Since it will only cost money to deploy Vista, it will take away investments from production. So the export will drop. That's not good. Unless Microsoft offers to pay these 650000 people, of course.
Then you have to assume a soul in animals (at least mammals) as well, since they clearly have a graps of concepts such as tree and rock.
Meaning can simply be defined as an activation pattern or a set of features. These features are learned through association. Thus you can identify the object and the word with the same meaning. If you want to read about it, try Barsalou: he very strongly propagates the idea that meaning is derived from sensorial input. I think he overdoes it, but his ideas are understandable.
Your only quarrel seems to be conciousness: it is not meaning per se that wonders you, but the fact that you can think about it.
I'm afraid the jury is still out on this one. The left inferior frontal gyrus, BA 45, pars opercularis, whatever you're looking at, does not only seem to be involved in syntax, but in other processes as well. And there is some evidence that it actively constructs meaning. The meaning of words is not just a lexical issue. You can use a context to name something and that name might have an "lexical" meaning, but that will be overruled in the context. All higher processes seem to be involved in this.
Anyway, I don't know why I write this, since nobody seems to read it anyway...
As most scientists in the field could point out, there are a number of things wrong. They might have found an area that is critical for the process, *not* the place where it happens. That might be any part of the process involved in the tasks of matching words to objects. Obvious tasks that are required are acoustic decoding, lexical decoding, visual decoding. The example given in the article involves drawing from memory, something altogether different and known to involve the (medial) temporal lobe. Lexical processes have been assumed to take place all over the temporal lobe for quite some time now. So what they found was a correlate of semantic dementia in a place that has frequently been implied in lexical and memory related tasks since the early 1900s.
And nor fMRI nor MRI can tell anything about how something takes place, only where (and in the fMRI case) when, and then only with a very low resolution. The article doesn't give any details, but pure semantic dementia is rare and limited area lesions are also rare. So I (being a post-doc in the field) don't give much for their conclusions. Supportive, but nothing new.
How many people know that? I knew it, but I had forgotten the exact string. Tried a couple of about: URLs before I hit the jackpot.
And then what, by the way? How intuitive is it to change the string following intl.charsetmenu.browser.more1? And are you sure that a user cannot f*ck up, i.e. render the browser (nearly) non-functioning?
Furthermore, a browser can be deinstalled and installed again, but an OS, that's a different thing. It's not the UI (binding a feature to a control is not that difficult), but rather the underlying design. Is that ready for everything to be changed?
While I agree that users should have control over most features of any type of application, there is clearly a limit to what can be done.
You are boasting or very lucky, but in my experience a heavily used laptop cannot survive a lot of sleeping/waking up. Mine is an Acer (perhaps that explains it), but after my wife has played The Sims 2 on it, it gets really sluggish. When you hibernate it and wake it up again, the wireless connection is usually gone (not always, mind you, that would be too simple), plus I've noticed a few crashes after forcing a network connection. So it's shut-down after the Sims...
WebKit isn't Explorer. The Windows equivalent of the Finder, the Explorer, shares (many) DLLs with Internet Explorer; it even seems to share resources at run-time with it. The OSX Finder doesn't use WebKit (at least not up until now). The only thing you will damage by removing the WebKit framework is applications that use it to display HTML or provide other simple browsing functionality, not any system application. Under Windows though, you would take away the entire interface.
Well, the geologists themselves have been using common for their definitions, so they are not really the ones to throw the first rock .
E.g., they use the word "bar" to mean two different things: 1. A unit of pressure equal to 10 to the sixth dynes/square centimeter; approximately one atmosphere; 2. An accumulation of sediment, usually sandy, which forms at the borders or in the channels of streams or offshore from a beach. Last night my pal asked me: "are you coming to the bar", so I said yes, but I didn't know he meant "an accumulation of sediment" <another snappy sound from the band>
Look up other geological definitions: basement, bedding or butte, and you'll see why geologists make such great comedians.
