Given all the articles I've read about helium shortages et al., I'm not sure I'd invest in a company that claims He based dirigibles are about to make a comeback.
N.b.: I was responding to someone who was irritated, agreeing with him that his irritation was directed at a real phenomenon, and at one point expressing the likelihood that it was a cheap joke. Indeed, I would only have replied to someone about something like this. Perhaps that's a little defensive, but I hope not too much.
That's part of the problem.
You might be right, but I do not think it the better part. I'd suggest that the better part of the problem is that those in a position of social and cultural superiority (as it is commonly regarded) do not regard prejudice directed toward rural people as something to question, much less be ashamed of.
I teach on the university level, living in a largely rural area of Kentucky. I know very bright, hardworking students whose inability to lose their accent and pass as suburbanites has been a real stumbling block. Those who're able to pass tend to leave their homes and find success elsewhere (a different problem, of course, but a related one that causes brain drain, thereby perpetuating problems in the southern states here and in Appalachia). This isn't just an issue of hurting anyone's feelings, much less of the ribbing about city vs. county that goes on between friends in a spirit of mutual respect and comradery. It is an issue of the regular disregard of a whole class of people on the basis of nothing more than where they were born.
This sort of prejudice appears on Slashdot. Not from most commenters, to be sure. Slashdot has a healthy amount of intelligent and insightful comments, else I would never read the comments. Yet let one article come out about some politician in Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi or some other favored place, who wants to pander to a certain segment of voters by screwing around with textbooks, and the tenor changes: "Ah, but that's Alabama, what do you expect?" This statement alone isn't so objectionable--for indeed you are more likely to see such nonsense in such places. What accompanies it, however. "They are...", then the disparagement of a whole class of people starts. Someone in polite society would be ashamed to make similar comments about racial minorities, about certain minority religions, about LGBTs, and about women. Similar courtesy ought to be shown to poor and rural people. And lest you think that since this is Slashdot, it's not polite society, I would point out that we mod trolls down.
Speaking of textbook nonsense, did anyone else notice that Pat Robertson has come out against young-earth creationism? If you can't stand to watch the man talk, there's an article on CNN about it. Unfortunately, the fellow who wrote the headline doesn't recognize the difference between creationism and young-earth, and the fellow who wrote the article uses weasel words in painful places ("Most scientists, however, agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 14.5 billion years old." Which wouldn't? You don't have to say "most" and do CYA with everything.)
There's nothing so ironic as provincialism directed toward rural areas, especially when it comes from those who regard themselves as open minded and enlightened. I prefer to assume that those who make these quick and easy jokes only think they're having a little harmless fun. To this I say very well. I've taken a few cheap shots in my time too. I hope they were harmless even if in retrospect I realized they weren't very funny.
I am convinced, however, that there are others who both have such prejudices and think them just. This is a sign of ignorance. It's a sad thing.
Pizza is eaten everywhere in the world, what's weird about that?
I think you misunderstand. I take him to be making a gastronomic rather than a geographic statement. Typically pizza's basis is a flatbread, not a sweet pastry. I shouldn't like a danish pizza, personally.
"Merry Christmas?" I expected "mr jarvis come here coz i want 2 c u". Or at least "Merry Christmms."
You've just invented a technology that will change the world (or at least the communication habits of my students--don't email your prof in textspeak!). What would you say?
It's clearly a fake, but look at more of the comments. Numerous commenters above (some, it seems, not getting the joke) discuss seriously the implications of this, hinting that this might get NASA more funding. "Hey, there's oil," they say, "we know that the U.S. Congress will appropriate funds for that."
It costs $83,000 to get a gallon of water just into low earth orbit. Crude oil's at about $2 a gallon ($87.73/barrel). I fear some might need it spelled out. After all, this wasn't rejected in the firehose.
The Vatican is open to the possibility of alien life, if you're implying that this would threaten them. Indeed, there's no solid reason they should be threatened by it.
I'm afraid this article calls for a slightly more critical eye, in any case. Look at the URL. Now, look at the URL of any of the link in TFA. See something odd?
Because it has people like you, me, and all those who've noted in the discussion that this is a hoax.
It has its problems, to be sure. So does a bazaar. So does a cathedral. But you go to different places to find different things. An agoraphobe can avoid the bustle of both places by staying in a walled garden, but he'll only see those things selected for him.
