You know, I know nothing about how this would work.
I don't know if I would use a Linux port to PS/2 per se. I already have a nice machine I run Linux on.
I can, however, tell you one thing I would have a hard time resisting: a gaming port of Linux to the PS/2. If there's one thing Linux is missing, it's gaming. And let me tell you, being able to run a PS/2 as a game server running PS/2 games would turn me on to PS/2 like nothing else has in a long time.
Like I said, I don't know how feasible this is. But having the PS/2 gaming resources available to Linux would be one of the best things for Linux in a long time. It's not the same as being able to run Linux games on my Dell directly, but close enough.
I agree that Linux requires some more understanding to use at this point in time than Windows (although this is changing everyday thanks to distros such as Mandrake).
However, I think the usability issue can only be part of the problem.
Consider Apple, for example. Apple introduced the whole user-friendly/GUI revolution to begin with, and is still arguably just as, if not more, user-friendly than Windows.
But Apple has a relatively small share of the market relative to Windows. Granted, much of this may result from the way hardware is bundled with the OS, but still--if most users didn't care, and were only interested in usability, you would think Apple would have a bigger share.
I personally think there many other issues at hand besides usability, especially availability. The average user isn't dumb, and would probably be relatively happy with any of OS X, Linux, or Windows. They're using it because its what's most available. It's most available because of MS monopoly. This monopoly drives vendors/developers to Windows, which drives availability, etc. It's a vicious circle of availability.
Its not that users just want to point and click, it's that they just want to go the local mall or whatever and get their new computer.
Availability will trump everything until something pushes them to do otherwise, like privacy concerns or forced upgrade cycles.
MS isn't just dropping support for Java, they're proposing a replacement. And it's not just any replacement, it's:
(1) Better. For one thing, it includes a common JIT and ahead-of-time compiling framework for multiple languages. Imagine compiling C++, C, python, etc. using one compiler, either JIT or ahead-of-time/into native. C# is also cleaner than Java to many.
(2) Ostensibly standards-based and open. Now there' standards and then there's standards, of course. Also, MS doesn't have to implement any standard correctly, even its own (witness MSVC++, J++); Sun's "closed" process might ironically be more "open" in this way. Still, a standardization process looks appealing and convincing.
These two things, plus MS's monopoly, may well be enough to convince or coerce people into dropping Java completely.
Open-source implementations of C#/CLI such as Ximian's Mono won't deter people from it, either.
I suspect I speak for many when I say I am attracted to C#/CLI over Java, but fear what sort of thing I could be contributing or becoming involved in.
This whole Java/C# thing has been giving me the chills the past few days.
This is one scenario that scares me, if for know other reason that I don't know what to think about it:
(1) MS drops Java
(2) MS supports C#/CLI
(3) Java dies out, C#/CLI gains ascendancy
I would have no fears about the future of Java if MS didn't have a monopoly and standards-based replacement for it.
The truth is, C#/CLI is a much better, more comprehensive implementation than Java (e.g., how many of us have said "I wish there were a JIT compiler for C++", or "I wish there were an ahead-of-time compiler for Java", or "I wish you could compile/run all these different languages using one JIT/VM"?), and MS's monopoly can pressure developers into adopting it over legacy concerns. C#/CLI is also potentially a standards-based language implementation, something that Java doesn't have, at least superficially.
So why am I nervous? Because this beautiful, standards-based language implementation is coming from MS. Many of us know how well MS encourages language standards (e.g., MSVC++, J++). Just because MS proposes a standard doesn't mean they have to implement it.
In this way, Java's "closed" standardization process may be more "open" than MS's. I say "may" because we just don't know, and that's the fear. Will MS lure/coerce people into C#/CLI and then abandon it/cripple it?
Of course, just because MS doesn't follow their own standards doesn't mean the standard isn't there. Thus, there is Mono, the nascent open-source implementation of C#/CLI. But still, I don't know what MS is capable when it comes to coercion and manipulation, and it's disturbing.
It upsets me I can't make a decision about implementing a language without being terrified I will contribute to what I consider an abominable monopoly. It also upsets me that MS could potentially expand its monopoly to the DEVELOPMENT process.
Many have, and will, say that Java won't be affected by C#/CLI. But I say that they should consider what could happen when the corporation controlling 95% of desktops and how much of the server market drops Java and replaces it with a better, "standards-based" implementation. How much will developers' legacy concerns weigh then?
Actually, the somatic symptoms are in line with research on depression, which suggests depression is manifested somatically in many cultures.
Very interesting if what you say is true, and GAC is reflecting these profiles.
A lot has been made of AI; this brings up the whole issue of AE (artificial emotion). If an AI is able to exhibit typical emotional profiles based on typical associative/NN models, it suggests AE might not be as far off as some thought.
The site is slashdotted, so it's difficult to determine what exactly is going on.
About the beauty of the MMPI: the MMPI is empirically validated, meaning that its scales were developed by selecting items that correlate with an objective criterion. Because items might correlate with an objective criterion (e.g., homicide) without looking like they would, you can get "subtle" scales--scales that are difficult to fake responses to.
But what's the point of giving GAC this?
Say the test predicts the computer is a psychopathic deviate. Does this mean the GAC is not functioning like a normal individual? Does it mean the GAC is psychopathic? Does it mean the average internet user who supplied observations is a psychopathic deviate?
