Any relation between an employer and employee is a minefield, but in this case ethics demands that the eggs were donated voluntarily. That can be easily doubted in the case of subordinates in a strict hierarchy.
And, IMHO, it should be, but that's (as I said) my opinion.
Reading can be controlled by attention, but what's mostly modulated by attention is the final decision. So you can expect a difference in the brain center that is usually associated with decision making.
> The National Academy of Sciences. I guess they should add you as a reviewer?
I do review articles for journals, but not for the NAS (which is USA only, I think). They seem to have lower standards than e.g. JML (can't find impact listing). Anyway, I work in one of these brain research centers, and I believe less than a tenth of what is claimed...
You can't be serious. The Stroop effect cannot be supposed to have its own neural substrate, it's just an effect of interaction between subtrates that have different functions. The anterior cingulate is generally associated with control and decision. Less activity can be easily explained as paying attention to one instead of two sources of information. So it's not hypnosis, but just another instruction effect, where the instruction was given in a condition labelled "hypnosis".
Resuming: jumping to conclusions. Who the hell allowed this to be published?
I don't have to read the article to assume it's based in statistical methods, based on correlating whatever the algorithm measures to these "social" responses. If you get a similar correlation for a new song, you predict the same success rate. Works 8 out of 10 times for a short period.
Such a model wouldn't say absolutely anything about the psychology behind music appreciation. It's like applying neural networks to predict football results; the network wouldn't understand football, would it?
No, this is another fucked up idea of what science is supposed to be doing. They should try to figure out something meaningful, not try to get rich ASAP.
Mod parent up, since its parent is rather misleading for the uninformed. I would like to add that most of the knowledge on visual pathways comes from live monkey research, and is only partially known to translate to human vision.
So the argument ("we need 3 months to decrypt the disk") for the 3-month-detention law was misleading? By Jove! That Tony Blair surely needs to be slapped in the face. He really deserved to lose the vote.
Here's my free advice how to end this charade: introduce a law that makes it obligatory to give up your passwords (should a judge say so); not complying (or giving false passwords) will result in detention of up to, say, two years?
Of course, you have to introduce some restrictions: the law should only apply under suspicion of fraud exceeding a certain amount, real threats of terrorism, etc.
Tony Blair can introduce this bill and save his face.
Ok, you've had your say, now take a tranquilizer and sit down.
Some portability issues are too important to leave for the last moment. Some could require you to rewrite your application.
E.g., there's nothing wrong with sizeof() in C/C++, but it isn't 100% portable (think file i/o). These are some other stupid issues with compilers that can really drive you crazy (try the HP C++ compilers; they're quite different from GNU, and linking g++ code against HP object files is not possible).
And then there are library differences. E.g., deleting an ifstream object doesn't close the file handle anymore. It used to at some platform. So if you're relying on that kind of thing, porting your system will become anything between a pain in the ass or a nightmare.
GUIs are another example. If you rely just a little bit too much on the functionality of your initial develop environment, breaking functionality away from the interface to the library can be horrible. Think #ifdef spaghetti here. Making a cautious design decision beforehand could have saved the day.
I agree you should design your code properly first, but keep in mind that some coding decisions you can silently make, can have horrible consequences for portability.
Whoever wrote "as long as needed" probably has some interest in the company, since that's clear marketing speak. Another example of Slashvertising? Or just an attempt to raise the stock price?
Well, Sherlock Holmes you are not; I am Dutch. The spelling error is caused by roman influences.
Although a few critical words in your reasoning are missing, I agree that there is a risk that we will repeat the nazi's errors. However, that's not the same as saying "They were not the first genocids in history, though, not even in recent history. I don't think they were any superlative, as people usually imply, here. Many countries committed awful crimes against humanity, too." That only puts other regimes (not countries) in the evil corners with the nazis, it does not make the nazi regime any less evil. Because evil is what they were. E.g., shortly after rising to power, they started killing disables people, with an economical justification. If that's not evil, nothing is.
And while Israel is a direct consequence of WWII (with the nazis being the principal cause), Iraq is the result of British pre-war colonial policy, just like the Pakistan/India conflict. Yes, colonialism is a bad thing, but doesn't kill people per se.
And communism in Russia was not about a more equitable world. It was a simple power struggle, in which the communists got the support of the masses who hoped for a better life. Lenin wanted to set up a very dictatorially led country, with himself on top. If he wanted any equity, it was by making the rich and noble lose their money and lives, not by giving the poor a better life.