Jurgen (14843) below was kind enough to provide a link to the original paper below. There is actually some news here, but it's obscured by the news article linked. The news article discusses the common structure between brains, the internet, and the cosmos. This is not news for anyone familiar with complex systems. (And those who're unfamiliar with complex systems are easy to find here, because they're posting about this being bad science.)
The news from the academic article, as I understand it, lies in their study of the causal sets, the "quantum network which underlies the fabric of spacetime." The node degree distribution of this network approaches a power law (has scale invariance, etc.), but isn't there yet.
Specifically, we show that the node degree distribution of causal sets in de Sitter spacetime is described by a power law with exponent 2, similar to many complex networks. Quantifying the differences between the causal set structure in de Sitter spacetime and in the real universe, we find that since the universe today is relatively young, its power-law exponent is not 2 but 3/4, yet exponent 2 is currently emerging.
This is fairly straightforward stuff and I hope some of the naysayers on this article will reconsider.
Exactly. I suspect that when people see the word "network" used, they misunderstand its meaning. The brain and the universe are not like networks and we do not merely see network patterns in them. They are in fact networks because by the word network we mean a set of interlinking or interacting nodes. Under this definition, it does not matter what sort interactions may occur. The interactions can carry data (computer network), electricity (the grid), nutrition (the food cycle in biology), or mass (as we find in the interaction, gravity, between stellar bodies, the nodes).
The interesting thing about these sets of interactions, is that similar topologies in the different nodes produce similar characteristics in the networks. OP is, therefore, quite mistaken to dismiss this as faux science. One cannot explain why computer networks, social systems, ecosystems, power-grids, and transportation networks can all have cascading failures without understanding that this property derives from network topology. It is sad to see anyone on Slashdot to be so dismissive of a relatively new and very useful science.
Joking aside, there's actually some truth to this.
Turns out complex systems with a scale-free topology (the node density of which follows a power law rather than a gaussian function), of the kind we find in ecosystems, power-grids, computer networks, DNA, etc., all have similar strengths and vulnerabilities. Unlike random distributions, scale-free topologies are highly resistant to random failure: i.e. random deaths of animals of different sorts do not cause an ecosystem failure or random power stations failing does not necessarily cause a grid to collapse. This is what network and complex systems theorists call robustness. Scale-free topologies are, however, very vulnerable to directed attacks. Turns out certain creatures occupy more important spaces in ecosystems than others (they're hubs, with a high density of connections). Kill these off and an entire ecosystem can collapse. Likewise, hit certain power stations with high density of connections and you'll see cascading failures. A few random genes are damaged, chances are that a creature will survive and reproduce without problems. Screw around with the TP53 gene in humans, however, and expect some nasty results.
[...]said Dmitri Krioukov, co-author of the paper, published by the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA), based at the San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC) at the University of California, San Diego.
Later:
[...]SDSC Director Michael Norman added [...]
And finally:
After the downscaling, the research team turned to Trestles, one of SDSC’s data-intensive supercomputers, to perform simulations of the universe’s growing causal network. By parallelizing and optimizing the application, Robert Sinkovits, a computational scientist with SDSC, was able to complete in just over one day a computation that was originally projected to require three to four years
It turns on the definition of complexity itself, which is not so straightforward as one might imagine. One of the keys to many definitions of complexity lies not in the number of different parts, but in the non-trivial and adaptive ways those parts interact. Yes, there may be humans in this galaxy, but the relationships between those humans have no effect on the galaxy, qua galaxy. In other words, the interactions that occur on a galactic level produce no appreciable feedback in the system as a whole from human beings. Yet it is feedback and adaptation that occurs in complex systems that make them complex. As a complex system, therefore, the galaxy is not concerned with the presence of humans.
The same cannot be said of the relationship between neurons as a system and the brain as a system. As the article says, each neuron has its own level of complexity and this is in turn connected to the larger system of the brain, itself having billions of adaptive connections. Yet what is missing, but I think implied, is that the complexity within each neuron is non-trivial to the interactions between neurons.
Also, I wouldn't think less of a man who very occasionally indulges in hyperbolic excess. This does not make him stupid, only a lively writer.
I'm going to have to look up the original paper published by Krioukov, but what was mentioned in the article itself is not news. I imagine this is a consequence of Krioukov trying to explain his findings in laymen's terms.