While I agree that the brain is not easily comparable to a computer, the main processing in the brain *is* electrical: neurons interchange information (to use the computer metaphor) by electrical spikes. These then send of neuro-transmitters, which in turn causes changes in the electrical balance on another neuron.
The closest thing to the brain's operating system would be your genes: that controls how connections are made, the balance between structures, the amounts of neuro-transmitters available, etc. For the rest, the brain is its own operating system.
You're completely right. This is psychology done by physicist. Hell, how do they dare to generalize given only one website, and not even a big international one at that?
Plus, judging from the summary, they didn't separate the articles. Of course, a large group of articles is going to be read only a few times, and a small group is going to be read very often. Zipf already told us so. I can't understand the site, but if they keep some stories longer on the page than others, the effect is entirely explained.
Another example of bad psychology published in a renowned physics journal?
Why not give it to Oracle? Why not rolling it into cheap medicine for development countries? Or fundamental research? Or a great new weapon system?
It's a fine. It's not meant to distribute the money in that particular market equally under all competitors. It's meant as a punishment for Microsoft.
And the idea that the EC is going to decide what software is going to be developed and by whom and how, gives me the creepers. If you know the EC's record on scientific funding, the thought of them funding software development will turn you into a Redmond client for the rest of your life.
All fine, but there is an extremely small chance that we are going to find a signal. The number of planets in listening range is small (the rest is drowned out by background noise) and thus we cannot expect a lot of life. Intelligent life on other planets may very well be a million years ahead or late with respect to us. A couple of hundred years difference (either way) is enough to guarantee that they were not broadcasting radio signals at the time we're hearing. So, 20 years is not enough to find a signal. Even if there is intelligent life nearby, we might need thousands and thousands of years.
Ok, I didn't bother to read the paper, but it is too obvious that your chances of winning are higher when bidding later. That's how auctions are supposed to work. So a publication is PLE seems too much reward .
As for sociologists or psychologists not understanding maths: physicists sometimes only understand the much maths. They try to tackle each problem as if it was composed of a bunch of autonomous particles and then fit some simple differential equation. Doesn't matter if the particles have a memory or not, doesn't matter their behaviour is not as random as they like to assume, etc. Consequently, the outcome of such modelling brings very little insight. Let them apply their methods to problems that are suited to them, or learn something new...
Hey, Vista is not Software Engineering 101. Everyone who participated in a major software project probably ended up accepting circular dependencies. It's a compromise between the size and usability of a module on one hand and independency on the other. And if you don't want to duplicate code (talking about SE-101), things can get quite complex in such a big system.
Not that I'm looking forward of installing it on my Dual Core iMac, though...
There are other caps now, that measure at much lower levels. They work without gel and don't have to be worn on the scalp. It's a lot faster, but the signal gets noisier. You need really good amplifiers for them.
No need to be just sceptical, it's downright stupid. These people have perhaps never even seen a real EEG recording. Now, if the password would have to be as long as, say, one minute or so, then a lot of noise could be cancelled out...
Anyway, there are researchers engaged in competitions where they try to reconstruct the stimuli based on the EEG pattern and they seem to succeed in distinguishing some 200.A personal signature in that mess is noisy, so to avoid false recognition (while striving for perfect correct recognition) is going to be near impossible.
It was not primarily "Nazi German" know-how. Firstly because it wasn't the Nazis that fled to the US, but their opponents. Secondly because the contributing scientists came from all over Europe (Fermi was Italian, Einstein was Swiss, Von Neumann and Teller Hungarian) and even the US (Oppenheimer was a New Yorker). Thirdly, because most it was started before the Nazis and heavily borrowed from research done in the invaded countries.
Finally, if the Allied and German projects overlapped that much, the US could continue on its own. They couldn't (the US wasn't up to rocket science), so that argument seems to be somewhat flawed.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this is known as an a-preposition, a particular type of a-grammatism.
I always been taught rats were the rodents that spread diseases. That only shows how much we've progressed since the dark Middle Ages...
May the colon key on your keyboard stop working for you and the seven generations to come after you!