What's ironic is that GAC may actually be a more comprehensive psychological resource than the MMPI. By selecting observations from so many individuals, GAC has tremendous data on what typical thought patterns are.
In fact, GAC could be used as a psychological test itself. This may be why they are giving GAC the MMPI. If GAC is "normal", so to speak, you could use GAC as a test. Even if it's not normal, you could "adjust" GAC to have responses more in line with a "normal" MMPI profile.
Then, you could "test" individuals by having them converse with GAC. The extent to which you "agree" with GAC or not is a gauge of the deviance of your personality. Ideally, it would be just like having a conversation with someone, only the extent to which you get along with GAC reflects on your abnormality.
I am a bioinformatics graduate student who IS processing data from the genome project in his spare time.
I regularly run jobs on supercomputers.
Often, I bring work home with me, because it's more comfy there. Last fall, I bought a Pentium 1 Ghz w / 384 Mb RAM.
I frequently kick myself for not buying more RAM (I'll probably upgrade to >=512 Mb soon), and yes, the difference between 1 and 2 Ghz matters to me.
I might represent a small proportion of users, but to us, it makes all the difference to have home computing systems pushed to the limits of performance and affordability.
I have now owned both WinCE (Casio) and Palm PDAs.
I have to attest to the fact that I was much more impressed with the WinCE device to begin with.
As many have pointed out, it just seems to have so many more features!
It's rather telling, however, that I have now ditched the CE device because I found the thing to be completely impractical for what it was designed for. I use the Palm almost exclusively, although it is rather old and doesn't have the features of the CE device, simply because it's easier to use. I now realize all those extra features of the CE weren't doing anything but getting in the way. The interface was more clutsy, and the apps on the CE were just bizarre attempts to cram a desktop onto a smaller device.
PDAs aren't desktops; I don't want them to function that way. That's what laptops and subnotebooks are for.
Perhaps Palm the company is having problems. Is Palm the OS, though? If it is, that's too bad.
It seems to me all they need to do is bring the hardware in line with the great software they have.
One thing I've noticed in the posts is that no one seems to be claiming WinCE is a better OS; they're all gloating over the hardware. It would be a real shame if MS gained ascendance in the PDA field because of hardware its OS has nothing to do with. It'd be just one more way it's used its monopoly to push an inferior product. Bundle a crappy OS with decent hardware, push out the competition, and control standards. Great.
I saw a home improvement show with Bob Vila (or however you spell his name) where they demonstrated a tankless water heater.
Beautiful!
I'm a student; my wife and I live in an apartment right now. As soon as we get a house (if we get a house?) I want to put one of those in!
No comparison. Tankless heaters are more efficient, take up much less space (the one I saw was just resting on the wall; about the size of a small/medium sized fuse box), and, best of all, as you point out, no running out of hot water!
I'm a graduate student in psychology who is specializing in behavioral genetics/genomics and statistical methodology.
In my first year of grad school, somewhat before the explosion of bioinformatics, I took courses in molecular biology and neurogenetics. Other grad students in wet labish biology fields were often astonished at the extensive stats courses we were [are] expected to take. They would say things like "we're told not to bother much with stats, because at most we need things like t-tests and ANOVAs and whatnot".
They probably won't be saying that any longer.
Observing the introduction of stats and math into biology has been fascinating: e.g., in reading articles on PCA and eigendecomposition being used for microarray analysis, you get the impression that PCA is new, fresh, exciting all over again. It's like watching a whole field being introduced to this stuff, realizing how cool stats can really be.
I can't wait for undergrads to pick up a Bio 101 book and learn basic stat, info, and measurement theory as part of the standard curriculum.
All my respects to Python, but I have to ask the same question about Ruby.
As you say, it's clean, fast, easy to extend, easy to code for. And there's no whitespace issues to balk at, even for 30 seconds (although there are legitimate reasons to balk at whitespace issues for more than 30 seconds).
I have used Perl almost extensively, and love it--Perl deserves all the use and attention it has--but when I think of something "cleaner" I'd like to use, my thoughts switch to Ruby, not Python.
In Ruby's case, though, I can probably say its age is why it hasn't moved further yet (at least in the U.S.;the first Ruby conference is this year). Ruby's acceptance has moved rather quickly when you think about it.
If you have been thinking about Python, and haven't taken a look at Ruby, *please* do. You'll probably like it. Ruby's too good to not at least check out.
It's funny you should ask that question. If you haven't noticed, in the past few months, there has been a push among sleep researchers to alert the public to the importance of sleep.
The bottom line is, Americans need more sleep. The whole "less sleep is better" or "rise and shine" attitude seems to be an antiquated leftover from the 19th century when we didn't have electricity and getting up with dawn conserved time.
Anyway, from what I've been able to read:
(1) Figure out when you naturally would go to bed and naturally would wake up. "Naturally" means on vacation when you're not up 'til 4:30 at a LAN party or whatever.
(2) Try to aim for going to bed and waking up with your natural schedule. Consistency helps; getting few hours one night will throw off your sleep the next few days.
(3) Watch how much you sleep. If it's substantially different from 7-9 hours of sleep, there might be a problem, whether it be physical, psychological, or both. I've now learned, for example, that when I sleep much more than 8 hours, It's a pretty reliable sign I'm getting sick.