What the article actually says is a pretty basic exposition of the findings of network science and complex systems theory over the past few years. For those interested in but unfamiliar with these matters, I recommend a volume written a couple of years ago by the physicist Albert-László Barabási called Linked: The New Science of Networks. It is written for a wide audience and is a very readable introduction to the subject. Barabási's based argument is that these common network patterns we see in so many environments is a consequence both growth and preferential attachment in systems. Of course, growth and preferential attachment are going to be present in biological and social systems, as well as things like computer networks, and this is at the heart of why we see similar patterns forming (esp. scale-free topologies).
As a historian, I find the findings of network science as its been applied to social systems particularly useful. It helps to explain societal changes in ways that older theories of history, whether deriving from Marxian, Annaliste, Weberian, or other schools of thought, would have difficulty. Further, the study of networks and complex systems is inherently interdisciplinary--and this in a refreshingly honest way rather than the mere "interdisciplinarity" rhetoric that's been present in the academy over the years. For those interested in the application of network science to the social sciences, there is a very nice collection of seminal articles for the field edited by Gernot Grabher and Walter Powell.
Just trying to understand how others experience the world, so please forgive me if I ask an obtuse question. I watched a video the other day which had been described by some with Asperger's as a very accurate depiction of their experience of a meltdown. What I noticed from the video, above all, was the way things that would have blended together as white noise for me demanded constant attention, as much as I wanted to ignore them.
So my question is this: if what I took from the video was in anyway accurate (if not, just let me know), does anything analogous happen with smells as well? I.e. as individual sights and sounds do not equalize to manageable or meaningful levels, do smells also each cry out for individual attention?
The original brief was written by congressional staffer, a young guy by the name of Derek Khanna. It seems it was not a committee-wide document. Khanna continues a discussion on the matter over at Reddit. I should imagine by now that Khanna has his balls in a vice for this embarrassment.
If you're the kind of person who regularly complains about IP laws, but would rather do something about it, write Khanna a note of support by email or twitter. That doesn't mean you have to agree completely with the brief or other things Khanna has to say. It just gives him the ammunition to say that copyright reform is a good direction for the GOP and that his writing about it was not a mistake. As daemonenwind notes about, the GOP, particularly the younger elements of it, is now taking a hard look at its platform. You may be rather jaded, as I am, and believe that the old neo-con guard is likely to carry the day. They are. But if there's any hope of changing the discourse on this it will be at a time right now, when the older ways of the GOP have received electoral repudiation that a flood of cash couldn't stop. The promise of real electoral support that could come from a pro-reform platform will be particularly attractive now, especially if they get the sense that those under 35 care about this.
Troll? If Mozumber's post is a troll, then I'm a troll as well.
I disagree; you are not a troll. I suspect that the parent was modded troll because he acted as a provocateur, charging the GOP with representing monopolists as though it were peculiar to the GOP. Your statement was far more reasonable in that it recognized both parties can be thus implicated.
I do not say this to exonerate the GOP, nor is this a false equivalence. The fact that people habitually act as though one side or the other has sole responsibility for the problems we face is part of what allows those problems to persist (i.e. when the consequences arise, both parties always have a scapegoat). The cure to this problem is, as far as is possible, to praise and punish those lawmakers who do good or ill according to the good or ill they do. When some lawmaker says we need copyright reform because our current system, we will never get anywhere by saying, "Well, that's coming from a member of the [fill-in-party-here]." If I have a problem with the absurd wars started under Republican administrations, I'm not going praise Joe Biden for being a Democrat. If I've a problem with deficits, I'm hardly going to support Paul Ryan on account of Republican rhetoric.
I'm afraid I have to disagree. Ewoks were the original movie's Gungans, although Wicket was more bearable than Jar Jar, if only because he said less.
I'll grant you that Boba Fett's death was terrible. But I would add that his death was in the movie with Ewoks. Boba Fett in ESB is a different story. Yes, he's never shown as some bad-ass in a fight (although this is implied on-screen by his battle-worn--and survived--accouterments). But he is shown doing something no other villain could: he outsmarts Han Solo. Han, who is by the way no sidekick, is clever enough to avoid the imperial fleet in hot pursuit. When they think they have him cornered, he just seems to disappear. None of the other bounty hunters even got close. But Fett outmaneuvered Solo, without Solo even having a chance to shoot first.
