At the aquarium where I work we have a gay domestic couple of penguins... It's really cool.
Be careful turning to nature for guidance as to what is morally acceptable, lest you be cornered into defending nonstop drake-on-drake necrophilia. Better to just say "I'm cool with that" than to turn to avian examples.
It's worth noting that all Hillary was quoted as saying in the article was that she wants to fund research to better understand the effects of violent games. If that research is carried out through legitimate scientific channels (peer review, etc.) and if it yields information that helps parents make better decisions about how to raise their kids - and stops there - that sounds neither unconstitutional nor particularly objectionable. How could it be a bad thing to have more, and better, information?
My guess is that Hillary is practicing classic Clinton "triangulation." She can condemn violent games and appeal to conservatives, without actually pushing for strong government controls. Or maybe I'm wrong, and she's coming to pry your joystick out of your cold, dead hands.
And to sound like a broken record, but it must be done, that is correlation, not causality.
Lucky thing there are plenty of randomized trials so we can disprove those horribly confounded studies. Oh wait, the randomized trials show the same thing. (Link is to a review article, it cites randomized experiments as well as correlational and longitudinal studies.)
Look, I think you can make a very effective argument that video games are a free speech issue. But that means you need to be willing to defend them even if reality isn't all happy sunshine and roses.
This page has more information about this phenomenon, called the clustering illusion. Another manifestation is streak scoring in sports, a.k.a. the hot hand in basketball. Players are often though to be "on a roll" when in fact their larger scoring pattern fits a random distribution around a mean.
Thanks for the lecture, kiddo, now try again. The link is to a review article, which you very obviously did not look at. The review article summarizes the results of many studies, including true experiments with random assignment. Go to the section marked "Studies of Video Games" and look at the very first heading below it, where it says "Randomized Experiments," if you don't believe me.
Kind of reframes your "I have never seen a study..." schtick. It's easy to never see things if you never look.
On my computer, the exploit demo seemed to be trying to launch popups, which Google toolbar stopped, which apparently made the demo site want to throw up another popup, which Google toolbar stopped, etc. It looped up to 110 popup attempts before I managed to shut down that IE window.
Not the advertised exploit, but pretty damn annoying in its own right.
From the book description: "Drawing on his experience as a parent and as a creator of children's cartoons..." Gee, thanks for the scientific and unbiased reference work!
Try this instead. What are you going to trust - randomized controlled trials, including field studies and long-term followups, or some hack who makes up stuff that confirms your biases?
Incidentally, I happen to believe, on free speech grounds, that the governor's proposal is bad policy. But I also am opposed to twisting or ignoring facts that don't fit my worldview.
Worst case scenario: Even if nothing can be done about the '04 election, it is still very, very important to start the reform process as soon as possible. Think back to all the people who dismissed electoral reform as partisanship, and the "it's too close to change now" excuses this last time around. If there was fraud or even inaccuracy this time around, it's important to start to address it before it becomes too late for yet another election.
You did the right thing by fighting to have your ballot cast as a regular ballot. If they had not allowed you to, though, then they are required by federal law to let you cast a provisional ballot, and your poll worker should have known this. They can then sort out the situation later on, and if your vote was legit, count it.
I don't think a brain analysis is an effective way to determine consumer behaviour... Our behaviour is most likely shaped by the environment and condition we're experiencing.
Did you really mean to use the present tense? You don't believe that people learn anything ever?
Regardless, all psychologically meaningful behavior involves the brain, whether it is behavior attributable to the present situation, to learning from past experiences, to genetic predispositions, or to interactions among those. Questions about the usefulness of specific techniques (like fMRI) have more to do with the limits of current technology than with underlying reality, because the underlying reality is that your brain is involved in everything that you think, feel, or do.
For that very reason, merely showing that some part of the brain "lights up" during some behavior is thoroughly uninteresting. Fortunately, a lot of behavioral neuroscience research is more sophisticated than that (even if public accounts gravitate toward, "Ooh, look at the pretty pictures of brains!")
Sorry for the OT post, but I have to say it: As psychological theory, NLP is bunk. The reason it seems to work is that it gets guys to play the odds. Rejection stings, so most guys get rejected once and then go home and sulk. But when you've paid thousands of dollars for a "speed seduction" course to learn a supposedly deterministic system, you treat rejection as your failure to implement the system correctly and go into debugging mode, rather than taking it as an indictment of your inherent worthiness.