(4) Don't take substances close to before when you go to sleep (alcohol, caffeine, etc.). The key is to not mess up REM sleep. Dreams are your way for your brain to learn and assimilate what's happened during the day. When it can't do that, you have problems.
(5) After you get little sleep, there is sometimes a feeling that you have extra energy or some such thing. This is somewhat of an illusion: attention and cognitive performance actually inevitably degrade with lack of sleep, the feeling of extra energy is fleeting anyway.
It's clear to me FM radio has been disintegrating since FCC regulations changed, and is now a pile of crap except for the public [listener paid] stations (which are actually excellent in my area). I would love to get some more good content, and I suspect satellite radio might address this. Especially given that I, the listener, rather than the producers, would be paying for it. The thought makes me want to run to the store right now!
On the other hand, I am deeply suspicious of these things. A number of indivduals have made comparisons with Spinner, for example. Spinner does give me choice, but it's a choice that's driven by demographic studies and industry genres. I get tired of not hearing real people on Spinner, people who want to tell me about what they think is interesting or cool, people who interview real artists and discuss their music with them, make it a process rather than a product.
I don't want separate channels for trip-hop, ambient, free jazz, fusion, avant-guarde, baroque classical, minimalist classical, opera, or bebop. Those aren't musical tastes, they're categories of music sales departments. I'm not a label, nor are my musical tastes. Ten years from now, the categories will be different, and I want stations that will be flexible enough to encompass them.
To be honest, except for the existing services to be carried by satellite, I don't see satellite radio providing fundamentally better programming. It's just another corporate attempt to encompass the widest demographic via radio (albeit, perhaps, a much better attempt than the corporate attempts of current FM).
The real problem won't be solved until radio becomes truly accessible to the average joe and jane, enough for a group with a certain vision to establish a radio station because they have a voice they want to be heard. The FCC needs to come up with a way of making audio broadcasting accessible.
Amazing! I was just speaking with a colleague about this (there's an upcoming conference at our university about the crisis in scientific publishing).
Citeseer truly is amazing, and is useful as a search engine and a model of research dissemination. However, the problem is third-party review. Any sort of gnutella or napster for papers will not quite replace journals because they lack review.
However, slashcode has the peer review quality built in! Slashdot, in effect, is just one huge peer-reviewed newsgroup.
It seems like someone (I don't have the time to do all by myself) could alter slashcode to post paper titles and abstracts instead of stories, with links to ps, pdf, latex, etc. versions of the papers. Reviewers rate the articles, and give their review. Other readers could then rate the reviews themselves. Perhaps individuals could only post papers if their reviews have high enough ratings; ratings and reviews of papers might be weighted by their own ratings; etc. etc. etc.
Ignoring themes and whatnot, it seems the only real change is allowing for some numeric rating of the papers--like a Slashdot where posts include ratings of the stories. Readers could filter papers/stories by rating, etc. Those who want everything get it, those who get want high-profile papers only get those.
...when "non-CS/engineering" fields begin to realize that computer programming is as relevant to biology, neuroscience, genetics, psychology, etc., as it is to math, physics, EE, ME, etc.
In grad school, I often wondered why programming courses weren't required as they are in engineering programs. Perhaps this will change soon.
Write your local universities and tell them about your problem.
Now, I'm generally of the opinion design is most important, and one should choose a language (a) for the job, and (b) that one likes, but I can't help but use this opportunity to plug Ruby.
I have been using Perl heavily, and love it, but Ruby is so damn cool and clean!
Witness, for example, the following three implementations of "Hello World", a la Ruby:
(1)
class Foo
def hello
print "Hello, World"
end
end
(2)
def writeln(str)
print(str, "\n")
end
writeln("Hello, World!")
(3)
print "hello world\n"
Ruby is cleaner than Perl, and more object-oriented than Python. No whitespace nonsense, no @$; stuff either.
Granted, Perl has a much bigger support base, but that's a function of age, not the language itself.
Ruby might not be for everyone, but it's worth checking out if you haven't:
That's the whole point--Pluto is the only planet we haven't visited.
And while we could all sit here for hours and argue back and forth about why we'd rather see a mission to Pluto or more Mars missions or a new space shuttle or moon colonies or whatever, the fact remains we no next to nothing about Pluto and Charon.
I for one want to know, just so I can get it off my mind before I pass away. Space.com, for example, has a link from the story to another story about the status of Pluto as a planet. Maybe if we actually spent some time figuring out what the heck was going on out there we wouldn't be arguing about these things.
Finally, the mission isn't just about Pluto, it's about Pluto and the Kuiper belt. There are tons of reasons to be interested in that area of the solar system aside from Pluto--like it being a mysterious source of icy rocks that get hurtled toward us, causing us to come up with grandiose plans involving nuclear warheads and laser beams in an attempt to prevent our extinction.
I'm in an ENTIRELY different field than geology or chemistry, but from what I've read (unfortunately, not the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [PNAS, www.pnas.org] articles, which I will read when I get my copy) is that the dating of the material surrounding the magnetite is much older than any known life on Earth, and, more importantly, much older than the estimated time that the meteorite hit the surface.
So you basically have to suggest that the meteorite hit the surface much much earlier than current estimates, or that somehow Earth fossils much older than the time the meteorite hit the earth became embedded within the meteorite.