But this is neither here nor there. My point wasn't that Arndt had to have a Boba Fett action figure because Fett was awesome. The use of the Fett action figure had nothing to do with Fett, qua Fett. It was a rhetorical device. It could have just as well been a Chewbacca or Darth Vader figure. Allow me to highlight a few things from the paragraph to make the point clearer: "old Boba Fett action figure [...] he's kept [...] not one in mint condition [...] the paint has worn off by handling [...] dog eared copy [...] the VHS [...]" The rhetorical device here can be recognized by the parallelism. The point is not that a fan who would do right by the movies is a fan who likes Boba Fett. The point here is that he has developed over time a kind of emotional attachment to the movies that would allow him to "care about the story" in the way many fans do and to "recognize why fans over 12 are miffed". The worn Boba Fett action figures acts as a synecdoche for the attachment to the stories that fans have.
My sincere apologies if I spooked your hobby horse by implying a fan could like Boba Fett.
It doesn't matter what he's written before, so long as what he wrote before was good for its genre. A good writer can transition from kid's story to space opera without any problem so long as he understands genre well.
The one question I care about is this: Is Arndt a fan? Does he have an old Boba Fett action figure that he's kept since they came out (and not one in mint condition, one where most of the paint has worn off by handling)? Does he have a dog eared copy of the Thrawn trilogy? Does he still have the VHS original series--for obvious reasons--even though he no longer has a VCR? Does he care about the story and does he recognize why fans over 12 are miffed? I'm not asking whether he's a bat-shit crazy fan like, say, myself or my wife. I'm not talking about the kind of fan who cannot talk about the prequels in polite company, such a person would have trouble writing the new movies. I'm talking about the kind of fan who, unlike Lucas, recognizes that once art is made other people invest themselves in it. A person who's willing to respect that.
TFA gives some small new hope.
‘Arndt stated that if a writer could resolve the story's arcs (internal, external, philosophical) immediately after the Moment of Despair at the climax, he or she would deliver the Insanely Great Ending and put the audience in a euphoric state. The faster it could happen, the better. By [Arndt’s] reckoning, George Lucas hit those three marks at the climax of Star Wars within a space of 22 seconds.’
Assuming Star Wars here means the original (Episode IV), then he sees one of the things that was so right, even in the weakest (or second weakest, I'll negotiate on this point) of the original trilogy. But more hopeful still is the fact that he recognizes story arcs need to be resolved. If he would say openly that he recognizes the inconsistencies created by the new movies, I would plan on seeing the next movie on opening night.
A final note for Disney: The first SW movie my wife saw, she watched seven times in the theater. I bought countless books and subscribed to magazines, etc. All this ended with the disastrous prequels. Fans are worth money. We are willing to give it to you. You can make a movie that pleases the older fans, who've more money, and the very young, who've endless appetites, at the same time. I seem to recall some movies from the late seventies and early eighties that did just that.
This is correct. Radio communications in the UK were restricted for this sort of thing in WWII. Even weather reports were restricted, lest the Germans should use them to determine the best time to do an air raid. Not only were pigeons used to relay important intelligence, but they were drafted. Individuals who were known to keep pigeons for pleasure were required to turn their hobby into a civil service, much as factories were converted to produce matériel and farms were directed to increase production of specific staples.
It is easy to hold other people in contempt when you only play to your own natural talents. If you have an aptitude for math, for example, that others do not it can be easy to think they're lazy, stupid, or not worthy of respect when you see them struggle. If, having this aptitude, most activities in your life revolve around math it is all too easy to become deluded and arrogant.
Find something you're bad at and struggle. Find something for which you have no natural talent and learn what it means to learn from others. I'm not saying switch your major or career choices. On these you should naturally play toward your strengths because that's why you have them. But if you're not good with, say, physical activities, or visual and creative arts, or music, or language, then take on one of these as a hobby. Take your two left feet dancing, pick up a martial art, play tennis, take a course in poetry, learn a language, try an instrument, take up woodworking. Most importantly, stick with it weekly, especially when it gets hard. It will make you a better person, help you to understand (and indeed to teach) others when they struggle and, almost as importantly, it will teach you how to be confident at what you're good at without being filled with pride and arrogance.