Every guy I've ever known who has lots of casual sex told me that he got rejected all the time. If 1 woman out of 10 is willing to have casual sex with you, you'll still get rejected an average of 9 times for every successful attempt. Most guys can't put up with that unless they're extremely self-confident or they have something like NLP to distance themselves from the hurt of rejection.
Sounds like they're not collecting any information they haven't always had -- just putting it together into a predictive model. And unlike some of the poorly-thought-out "school shooter" type of models, this is (a) predicting an event with a high enough prior probability that it might work decently (from a Bayesian perspective), and (b) targeting kids for extra help instead of punishment. At least if they end up implementing it the way they say they will.
When will people get that email is not secure. Its the digital equivalent of a postcard, but idiots still email credit card numbers and worse.
Article says:
Encryption is fine for the digital connection, but the digital connection was already the secure part of the link. Garrett's expectations of privacy were compromised between the seat and the keyboard; the same place every technically foolproof scheme fails.
The article is more interesting than just a technological discussion, because it gets into issues of how social norms and technology interface. Of course, it's also waaaaaaay long.
You'll note in the article that one thing editors are concerned about is actually _printing_ these form letters. They're not taking polls, they're actually publishing content, and there's something at least vaguely dishonest about sending a "letter to the editor" that you didn't write.
Just to support this point -- it's more than vaguely dishonest, it's plagiarism. It doesn't matter if the original author wants the work passed off or not; passing it off without crediting the source is plagiarism no matter what. (That's why you can't turn in your friend's term paper as your own even if your friend approves.)
There are two many medical studies that draw direct conclusions from data when often the consistant occurrance of two effects together are caused by something completely different that the researcher never thought about.
Yeah, except that in this case the study design included a within-subjects experimental manipulation. People's gaming activity levels were compared against their non-gaming activity levels, so they served as their own controls. Gaming lowered the brain activity of everyone except those who never play games.
Also, with a controversial study like this, you always have to ask, "How many people DID you study and for how many years?". That important little fact seems to be absent from this article
240 people. It's right there in the 4th paragraph of the article.
Slashdot Mirror
Be careful turning to nature for guidance as to what is morally acceptable, lest you be cornered into defending nonstop drake-on-drake necrophilia. Better to just say "I'm cool with that" than to turn to avian examples.
Yes, quite a few.
It's worth noting that all Hillary was quoted as saying in the article was that she wants to fund research to better understand the effects of violent games. If that research is carried out through legitimate scientific channels (peer review, etc.) and if it yields information that helps parents make better decisions about how to raise their kids - and stops there - that sounds neither unconstitutional nor particularly objectionable. How could it be a bad thing to have more, and better, information?
My guess is that Hillary is practicing classic Clinton "triangulation." She can condemn violent games and appeal to conservatives, without actually pushing for strong government controls. Or maybe I'm wrong, and she's coming to pry your joystick out of your cold, dead hands.
Lucky thing there are plenty of randomized trials so we can disprove those horribly confounded studies. Oh wait, the randomized trials show the same thing. (Link is to a review article, it cites randomized experiments as well as correlational and longitudinal studies.)
Look, I think you can make a very effective argument that video games are a free speech issue. But that means you need to be willing to defend them even if reality isn't all happy sunshine and roses.
This page has more information about this phenomenon, called the clustering illusion. Another manifestation is streak scoring in sports, a.k.a. the hot hand in basketball. Players are often though to be "on a roll" when in fact their larger scoring pattern fits a random distribution around a mean.
I think it would take an election.
Kind of reframes your "I have never seen a study..." schtick. It's easy to never see things if you never look.
Not the advertised exploit, but pretty damn annoying in its own right.
Try this instead. What are you going to trust - randomized controlled trials, including field studies and long-term followups, or some hack who makes up stuff that confirms your biases?
Incidentally, I happen to believe, on free speech grounds, that the governor's proposal is bad policy. But I also am opposed to twisting or ignoring facts that don't fit my worldview.
Don't worry about the humans. It's the sharks with lasers who are your true enemies.