The more serious problems are (a) ruling out nonbiological formation of magnetite chains, or (b) inappropriately focusing on anomalous magnetite formations while ignoring other magnetite formations consistent with nonbiological origin.
...that you don't measure the success of an ad in terms of the number of times people click on it???
For example, suppose Coca-Cola set up a cable tv channel where you could buy Coke by dialing up a phone number, etc. Now how sane would it be for Coca-Cola to assume that the success of a tv ad is measured in the number of times an individual changes the channel to the Coke channel?
Right now, there is a Rackspace banner ad displayed on my screen. I'm not going to click on it. Why? Cause I don't need it! But you can bet your dollar that if I ever do need it, I will probably have this vague feeling that "rackspace" is something I should look into, or that Rackspace is something that I'm familiar with and is a good product for "some strange reason".
Ads never were, and never will be, about getting someone to want to "pursue", "possess", "interact with", "get" the ad. They are about increasing your familiarity with product and getting you to want the product.
This is why, if subscription or micropayments or whatever are implemented, the best sites ultimately will get paid by banner ads. When a site is REALLY good, and gets tons of hits, ad smart agencies will pay to have their ads displayed on that site just for the exposure. They won't care if people click or it or not, because millions of people will SEE their product and KNOW about it. The bottom line is the bottom line, not the number of clicks.
It would be interesting to see someone print a book including the DeCSS code, aside from any ramifications it might have for the case (although those would be a good side benefit). Isn't it an interesting enough topic in itself? Intellectual property rights, fair use, cryptography, open source--what more subject areas would you want?
Heck, you could write a book on the DMCA or intellectual property claims as a fundamental civil concern of contemporary society, covering this and a whole lot more! Put the DeCSS code on the cover! I personally might be more interested in a DeCSS book per se, and a DeCSS book would be easier to write, but if the scope could be expanded, all the better! It's really a topic that needs to be written about in book form, regardless of the DeCSS case. Intellectual property right issues extend far beyond DeCSS into genomics, web design, the food industry...
So if anyone knows a publisher, or is a publisher--think about it as a real possibility.
This is a great idea, and one I've often wondered about. Why didn't multiplayer ever get retroactively applied to text adventure games? Or, alternatively, why wasn't RPG brought to the computer ala text adventure? It seems to me the "modules" of D&D were often simply interpreted by the DM in much the same way text adventures work. I'm not talking about hack-and-slash versions of D&D, but puzzle or story-based genres (e.g., Tomb of Horrors). Merge this all with the depth of a good adventure game, and you've got one hell of an adventure.
On a related note: I have been thinking about EQ and similar games a lot lately, and it seems to me the problem isn't the level of interactivity versus realism or action or whatever. Often, the problem is the level of interactivity for the realism a game engine can handle.
Someone else mentioned that you don't want an interactive game because you are free to do boring things. This is only partially true, because if you are doing boring things, it is most likely because the engine doesn't allow something else. EQ bugs me a lot: it's very interactive, but the engine can't handle the number of people involved, changes to the world based on player actions, etc.
Upping the interactivity is fine as long as the realism can accomodate the implied variety of courses of action.
Re:That's not what they mean by "unique."
on
Who Owns Your Body?
·
· Score: 2
As *another* one of those researchers, I have to say that concerns over these things *are* very real and worthwhile.
You are right in pointing out that practices are sometimes misrepresented, and that the actual harm done in cases of violation of consent are often nonexistent.
Nevertheless, contemporary biotech research is plagued to a horrific extent by egregious ethical problems that simply aren't being addressed by a college of individuals bent on making a profit. This is in part the result of tremendous technological gains in recent years that have introduced biologists to things (hard computation, multivariate stats, intellectual property) they are not prepared for or accustomed to. The unethical practices are condoned or ignored for the most part because the average individual simply doesn't understand what the @#$$% is going on.
Perhaps your mice have made far more serious sacrifices than any individual might have. The point, however, is that your mice cannot reason and come to logical decisions regarding appropriate use of their tissue.
It doesn't matter one bit how many hours you or me or anyone else slaves over a scope or screen processing data. That data represents real people who have very real, acceptable beliefs over what is appropriate to do with their bodies.
The minute we begin to argue that our research or efforts take precedent over the will of freely volunteering participants, the humans involved have no more rights than the mice in your lab.
Biotech, with its patenting of human genes, increasing dismissal of consent procedure, etc., more and more is engendering an atmosphere where the corporate profit trumps human rights. The argument that "we did the effort, therefore we own the rights" is a dangerous one. No one OWNS the human body or its constituent properties except, perhaps, each one of us our own.
If anyone thinks patenting crap involving online shopping baskets, domain names, and protocol terminology is a pile of nonsense that you can't believe, just wait until the biotech stuff really gets going. We already have assinine arguments that so-and-so OWNS such and such a human gene.
Just read a previous SciAmer article a couple a months back outlining the mess regarding microarray chip patenting, with a half a dozen companies claiming the own the blueprints for part of someones' body.
Drives me crazy. Drives me especially crazy because I'm right in the middle of it.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I know nothing about how this would work.
I don't know if I would use a Linux port to PS/2 per se. I already have a nice machine I run Linux on.
I can, however, tell you one thing I would have a hard time resisting: a gaming port of Linux to the PS/2. If there's one thing Linux is missing, it's gaming. And let me tell you, being able to run a PS/2 as a game server running PS/2 games would turn me on to PS/2 like nothing else has in a long time.