Since it will only cost money to deploy Vista, it will take away investments from production. So the export will drop. That's not good. Unless Microsoft offers to pay these 650000 people, of course.
Then you have to assume a soul in animals (at least mammals) as well, since they clearly have a graps of concepts such as tree and rock.
Meaning can simply be defined as an activation pattern or a set of features. These features are learned through association. Thus you can identify the object and the word with the same meaning. If you want to read about it, try Barsalou: he very strongly propagates the idea that meaning is derived from sensorial input. I think he overdoes it, but his ideas are understandable.
Your only quarrel seems to be conciousness: it is not meaning per se that wonders you, but the fact that you can think about it.
I'm afraid the jury is still out on this one. The left inferior frontal gyrus, BA 45, pars opercularis, whatever you're looking at, does not only seem to be involved in syntax, but in other processes as well. And there is some evidence that it actively constructs meaning. The meaning of words is not just a lexical issue. You can use a context to name something and that name might have an "lexical" meaning, but that will be overruled in the context. All higher processes seem to be involved in this.
Anyway, I don't know why I write this, since nobody seems to read it anyway...
As most scientists in the field could point out, there are a number of things wrong. They might have found an area that is critical for the process, *not* the place where it happens. That might be any part of the process involved in the tasks of matching words to objects. Obvious tasks that are required are acoustic decoding, lexical decoding, visual decoding. The example given in the article involves drawing from memory, something altogether different and known to involve the (medial) temporal lobe. Lexical processes have been assumed to take place all over the temporal lobe for quite some time now. So what they found was a correlate of semantic dementia in a place that has frequently been implied in lexical and memory related tasks since the early 1900s.
And nor fMRI nor MRI can tell anything about how something takes place, only where (and in the fMRI case) when, and then only with a very low resolution. The article doesn't give any details, but pure semantic dementia is rare and limited area lesions are also rare. So I (being a post-doc in the field) don't give much for their conclusions. Supportive, but nothing new.
How many people know that? I knew it, but I had forgotten the exact string. Tried a couple of about: URLs before I hit the jackpot.
And then what, by the way? How intuitive is it to change the string following intl.charsetmenu.browser.more1? And are you sure that a user cannot f*ck up, i.e. render the browser (nearly) non-functioning?
Furthermore, a browser can be deinstalled and installed again, but an OS, that's a different thing. It's not the UI (binding a feature to a control is not that difficult), but rather the underlying design. Is that ready for everything to be changed?
While I agree that users should have control over most features of any type of application, there is clearly a limit to what can be done.
You are boasting or very lucky, but in my experience a heavily used laptop cannot survive a lot of sleeping/waking up. Mine is an Acer (perhaps that explains it), but after my wife has played The Sims 2 on it, it gets really sluggish. When you hibernate it and wake it up again, the wireless connection is usually gone (not always, mind you, that would be too simple), plus I've noticed a few crashes after forcing a network connection. So it's shut-down after the Sims...
WebKit isn't Explorer. The Windows equivalent of the Finder, the Explorer, shares (many) DLLs with Internet Explorer; it even seems to share resources at run-time with it. The OSX Finder doesn't use WebKit (at least not up until now). The only thing you will damage by removing the WebKit framework is applications that use it to display HTML or provide other simple browsing functionality, not any system application. Under Windows though, you would take away the entire interface.
Well, the geologists themselves have been using common for their definitions, so they are not really the ones to throw the first rock .
E.g., they use the word "bar" to mean two different things: 1. A unit of pressure equal to 10 to the sixth dynes/square centimeter; approximately one atmosphere; 2. An accumulation of sediment, usually sandy, which forms at the borders or in the channels of streams or offshore from a beach. Last night my pal asked me: "are you coming to the bar", so I said yes, but I didn't know he meant "an accumulation of sediment" <another snappy sound from the band>
Look up other geological definitions: basement, bedding or butte, and you'll see why geologists make such great comedians.
While I agree that the brain is not easily comparable to a computer, the main processing in the brain *is* electrical: neurons interchange information (to use the computer metaphor) by electrical spikes. These then send of neuro-transmitters, which in turn causes changes in the electrical balance on another neuron.