Worst case scenario: Even if nothing can be done about the '04 election, it is still very, very important to start the reform process as soon as possible. Think back to all the people who dismissed electoral reform as partisanship, and the "it's too close to change now" excuses this last time around. If there was fraud or even inaccuracy this time around, it's important to start to address it before it becomes too late for yet another election.
More people voted against Bush than any American in history. What's your point?
You did the right thing by fighting to have your ballot cast as a regular ballot. If they had not allowed you to, though, then they are required by federal law to let you cast a provisional ballot, and your poll worker should have known this. They can then sort out the situation later on, and if your vote was legit, count it.
Did you really mean to use the present tense? You don't believe that people learn anything ever?
Regardless, all psychologically meaningful behavior involves the brain, whether it is behavior attributable to the present situation, to learning from past experiences, to genetic predispositions, or to interactions among those. Questions about the usefulness of specific techniques (like fMRI) have more to do with the limits of current technology than with underlying reality, because the underlying reality is that your brain is involved in everything that you think, feel, or do.
For that very reason, merely showing that some part of the brain "lights up" during some behavior is thoroughly uninteresting. Fortunately, a lot of behavioral neuroscience research is more sophisticated than that (even if public accounts gravitate toward, "Ooh, look at the pretty pictures of brains!")
You mean, "Ward, don't you think you were a little hard on the beaver last night?" ref
Were they using touchscreen machines in Bolinas, CA?
Sorry for the OT post, but I have to say it: As psychological theory, NLP is bunk. The reason it seems to work is that it gets guys to play the odds. Rejection stings, so most guys get rejected once and then go home and sulk. But when you've paid thousands of dollars for a "speed seduction" course to learn a supposedly deterministic system, you treat rejection as your failure to implement the system correctly and go into debugging mode, rather than taking it as an indictment of your inherent worthiness.
Every guy I've ever known who has lots of casual sex told me that he got rejected all the time. If 1 woman out of 10 is willing to have casual sex with you, you'll still get rejected an average of 9 times for every successful attempt. Most guys can't put up with that unless they're extremely self-confident or they have something like NLP to distance themselves from the hurt of rejection.
For example, if my domain name was 'somecompany.com,' and somebody typed 'soemcompany.com' by mistake...
What do you mean, "by msiatke"?
Yes, but do they run Aqua?
Sounds like they're not collecting any information they haven't always had -- just putting it together into a predictive model. And unlike some of the poorly-thought-out "school shooter" type of models, this is (a) predicting an event with a high enough prior probability that it might work decently (from a Bayesian perspective), and (b) targeting kids for extra help instead of punishment. At least if they end up implementing it the way they say they will.
Poster says:
When will people get that email is not secure. Its the digital equivalent of a postcard, but idiots still email credit card numbers and worse.
Article says:
Encryption is fine for the digital connection, but the digital connection was already the secure part of the link. Garrett's expectations of privacy were compromised between the seat and the keyboard; the same place every technically foolproof scheme fails.
The article is more interesting than just a technological discussion, because it gets into issues of how social norms and technology interface. Of course, it's also waaaaaaay long.
You'll note in the article that one thing editors are concerned about is actually _printing_ these form letters. They're not taking polls, they're actually publishing content, and there's something at least vaguely dishonest about sending a "letter to the editor" that you didn't write.
Just to support this point -- it's more than vaguely dishonest, it's plagiarism. It doesn't matter if the original author wants the work passed off or not; passing it off without crediting the source is plagiarism no matter what. (That's why you can't turn in your friend's term paper as your own even if your friend approves.)
The slashdot editors owe me a buck for everybody that reads this comment.
Since the trait is so recessive, the extinction of redheads is predicted to be sometime in the late 21st or early 22nd century...
For what it's worth, a blonde version of that assertion has been circulating as an urban legend.
I'd rather have just the Internet access for cheaper.
Yeah, except that in this case the study design included a within-subjects experimental manipulation. People's gaming activity levels were compared against their non-gaming activity levels, so they served as their own controls. Gaming lowered the brain activity of everyone except those who never play games.
Also, with a controversial study like this, you always have to ask, "How many people DID you study and for how many years?". That important little fact seems to be absent from this article
240 people. It's right there in the 4th paragraph of the article.
Do you play a lot of videogames?