Like I said, I don't know how feasible this is. But having the PS/2 gaming resources available to Linux would be one of the best things for Linux in a long time. It's not the same as being able to run Linux games on my Dell directly, but close enough.
Thanks for the link about languages compiling to the JVM.
I guess I knew about them, but had completely forgotten in my MS paranoia.
Your response to my post was strangely reassuring. It was just what I needed.
Seriously.
I agree that Linux requires some more understanding to use at this point in time than Windows (although this is changing everyday thanks to distros such as Mandrake).
However, I think the usability issue can only be part of the problem.
Consider Apple, for example. Apple introduced the whole user-friendly/GUI revolution to begin with, and is still arguably just as, if not more, user-friendly than Windows.
But Apple has a relatively small share of the market relative to Windows. Granted, much of this may result from the way hardware is bundled with the OS, but still--if most users didn't care, and were only interested in usability, you would think Apple would have a bigger share.
I personally think there many other issues at hand besides usability, especially availability. The average user isn't dumb, and would probably be relatively happy with any of OS X, Linux, or Windows. They're using it because its what's most available. It's most available because of MS monopoly. This monopoly drives vendors/developers to Windows, which drives availability, etc. It's a vicious circle of availability.
Its not that users just want to point and click, it's that they just want to go the local mall or whatever and get their new computer.
Availability will trump everything until something pushes them to do otherwise, like privacy concerns or forced upgrade cycles.
I might agree with you, except for one thing:
C#/CLI.
MS isn't just dropping support for Java, they're proposing a replacement. And it's not just any replacement, it's:
(1) Better. For one thing, it includes a common JIT and ahead-of-time compiling framework for multiple languages. Imagine compiling C++, C, python, etc. using one compiler, either JIT or ahead-of-time/into native. C# is also cleaner than Java to many.
(2) Ostensibly standards-based and open. Now there' standards and then there's standards, of course. Also, MS doesn't have to implement any standard correctly, even its own (witness MSVC++, J++); Sun's "closed" process might ironically be more "open" in this way. Still, a standardization process looks appealing and convincing.
These two things, plus MS's monopoly, may well be enough to convince or coerce people into dropping Java completely.
Open-source implementations of C#/CLI such as Ximian's Mono won't deter people from it, either.
I suspect I speak for many when I say I am attracted to C#/CLI over Java, but fear what sort of thing I could be contributing or becoming involved in.
This whole Java/C# thing has been giving me the chills the past few days.
This is one scenario that scares me, if for know other reason that I don't know what to think about it:
(1) MS drops Java
(2) MS supports C#/CLI
(3) Java dies out, C#/CLI gains ascendancy
I would have no fears about the future of Java if MS didn't have a monopoly and standards-based replacement for it.
The truth is, C#/CLI is a much better, more comprehensive implementation than Java (e.g., how many of us have said "I wish there were a JIT compiler for C++", or "I wish there were an ahead-of-time compiler for Java", or "I wish you could compile/run all these different languages using one JIT/VM"?), and MS's monopoly can pressure developers into adopting it over legacy concerns. C#/CLI is also potentially a standards-based language implementation, something that Java doesn't have, at least superficially.
So why am I nervous? Because this beautiful, standards-based language implementation is coming from MS. Many of us know how well MS encourages language standards (e.g., MSVC++, J++). Just because MS proposes a standard doesn't mean they have to implement it.
In this way, Java's "closed" standardization process may be more "open" than MS's. I say "may" because we just don't know, and that's the fear. Will MS lure/coerce people into C#/CLI and then abandon it/cripple it?
Of course, just because MS doesn't follow their own standards doesn't mean the standard isn't there. Thus, there is Mono, the nascent open-source implementation of C#/CLI. But still, I don't know what MS is capable when it comes to coercion and manipulation, and it's disturbing.
It upsets me I can't make a decision about implementing a language without being terrified I will contribute to what I consider an abominable monopoly. It also upsets me that MS could potentially expand its monopoly to the DEVELOPMENT process.
Many have, and will, say that Java won't be affected by C#/CLI. But I say that they should consider what could happen when the corporation controlling 95% of desktops and how much of the server market drops Java and replaces it with a better, "standards-based" implementation. How much will developers' legacy concerns weigh then?
No, he wants VI[M].
Actually, the somatic symptoms are in line with research on depression, which suggests depression is manifested somatically in many cultures.
Very interesting if what you say is true, and GAC is reflecting these profiles.
A lot has been made of AI; this brings up the whole issue of AE (artificial emotion). If an AI is able to exhibit typical emotional profiles based on typical associative/NN models, it suggests AE might not be as far off as some thought.
The site is slashdotted, so it's difficult to determine what exactly is going on.
About the beauty of the MMPI: the MMPI is empirically validated, meaning that its scales were developed by selecting items that correlate with an objective criterion. Because items might correlate with an objective criterion (e.g., homicide) without looking like they would, you can get "subtle" scales--scales that are difficult to fake responses to.
But what's the point of giving GAC this?
Say the test predicts the computer is a psychopathic deviate. Does this mean the GAC is not functioning like a normal individual? Does it mean the GAC is psychopathic? Does it mean the average internet user who supplied observations is a psychopathic deviate?
