that sort of gullible mainstream uninformed discourse
There's been a general dumbing of this forum over the years. Sure, we've always had "First Post!" types here, but I consider them amusing. What once was a technoscience community, with the kind of background knowledge that implies, now includes more than its share of people who discredit science for political, economic, and religious reasons.
Conjecture: +5 Funny comments with no replies are not actually funny.
(You're welcome)
I always wondered how it would sound if David Mamet and Brice Sterling wrote some collaborative non-fiction. Now I know.
What year?
You're dead on. The first Amiga shipped in July 1985.
This is well after Apple shipped the Lisa (arguably not a PC but a workstation), the Lisa 2 (January, 1984), the original 128K Macintosh (January, 1984), the 512K (Fat) Mac (September, 1984), and even the Macintosh XL (January, 1985).
[Insert 8" floppy joke about here.]