If you're going to argue on the basis of original ideas, you might like to look at the original nazi philosophy (the -zi stands for socialist). To spell it out: intentions don't count, the result does.
So, Churchill is evil, because he writes in admiring terms about a battle with a slave trader and his followers (yes, they were trading slaves), where some 10.000 people were killed. And Hitler is respectable, because he ordered the killing of some 20 million people who were not even partaking in a battle, and caused the death of some 20 million more as a consequence of the war he started.
You are a very sorry person, and the people who modded you up (again) are just as sick.
You are wrong. While the original idea behind communism was supposed to be appealing to the masses because of a fair distribution of wealth, all implementations of that idea have miserably failed. Stalin alone can be held responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people. That's not equitable. The masses lived in misery because of bizarre decisions. These masses didn't have any influence on the decisions; the regime was not even close to democratic. Communism always has lead to dictature and rather brutal ones.
That doesn't mean the USA (probably the "we" you mean) is good to the world. But that world is not the "new world built by the winners", but the old world we inherited.
And when someone is bad, doesn't imply his opponent is good.
And, my god, now that I read it again: you're even condoning the nazis. On one hand, you're blaming "us" for not being good, while in reality we're not doing anything at all, but you condone the cruelest of crimes with a relativistic "other guys are not nice either, you know". You are seriously sick.
Man, how many reasoning errors can you make in one simple post.
And you, prat, how much of it did you solve already? Why don't you spend your time better than commenting on Slashdot. Find the solution for world peace, then come back.
How does this kind of hatred end up being modded "insightful?" Is this the end of Slashdot as we know it?
BTW, if you believe that the nazis and communists fought for a more equitable world, I would urge you to speak to the people who lived there and then. I think you'll find another view.
I agree with above poster. When you are serious about this, you're either a way-out heremite, or you're going to need professional help. Quickly.
Most people cannot live without other people (hey, even the brain improves from social relations), and most of those that claim they can, are, well, let's be polite, lying. There's a very, very small group that could do so without negative consequences for themselves, and assuming this kid belongs to this minority is presumptuous.
You go and fool yourself that you don't need other people; I know you could be a lot happier in company, although I agree you would have to find the right kind.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. I'm putting this bluntly, but social skills are what makes you move through life without suicidal tendencies... Yes, absence of social life can seriously depress you.
"Evaluating the interpreter by hand" is not interpreting, which is what you demanded. And no, the scheme would apply to all objects.
The run-time library doesn't contain language specific objects, but even then name lookup is possible since most compilers support debugging information.
And that's not the point. The point is that in Python the language gives it to you for free, whereas in C you need to add some (or quite a lot) of code to obtain the same, without interpretation.
And btw, the reverse also holds. I'm pretty sure you can't write bitfield structure members in Python, nor can you do the remarkable pointer arithmetic C is capable of. Ergo, C is a more powerful language than Python.
Hmm, now let me think: C > Python && Python > C. There something wrong here... Ah, I see, it's the operator. It hasn't been defined really properly, has it? Consequently, saying one language is more powerful than the other is really asking for trouble.
That seems put wrongly. I surely can write object introspection in C without resorting to an interpreter. I would, just like Python, add some kind of identifier to each object, during allocation or whatever. Just like the dynamic rtti and virtual functions in C++.
What he probably *should* have said is that a language is more powerful with respect to a certain task if it gives you features to avoid constructs necessary in the other language.
The need for an interpreter is nonsense since it can always be avoided.
I say: nonsense. Everything that can be programmed can be programmed in C++. Or C. Heck, even in Perl.
I know Objective-C (I do my modelling in Cocoa), and I know how the dynamic bit works, but to say that it cannot be done in C++ is BS in principle. It cannot be done in the same way, but it surely can be done.
Giving a book with misleading/unverified information CAN BE HARMFUL!
And with regard to the languages for the biggger Wikipedias: Swedish is not generally spoken in the third world. Nor is Finnish, Bokmal, Danish, and Czech. Esperanto, don't make me laugh. Catalan and Asturian, Oh My God, I see all Spanish regiolects there!
Then we come to the smaller ones: Welsh! Euskara! Limburgs (that's really embarrasing). And Indonesia hardly qualifies as a third world country, does it?
There is hardly a language there that's spoken in real third world countries. Not surprising, since real third world countries don't have a whole group of people with nothing to do but edit Wikipedia.
No, this is a bad, bad, bad idea. It's a waste of resources.