What's the point of attempting to regulate behavior like this if it's utterly impossible to enforce? Or, what might even be worse, what's the point in trying to enforce a regulation when doing so--if it were possible--would cause more harm than not doing so? Let us imagine a likely scenario: lower income parents, tired by working three jobs, gives in and decides to use a television for a while to quiet an unruly toddler (for why the toddler is so unruly, see how much the parents work and ask where the child must be). This is against the law. If we regulate this in the same way as alcohol, parents who are a repeat offenders might well lose their children. Is the life of a broken family really an improvement over the previous condition?
Slashdot Mirror
Given all the articles I've read about helium shortages et al., I'm not sure I'd invest in a company that claims He based dirigibles are about to make a comeback.
N.b.: I was responding to someone who was irritated, agreeing with him that his irritation was directed at a real phenomenon, and at one point expressing the likelihood that it was a cheap joke. Indeed, I would only have replied to someone about something like this. Perhaps that's a little defensive, but I hope not too much.
You might be right, but I do not think it the better part. I'd suggest that the better part of the problem is that those in a position of social and cultural superiority (as it is commonly regarded) do not regard prejudice directed toward rural people as something to question, much less be ashamed of.
I teach on the university level, living in a largely rural area of Kentucky. I know very bright, hardworking students whose inability to lose their accent and pass as suburbanites has been a real stumbling block. Those who're able to pass tend to leave their homes and find success elsewhere (a different problem, of course, but a related one that causes brain drain, thereby perpetuating problems in the southern states here and in Appalachia). This isn't just an issue of hurting anyone's feelings, much less of the ribbing about city vs. county that goes on between friends in a spirit of mutual respect and comradery. It is an issue of the regular disregard of a whole class of people on the basis of nothing more than where they were born.
This sort of prejudice appears on Slashdot. Not from most commenters, to be sure. Slashdot has a healthy amount of intelligent and insightful comments, else I would never read the comments. Yet let one article come out about some politician in Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi or some other favored place, who wants to pander to a certain segment of voters by screwing around with textbooks, and the tenor changes: "Ah, but that's Alabama, what do you expect?" This statement alone isn't so objectionable--for indeed you are more likely to see such nonsense in such places. What accompanies it, however. "They are...", then the disparagement of a whole class of people starts. Someone in polite society would be ashamed to make similar comments about racial minorities, about certain minority religions, about LGBTs, and about women. Similar courtesy ought to be shown to poor and rural people. And lest you think that since this is Slashdot, it's not polite society, I would point out that we mod trolls down.
Speaking of textbook nonsense, did anyone else notice that Pat Robertson has come out against young-earth creationism? If you can't stand to watch the man talk, there's an article on CNN about it. Unfortunately, the fellow who wrote the headline doesn't recognize the difference between creationism and young-earth, and the fellow who wrote the article uses weasel words in painful places ("Most scientists, however, agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 14.5 billion years old." Which wouldn't? You don't have to say "most" and do CYA with everything.)
There's nothing so ironic as provincialism directed toward rural areas, especially when it comes from those who regard themselves as open minded and enlightened. I prefer to assume that those who make these quick and easy jokes only think they're having a little harmless fun. To this I say very well. I've taken a few cheap shots in my time too. I hope they were harmless even if in retrospect I realized they weren't very funny.
I am convinced, however, that there are others who both have such prejudices and think them just. This is a sign of ignorance. It's a sad thing.
I think you misunderstand. I take him to be making a gastronomic rather than a geographic statement. Typically pizza's basis is a flatbread, not a sweet pastry. I shouldn't like a danish pizza, personally.
"Merry Christmas?" I expected "mr jarvis come here coz i want 2 c u". Or at least "Merry Christmms."
You've just invented a technology that will change the world (or at least the communication habits of my students--don't email your prof in textspeak!). What would you say?
It's clearly a fake, but look at more of the comments. Numerous commenters above (some, it seems, not getting the joke) discuss seriously the implications of this, hinting that this might get NASA more funding. "Hey, there's oil," they say, "we know that the U.S. Congress will appropriate funds for that."
It costs $83,000 to get a gallon of water just into low earth orbit. Crude oil's at about $2 a gallon ($87.73/barrel). I fear some might need it spelled out. After all, this wasn't rejected in the firehose.
The Vatican is open to the possibility of alien life, if you're implying that this would threaten them. Indeed, there's no solid reason they should be threatened by it.
I'm afraid this article calls for a slightly more critical eye, in any case. Look at the URL. Now, look at the URL of any of the link in TFA. See something odd?