What's ironic is that GAC may actually be a more comprehensive psychological resource than the MMPI. By selecting observations from so many individuals, GAC has tremendous data on what typical thought patterns are.
In fact, GAC could be used as a psychological test itself. This may be why they are giving GAC the MMPI. If GAC is "normal", so to speak, you could use GAC as a test. Even if it's not normal, you could "adjust" GAC to have responses more in line with a "normal" MMPI profile.
Then, you could "test" individuals by having them converse with GAC. The extent to which you "agree" with GAC or not is a gauge of the deviance of your personality. Ideally, it would be just like having a conversation with someone, only the extent to which you get along with GAC reflects on your abnormality.
Interesting...
I am a bioinformatics graduate student who IS processing data from the genome project in his spare time.
I regularly run jobs on supercomputers.
Often, I bring work home with me, because it's more comfy there. Last fall, I bought a Pentium 1 Ghz w / 384 Mb RAM.
I frequently kick myself for not buying more RAM (I'll probably upgrade to >=512 Mb soon), and yes, the difference between 1 and 2 Ghz matters to me.
I might represent a small proportion of users, but to us, it makes all the difference to have home computing systems pushed to the limits of performance and affordability.
I have now owned both WinCE (Casio) and Palm PDAs.
I have to attest to the fact that I was much more impressed with the WinCE device to begin with.
As many have pointed out, it just seems to have so many more features!
It's rather telling, however, that I have now ditched the CE device because I found the thing to be completely impractical for what it was designed for. I use the Palm almost exclusively, although it is rather old and doesn't have the features of the CE device, simply because it's easier to use. I now realize all those extra features of the CE weren't doing anything but getting in the way. The interface was more clutsy, and the apps on the CE were just bizarre attempts to cram a desktop onto a smaller device.
PDAs aren't desktops; I don't want them to function that way. That's what laptops and subnotebooks are for.
Perhaps Palm the company is having problems. Is Palm the OS, though? If it is, that's too bad.
It seems to me all they need to do is bring the hardware in line with the great software they have.
One thing I've noticed in the posts is that no one seems to be claiming WinCE is a better OS; they're all gloating over the hardware. It would be a real shame if MS gained ascendance in the PDA field because of hardware its OS has nothing to do with. It'd be just one more way it's used its monopoly to push an inferior product. Bundle a crappy OS with decent hardware, push out the competition, and control standards. Great.
I think feel an urge to buy Sony right about now.
I saw a home improvement show with Bob Vila (or however you spell his name) where they demonstrated a tankless water heater. Beautiful! I'm a student; my wife and I live in an apartment right now. As soon as we get a house (if we get a house?) I want to put one of those in! No comparison. Tankless heaters are more efficient, take up much less space (the one I saw was just resting on the wall; about the size of a small/medium sized fuse box), and, best of all, as you point out, no running out of hot water!
I can second this observation in a big way.
I'm a graduate student in psychology who is specializing in behavioral genetics/genomics and statistical methodology.
In my first year of grad school, somewhat before the explosion of bioinformatics, I took courses in molecular biology and neurogenetics. Other grad students in wet labish biology fields were often astonished at the extensive stats courses we were [are] expected to take. They would say things like "we're told not to bother much with stats, because at most we need things like t-tests and ANOVAs and whatnot".
They probably won't be saying that any longer.
Observing the introduction of stats and math into biology has been fascinating: e.g., in reading articles on PCA and eigendecomposition being used for microarray analysis, you get the impression that PCA is new, fresh, exciting all over again. It's like watching a whole field being introduced to this stuff, realizing how cool stats can really be.
I can't wait for undergrads to pick up a Bio 101 book and learn basic stat, info, and measurement theory as part of the standard curriculum.
WRITE INTEL:
n ta ct.htm
http://developer.intel.com/software/security/co
All my respects to Python, but I have to ask the same question about Ruby.
As you say, it's clean, fast, easy to extend, easy to code for. And there's no whitespace issues to balk at, even for 30 seconds (although there are legitimate reasons to balk at whitespace issues for more than 30 seconds).
I have used Perl almost extensively, and love it--Perl deserves all the use and attention it has--but when I think of something "cleaner" I'd like to use, my thoughts switch to Ruby, not Python.
In Ruby's case, though, I can probably say its age is why it hasn't moved further yet (at least in the U.S.;the first Ruby conference is this year). Ruby's acceptance has moved rather quickly when you think about it.
If you have been thinking about Python, and haven't taken a look at Ruby, *please* do. You'll probably like it. Ruby's too good to not at least check out.
www.ruby-lang.org
It's funny you should ask that question. If you haven't noticed, in the past few months, there has been a push among sleep researchers to alert the public to the importance of sleep.
The bottom line is, Americans need more sleep. The whole "less sleep is better" or "rise and shine" attitude seems to be an antiquated leftover from the 19th century when we didn't have electricity and getting up with dawn conserved time.
Anyway, from what I've been able to read:
(1) Figure out when you naturally would go to bed and naturally would wake up. "Naturally" means on vacation when you're not up 'til 4:30 at a LAN party or whatever.
(2) Try to aim for going to bed and waking up with your natural schedule. Consistency helps; getting few hours one night will throw off your sleep the next few days.
(3) Watch how much you sleep. If it's substantially different from 7-9 hours of sleep, there might be a problem, whether it be physical, psychological, or both. I've now learned, for example, that when I sleep much more than 8 hours, It's a pretty reliable sign I'm getting sick.