The closest thing to the brain's operating system would be your genes: that controls how connections are made, the balance between structures, the amounts of neuro-transmitters available, etc. For the rest, the brain is its own operating system.
I hereby claim the name "iZune"!
You're completely right. This is psychology done by physicist. Hell, how do they dare to generalize given only one website, and not even a big international one at that?
Plus, judging from the summary, they didn't separate the articles. Of course, a large group of articles is going to be read only a few times, and a small group is going to be read very often. Zipf already told us so. I can't understand the site, but if they keep some stories longer on the page than others, the effect is entirely explained.
Another example of bad psychology published in a renowned physics journal?
Why not give it to Oracle? Why not rolling it into cheap medicine for development countries? Or fundamental research? Or a great new weapon system?
It's a fine. It's not meant to distribute the money in that particular market equally under all competitors. It's meant as a punishment for Microsoft.
And the idea that the EC is going to decide what software is going to be developed and by whom and how, gives me the creepers. If you know the EC's record on scientific funding, the thought of them funding software development will turn you into a Redmond client for the rest of your life.
All fine, but there is an extremely small chance that we are going to find a signal. The number of planets in listening range is small (the rest is drowned out by background noise) and thus we cannot expect a lot of life. Intelligent life on other planets may very well be a million years ahead or late with respect to us. A couple of hundred years difference (either way) is enough to guarantee that they were not broadcasting radio signals at the time we're hearing. So, 20 years is not enough to find a signal. Even if there is intelligent life nearby, we might need thousands and thousands of years.
Facha de mierda!
And for you English speaking people out there: that roughly means "shitty fascist".
Ok, I didn't bother to read the paper, but it is too obvious that your chances of winning are higher when bidding later. That's how auctions are supposed to work. So a publication is PLE seems too much reward .
As for sociologists or psychologists not understanding maths: physicists sometimes only understand the much maths. They try to tackle each problem as if it was composed of a bunch of autonomous particles and then fit some simple differential equation. Doesn't matter if the particles have a memory or not, doesn't matter their behaviour is not as random as they like to assume, etc. Consequently, the outcome of such modelling brings very little insight. Let them apply their methods to problems that are suited to them, or learn something new...
Hey, Vista is not Software Engineering 101. Everyone who participated in a major software project probably ended up accepting circular dependencies. It's a compromise between the size and usability of a module on one hand and independency on the other. And if you don't want to duplicate code (talking about SE-101), things can get quite complex in such a big system.
Not that I'm looking forward of installing it on my Dual Core iMac, though...
That would be on top of this. And it is a bad idea.
Isn't this known as a "fishing expedition"?
There are other caps now, that measure at much lower levels. They work without gel and don't have to be worn on the scalp. It's a lot faster, but the signal gets noisier. You need really good amplifiers for them.
No need to be just sceptical, it's downright stupid. These people have perhaps never even seen a real EEG recording. Now, if the password would have to be as long as, say, one minute or so, then a lot of noise could be cancelled out...
Anyway, there are researchers engaged in competitions where they try to reconstruct the stimuli based on the EEG pattern and they seem to succeed in distinguishing some 200.A personal signature in that mess is noisy, so to avoid false recognition (while striving for perfect correct recognition) is going to be near impossible.
It was not primarily "Nazi German" know-how. Firstly because it wasn't the Nazis that fled to the US, but their opponents. Secondly because the contributing scientists came from all over Europe (Fermi was Italian, Einstein was Swiss, Von Neumann and Teller Hungarian) and even the US (Oppenheimer was a New Yorker). Thirdly, because most it was started before the Nazis and heavily borrowed from research done in the invaded countries.
Finally, if the Allied and German projects overlapped that much, the US could continue on its own. They couldn't (the US wasn't up to rocket science), so that argument seems to be somewhat flawed.
Thanks God it doesn't sound like vinyl! I can do without encoders that add scratches and dust to my records...