Because it has people like you, me, and all those who've noted in the discussion that this is a hoax.
It has its problems, to be sure. So does a bazaar. So does a cathedral. But you go to different places to find different things. An agoraphobe can avoid the bustle of both places by staying in a walled garden, but he'll only see those things selected for him.
Jurgen (14843) below was kind enough to provide a link to the original paper below. There is actually some news here, but it's obscured by the news article linked. The news article discusses the common structure between brains, the internet, and the cosmos. This is not news for anyone familiar with complex systems. (And those who're unfamiliar with complex systems are easy to find here, because they're posting about this being bad science.)
The news from the academic article, as I understand it, lies in their study of the causal sets, the "quantum network which underlies the fabric of spacetime." The node degree distribution of this network approaches a power law (has scale invariance, etc.), but isn't there yet.
This is fairly straightforward stuff and I hope some of the naysayers on this article will reconsider.
Exactly. I suspect that when people see the word "network" used, they misunderstand its meaning. The brain and the universe are not like networks and we do not merely see network patterns in them. They are in fact networks because by the word network we mean a set of interlinking or interacting nodes. Under this definition, it does not matter what sort interactions may occur. The interactions can carry data (computer network), electricity (the grid), nutrition (the food cycle in biology), or mass (as we find in the interaction, gravity, between stellar bodies, the nodes).
The interesting thing about these sets of interactions, is that similar topologies in the different nodes produce similar characteristics in the networks. OP is, therefore, quite mistaken to dismiss this as faux science. One cannot explain why computer networks, social systems, ecosystems, power-grids, and transportation networks can all have cascading failures without understanding that this property derives from network topology. It is sad to see anyone on Slashdot to be so dismissive of a relatively new and very useful science.
Joking aside, there's actually some truth to this.
Turns out complex systems with a scale-free topology (the node density of which follows a power law rather than a gaussian function), of the kind we find in ecosystems, power-grids, computer networks, DNA, etc., all have similar strengths and vulnerabilities. Unlike random distributions, scale-free topologies are highly resistant to random failure: i.e. random deaths of animals of different sorts do not cause an ecosystem failure or random power stations failing does not necessarily cause a grid to collapse. This is what network and complex systems theorists call robustness. Scale-free topologies are, however, very vulnerable to directed attacks. Turns out certain creatures occupy more important spaces in ecosystems than others (they're hubs, with a high density of connections). Kill these off and an entire ecosystem can collapse. Likewise, hit certain power stations with high density of connections and you'll see cascading failures. A few random genes are damaged, chances are that a creature will survive and reproduce without problems. Screw around with the TP53 gene in humans, however, and expect some nasty results.
Later:
And finally:
It turns on the definition of complexity itself, which is not so straightforward as one might imagine. One of the keys to many definitions of complexity lies not in the number of different parts, but in the non-trivial and adaptive ways those parts interact. Yes, there may be humans in this galaxy, but the relationships between those humans have no effect on the galaxy, qua galaxy. In other words, the interactions that occur on a galactic level produce no appreciable feedback in the system as a whole from human beings. Yet it is feedback and adaptation that occurs in complex systems that make them complex. As a complex system, therefore, the galaxy is not concerned with the presence of humans.
The same cannot be said of the relationship between neurons as a system and the brain as a system. As the article says, each neuron has its own level of complexity and this is in turn connected to the larger system of the brain, itself having billions of adaptive connections. Yet what is missing, but I think implied, is that the complexity within each neuron is non-trivial to the interactions between neurons.
Also, I wouldn't think less of a man who very occasionally indulges in hyperbolic excess. This does not make him stupid, only a lively writer.
I'm going to have to look up the original paper published by Krioukov, but what was mentioned in the article itself is not news. I imagine this is a consequence of Krioukov trying to explain his findings in laymen's terms.
What the article actually says is a pretty basic exposition of the findings of network science and complex systems theory over the past few years. For those interested in but unfamiliar with these matters, I recommend a volume written a couple of years ago by the physicist Albert-László Barabási called Linked: The New Science of Networks . It is written for a wide audience and is a very readable introduction to the subject. Barabási's based argument is that these common network patterns we see in so many environments is a consequence both growth and preferential attachment in systems. Of course, growth and preferential attachment are going to be present in biological and social systems, as well as things like computer networks, and this is at the heart of why we see similar patterns forming (esp. scale-free topologies).