(4) Don't take substances close to before when you go to sleep (alcohol, caffeine, etc.). The key is to not mess up REM sleep. Dreams are your way for your brain to learn and assimilate what's happened during the day. When it can't do that, you have problems.
(5) After you get little sleep, there is sometimes a feeling that you have extra energy or some such thing. This is somewhat of an illusion: attention and cognitive performance actually inevitably degrade with lack of sleep, the feeling of extra energy is fleeting anyway.
Sweet dreams!
I'm split about satellite radio.
It's clear to me FM radio has been disintegrating since FCC regulations changed, and is now a pile of crap except for the public [listener paid] stations (which are actually excellent in my area). I would love to get some more good content, and I suspect satellite radio might address this. Especially given that I, the listener, rather than the producers, would be paying for it. The thought makes me want to run to the store right now!
On the other hand, I am deeply suspicious of these things. A number of indivduals have made comparisons with Spinner, for example. Spinner does give me choice, but it's a choice that's driven by demographic studies and industry genres. I get tired of not hearing real people on Spinner, people who want to tell me about what they think is interesting or cool, people who interview real artists and discuss their music with them, make it a process rather than a product.
I don't want separate channels for trip-hop, ambient, free jazz, fusion, avant-guarde, baroque classical, minimalist classical, opera, or bebop. Those aren't musical tastes, they're categories of music sales departments. I'm not a label, nor are my musical tastes. Ten years from now, the categories will be different, and I want stations that will be flexible enough to encompass them.
To be honest, except for the existing services to be carried by satellite, I don't see satellite radio providing fundamentally better programming. It's just another corporate attempt to encompass the widest demographic via radio (albeit, perhaps, a much better attempt than the corporate attempts of current FM).
The real problem won't be solved until radio becomes truly accessible to the average joe and jane, enough for a group with a certain vision to establish a radio station because they have a voice they want to be heard. The FCC needs to come up with a way of making audio broadcasting accessible.
Amazing! I was just speaking with a colleague about this (there's an upcoming conference at our university about the crisis in scientific publishing).
Citeseer truly is amazing, and is useful as a search engine and a model of research dissemination. However, the problem is third-party review. Any sort of gnutella or napster for papers will not quite replace journals because they lack review.
However, slashcode has the peer review quality built in! Slashdot, in effect, is just one huge peer-reviewed newsgroup.
It seems like someone (I don't have the time to do all by myself) could alter slashcode to post paper titles and abstracts instead of stories, with links to ps, pdf, latex, etc. versions of the papers. Reviewers rate the articles, and give their review. Other readers could then rate the reviews themselves. Perhaps individuals could only post papers if their reviews have high enough ratings; ratings and reviews of papers might be weighted by their own ratings; etc. etc. etc.
Ignoring themes and whatnot, it seems the only real change is allowing for some numeric rating of the papers--like a Slashdot where posts include ratings of the stories. Readers could filter papers/stories by rating, etc. Those who want everything get it, those who get want high-profile papers only get those.
Beautiful!
...when "non-CS/engineering" fields begin to realize that computer programming is as relevant to biology, neuroscience, genetics, psychology, etc., as it is to math, physics, EE, ME, etc.
In grad school, I often wondered why programming courses weren't required as they are in engineering programs. Perhaps this will change soon.
Write your local universities and tell them about your problem.
In the meantime, look for statisticians.
Now, I'm generally of the opinion design is most important, and one should choose a language (a) for the job, and (b) that one likes, but I can't help but use this opportunity to plug Ruby.
u by .html
I have been using Perl heavily, and love it, but Ruby is so damn cool and clean!
Witness, for example, the following three implementations of "Hello World", a la Ruby:
(1)
class Foo
def hello
print "Hello, World"
end
end
(2)
def writeln(str)
print(str, "\n")
end
writeln("Hello, World!")
(3)
print "hello world\n"
Ruby is cleaner than Perl, and more object-oriented than Python. No whitespace nonsense, no @$; stuff either.
Granted, Perl has a much bigger support base, but that's a function of age, not the language itself.
Ruby might not be for everyone, but it's worth checking out if you haven't:
Ruby page:
http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/
IBM's approving review:
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/r
(I'm to lazy to put things into HTML at the moment)
That's the whole point--Pluto is the only planet we haven't visited.
And while we could all sit here for hours and argue back and forth about why we'd rather see a mission to Pluto or more Mars missions or a new space shuttle or moon colonies or whatever, the fact remains we no next to nothing about Pluto and Charon.
I for one want to know, just so I can get it off my mind before I pass away. Space.com, for example, has a link from the story to another story about the status of Pluto as a planet. Maybe if we actually spent some time figuring out what the heck was going on out there we wouldn't be arguing about these things.
Finally, the mission isn't just about Pluto, it's about Pluto and the Kuiper belt. There are tons of reasons to be interested in that area of the solar system aside from Pluto--like it being a mysterious source of icy rocks that get hurtled toward us, causing us to come up with grandiose plans involving nuclear warheads and laser beams in an attempt to prevent our extinction.
I'm in an ENTIRELY different field than geology or chemistry, but from what I've read (unfortunately, not the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [PNAS, www.pnas.org] articles, which I will read when I get my copy) is that the dating of the material surrounding the magnetite is much older than any known life on Earth, and, more importantly, much older than the estimated time that the meteorite hit the surface.