As a historian, I find the findings of network science as its been applied to social systems particularly useful. It helps to explain societal changes in ways that older theories of history, whether deriving from Marxian, Annaliste, Weberian, or other schools of thought, would have difficulty. Further, the study of networks and complex systems is inherently interdisciplinary--and this in a refreshingly honest way rather than the mere "interdisciplinarity" rhetoric that's been present in the academy over the years. For those interested in the application of network science to the social sciences, there is a very nice collection of seminal articles for the field edited by Gernot Grabher and Walter Powell.
Just trying to understand how others experience the world, so please forgive me if I ask an obtuse question. I watched a video the other day which had been described by some with Asperger's as a very accurate depiction of their experience of a meltdown. What I noticed from the video, above all, was the way things that would have blended together as white noise for me demanded constant attention, as much as I wanted to ignore them.
So my question is this: if what I took from the video was in anyway accurate (if not, just let me know), does anything analogous happen with smells as well? I.e. as individual sights and sounds do not equalize to manageable or meaningful levels, do smells also each cry out for individual attention?
The brief has been pulled from the RSC website. It's as good a guess as any that it was pulled so fast because someone at the MPAA or RIAA put the kibosh on this. Copies of it still circulate about the internet.
The original brief was written by congressional staffer, a young guy by the name of Derek Khanna. It seems it was not a committee-wide document. Khanna continues a discussion on the matter over at Reddit. I should imagine by now that Khanna has his balls in a vice for this embarrassment.
If you're the kind of person who regularly complains about IP laws, but would rather do something about it, write Khanna a note of support by email or twitter. That doesn't mean you have to agree completely with the brief or other things Khanna has to say. It just gives him the ammunition to say that copyright reform is a good direction for the GOP and that his writing about it was not a mistake. As daemonenwind notes about, the GOP, particularly the younger elements of it, is now taking a hard look at its platform. You may be rather jaded, as I am, and believe that the old neo-con guard is likely to carry the day. They are. But if there's any hope of changing the discourse on this it will be at a time right now, when the older ways of the GOP have received electoral repudiation that a flood of cash couldn't stop. The promise of real electoral support that could come from a pro-reform platform will be particularly attractive now, especially if they get the sense that those under 35 care about this.
I disagree; you are not a troll. I suspect that the parent was modded troll because he acted as a provocateur, charging the GOP with representing monopolists as though it were peculiar to the GOP. Your statement was far more reasonable in that it recognized both parties can be thus implicated.
I do not say this to exonerate the GOP, nor is this a false equivalence. The fact that people habitually act as though one side or the other has sole responsibility for the problems we face is part of what allows those problems to persist (i.e. when the consequences arise, both parties always have a scapegoat). The cure to this problem is, as far as is possible, to praise and punish those lawmakers who do good or ill according to the good or ill they do. When some lawmaker says we need copyright reform because our current system, we will never get anywhere by saying, "Well, that's coming from a member of the [fill-in-party-here]." If I have a problem with the absurd wars started under Republican administrations, I'm not going praise Joe Biden for being a Democrat. If I've a problem with deficits, I'm hardly going to support Paul Ryan on account of Republican rhetoric.
I'm afraid I have to disagree. Ewoks were the original movie's Gungans, although Wicket was more bearable than Jar Jar, if only because he said less.
I'll grant you that Boba Fett's death was terrible. But I would add that his death was in the movie with Ewoks. Boba Fett in ESB is a different story. Yes, he's never shown as some bad-ass in a fight (although this is implied on-screen by his battle-worn--and survived--accouterments). But he is shown doing something no other villain could: he outsmarts Han Solo. Han, who is by the way no sidekick, is clever enough to avoid the imperial fleet in hot pursuit. When they think they have him cornered, he just seems to disappear. None of the other bounty hunters even got close. But Fett outmaneuvered Solo, without Solo even having a chance to shoot first.