So you basically have to suggest that the meteorite hit the surface much much earlier than current estimates, or that somehow Earth fossils much older than the time the meteorite hit the earth became embedded within the meteorite.
The more serious problems are (a) ruling out nonbiological formation of magnetite chains, or (b) inappropriately focusing on anomalous magnetite formations while ignoring other magnetite formations consistent with nonbiological origin.
...that you don't measure the success of an ad in terms of the number of times people click on it???
For example, suppose Coca-Cola set up a cable tv channel where you could buy Coke by dialing up a phone number, etc. Now how sane would it be for Coca-Cola to assume that the success of a tv ad is measured in the number of times an individual changes the channel to the Coke channel?
Right now, there is a Rackspace banner ad displayed on my screen. I'm not going to click on it. Why? Cause I don't need it! But you can bet your dollar that if I ever do need it, I will probably have this vague feeling that "rackspace" is something I should look into, or that Rackspace is something that I'm familiar with and is a good product for "some strange reason".
Ads never were, and never will be, about getting someone to want to "pursue", "possess", "interact with", "get" the ad. They are about increasing your familiarity with product and getting you to want the product.
This is why, if subscription or micropayments or whatever are implemented, the best sites ultimately will get paid by banner ads. When a site is REALLY good, and gets tons of hits, ad smart agencies will pay to have their ads displayed on that site just for the exposure. They won't care if people click or it or not, because millions of people will SEE their product and KNOW about it. The bottom line is the bottom line, not the number of clicks.
I second this idea, for what it's worth.
It would be interesting to see someone print a book including the DeCSS code, aside from any ramifications it might have for the case (although those would be a good side benefit). Isn't it an interesting enough topic in itself? Intellectual property rights, fair use, cryptography, open source--what more subject areas would you want?
Heck, you could write a book on the DMCA or intellectual property claims as a fundamental civil concern of contemporary society, covering this and a whole lot more! Put the DeCSS code on the cover! I personally might be more interested in a DeCSS book per se, and a DeCSS book would be easier to write, but if the scope could be expanded, all the better! It's really a topic that needs to be written about in book form, regardless of the DeCSS case. Intellectual property right issues extend far beyond DeCSS into genomics, web design, the food industry...
So if anyone knows a publisher, or is a publisher--think about it as a real possibility.
This is a great idea, and one I've often wondered about. Why didn't multiplayer ever get retroactively applied to text adventure games? Or, alternatively, why wasn't RPG brought to the computer ala text adventure? It seems to me the "modules" of D&D were often simply interpreted by the DM in much the same way text adventures work. I'm not talking about hack-and-slash versions of D&D, but puzzle or story-based genres (e.g., Tomb of Horrors). Merge this all with the depth of a good adventure game, and you've got one hell of an adventure.
On a related note: I have been thinking about EQ and similar games a lot lately, and it seems to me the problem isn't the level of interactivity versus realism or action or whatever. Often, the problem is the level of interactivity for the realism a game engine can handle.
Someone else mentioned that you don't want an interactive game because you are free to do boring things. This is only partially true, because if you are doing boring things, it is most likely because the engine doesn't allow something else. EQ bugs me a lot: it's very interactive, but the engine can't handle the number of people involved, changes to the world based on player actions, etc.
Upping the interactivity is fine as long as the realism can accomodate the implied variety of courses of action.
As *another* one of those researchers, I have to say that concerns over these things *are* very real and worthwhile.
You are right in pointing out that practices are sometimes misrepresented, and that the actual harm done in cases of violation of consent are often nonexistent.
Nevertheless, contemporary biotech research is plagued to a horrific extent by egregious ethical problems that simply aren't being addressed by a college of individuals bent on making a profit. This is in part the result of tremendous technological gains in recent years that have introduced biologists to things (hard computation, multivariate stats, intellectual property) they are not prepared for or accustomed to. The unethical practices are condoned or ignored for the most part because the average individual simply doesn't understand what the @#$$% is going on.
Perhaps your mice have made far more serious sacrifices than any individual might have. The point, however, is that your mice cannot reason and come to logical decisions regarding appropriate use of their tissue.
It doesn't matter one bit how many hours you or me or anyone else slaves over a scope or screen processing data. That data represents real people who have very real, acceptable beliefs over what is appropriate to do with their bodies.
The minute we begin to argue that our research or efforts take precedent over the will of freely volunteering participants, the humans involved have no more rights than the mice in your lab.
Biotech, with its patenting of human genes, increasing dismissal of consent procedure, etc., more and more is engendering an atmosphere where the corporate profit trumps human rights. The argument that "we did the effort, therefore we own the rights" is a dangerous one. No one OWNS the human body or its constituent properties except, perhaps, each one of us our own.
If anyone thinks patenting crap involving online shopping baskets, domain names, and protocol terminology is a pile of nonsense that you can't believe, just wait until the biotech stuff really gets going. We already have assinine arguments that so-and-so OWNS such and such a human gene.
Just read a previous SciAmer article a couple a months back outlining the mess regarding microarray chip patenting, with a half a dozen companies claiming the own the blueprints for part of someones' body.
Drives me crazy. Drives me especially crazy because I'm right in the middle of it.