But this is neither here nor there. My point wasn't that Arndt had to have a Boba Fett action figure because Fett was awesome. The use of the Fett action figure had nothing to do with Fett, qua Fett. It was a rhetorical device. It could have just as well been a Chewbacca or Darth Vader figure. Allow me to highlight a few things from the paragraph to make the point clearer: "old Boba Fett action figure [...] he's kept [...] not one in mint condition [...] the paint has worn off by handling [...] dog eared copy [...] the VHS [...]" The rhetorical device here can be recognized by the parallelism. The point is not that a fan who would do right by the movies is a fan who likes Boba Fett. The point here is that he has developed over time a kind of emotional attachment to the movies that would allow him to "care about the story" in the way many fans do and to "recognize why fans over 12 are miffed". The worn Boba Fett action figures acts as a synecdoche for the attachment to the stories that fans have.
My sincere apologies if I spooked your hobby horse by implying a fan could like Boba Fett.
It doesn't matter what he's written before, so long as what he wrote before was good for its genre. A good writer can transition from kid's story to space opera without any problem so long as he understands genre well.
The one question I care about is this: Is Arndt a fan? Does he have an old Boba Fett action figure that he's kept since they came out (and not one in mint condition, one where most of the paint has worn off by handling)? Does he have a dog eared copy of the Thrawn trilogy? Does he still have the VHS original series--for obvious reasons--even though he no longer has a VCR? Does he care about the story and does he recognize why fans over 12 are miffed? I'm not asking whether he's a bat-shit crazy fan like, say, myself or my wife. I'm not talking about the kind of fan who cannot talk about the prequels in polite company, such a person would have trouble writing the new movies. I'm talking about the kind of fan who, unlike Lucas, recognizes that once art is made other people invest themselves in it. A person who's willing to respect that.
TFA gives some small new hope.
Assuming Star Wars here means the original (Episode IV), then he sees one of the things that was so right, even in the weakest (or second weakest, I'll negotiate on this point) of the original trilogy. But more hopeful still is the fact that he recognizes story arcs need to be resolved. If he would say openly that he recognizes the inconsistencies created by the new movies, I would plan on seeing the next movie on opening night.
A final note for Disney: The first SW movie my wife saw, she watched seven times in the theater. I bought countless books and subscribed to magazines, etc. All this ended with the disastrous prequels. Fans are worth money. We are willing to give it to you. You can make a movie that pleases the older fans, who've more money, and the very young, who've endless appetites, at the same time. I seem to recall some movies from the late seventies and early eighties that did just that.
This is correct. Radio communications in the UK were restricted for this sort of thing in WWII. Even weather reports were restricted, lest the Germans should use them to determine the best time to do an air raid. Not only were pigeons used to relay important intelligence, but they were drafted. Individuals who were known to keep pigeons for pleasure were required to turn their hobby into a civil service, much as factories were converted to produce matériel and farms were directed to increase production of specific staples.
Of all the reasons I don't support either candidate, of all the ways either candidate is apt to violate my privacy, this is the least.
Still, I'll add it to the list.
At least it's not a rectangle with rounded corners, then he'd have to pay royalties to a certain company.
It is easy to hold other people in contempt when you only play to your own natural talents. If you have an aptitude for math, for example, that others do not it can be easy to think they're lazy, stupid, or not worthy of respect when you see them struggle. If, having this aptitude, most activities in your life revolve around math it is all too easy to become deluded and arrogant.
Find something you're bad at and struggle. Find something for which you have no natural talent and learn what it means to learn from others. I'm not saying switch your major or career choices. On these you should naturally play toward your strengths because that's why you have them. But if you're not good with, say, physical activities, or visual and creative arts, or music, or language, then take on one of these as a hobby. Take your two left feet dancing, pick up a martial art, play tennis, take a course in poetry, learn a language, try an instrument, take up woodworking. Most importantly, stick with it weekly, especially when it gets hard. It will make you a better person, help you to understand (and indeed to teach) others when they struggle and, almost as importantly, it will teach you how to be confident at what you're good at without being filled with pride and arrogance.
Gosh, what's not legal in Amsterdam? Have these people no standards at all?
What's the point of attempting to regulate behavior like this if it's utterly impossible to enforce? Or, what might even be worse, what's the point in trying to enforce a regulation when doing so--if it were possible--would cause more harm than not doing so? Let us imagine a likely scenario: lower income parents, tired by working three jobs, gives in and decides to use a television for a while to quiet an unruly toddler (for why the toddler is so unruly, see how much the parents work and ask where the child must be). This is against the law. If we regulate this in the same way as alcohol, parents who are a repeat offenders might well lose their children. Is the life of a broken family really an improvement over the previous condition?