True, I never could have guessed there would be an entry on that. And it wouldn't tell you what you would need to know, just the superficial stuff. It is badly written and only informative to those in-the-know. In the introduction, it says this:
The Slashdot subculture is a mixture of juvenilia, sarcasm, deliberately bad jokes, intellectual arrogance and highly developed and artistic attempts to provoke outraged responses from other forum users, amuse them, or challenge their thinking on the popular Slashdot technology website. Many of these are older phenomena which originated in common slang culture, later migrating to Usenet and eventually Slashdot.
A sub-culture is not a mixture of communication styles, to begin with, as the Wikipedia entry points out. And of course sarcasm is a phenomenon older than Slashdot, and it didn't originate in Usenet either.
But well, I suppose Wikipedia is very much like the internet: there's a lot of information, provided it's somebody's hobby, without commercial interest, and given up after a short initial effort.
Slashdot Mirror
Any relation between an employer and employee is a minefield, but in this case ethics demands that the eggs were donated voluntarily. That can be easily doubted in the case of subordinates in a strict hierarchy.
And, IMHO, it should be, but that's (as I said) my opinion.
That's what he says, but you know how important it can be to save your face. More important than telling the truth, I would say...
Reading can be controlled by attention, but what's mostly modulated by attention is the final decision. So you can expect a difference in the brain center that is usually associated with decision making.
> The National Academy of Sciences. I guess they should add you as a reviewer?
I do review articles for journals, but not for the NAS (which is USA only, I think). They seem to have lower standards than e.g. JML (can't find impact listing). Anyway, I work in one of these brain research centers, and I believe less than a tenth of what is claimed...
You can't be serious. The Stroop effect cannot be supposed to have its own neural substrate, it's just an effect of interaction between subtrates that have different functions. The anterior cingulate is generally associated with control and decision. Less activity can be easily explained as paying attention to one instead of two sources of information. So it's not hypnosis, but just another instruction effect, where the instruction was given in a condition labelled "hypnosis".
Resuming: jumping to conclusions. Who the hell allowed this to be published?
The Cocoa stuff is, but the BSD part and the X11 part are completely open. Search for "Darwin"...
I don't have to read the article to assume it's based in statistical methods, based on correlating whatever the algorithm measures to these "social" responses. If you get a similar correlation for a new song, you predict the same success rate. Works 8 out of 10 times for a short period.
Such a model wouldn't say absolutely anything about the psychology behind music appreciation. It's like applying neural networks to predict football results; the network wouldn't understand football, would it?
No, this is another fucked up idea of what science is supposed to be doing. They should try to figure out something meaningful, not try to get rich ASAP.
Mod parent up, since its parent is rather misleading for the uninformed. I would like to add that most of the knowledge on visual pathways comes from live monkey research, and is only partially known to translate to human vision.
So the argument ("we need 3 months to decrypt the disk") for the 3-month-detention law was misleading? By Jove! That Tony Blair surely needs to be slapped in the face. He really deserved to lose the vote.
Here's my free advice how to end this charade: introduce a law that makes it obligatory to give up your passwords (should a judge say so); not complying (or giving false passwords) will result in detention of up to, say, two years?
Of course, you have to introduce some restrictions: the law should only apply under suspicion of fraud exceeding a certain amount, real threats of terrorism, etc.
Tony Blair can introduce this bill and save his face.
Ok, you've had your say, now take a tranquilizer and sit down.
Some portability issues are too important to leave for the last moment. Some could require you to rewrite your application.
E.g., there's nothing wrong with sizeof() in C/C++, but it isn't 100% portable (think file i/o). These are some other stupid issues with compilers that can really drive you crazy (try the HP C++ compilers; they're quite different from GNU, and linking g++ code against HP object files is not possible).
And then there are library differences. E.g., deleting an ifstream object doesn't close the file handle anymore. It used to at some platform. So if you're relying on that kind of thing, porting your system will become anything between a pain in the ass or a nightmare.
GUIs are another example. If you rely just a little bit too much on the functionality of your initial develop environment, breaking functionality away from the interface to the library can be horrible. Think #ifdef spaghetti here. Making a cautious design decision beforehand could have saved the day.
I agree you should design your code properly first, but keep in mind that some coding decisions you can silently make, can have horrible consequences for portability.
Whoever wrote "as long as needed" probably has some interest in the company, since that's clear marketing speak. Another example of Slashvertising? Or just an attempt to raise the stock price?
Well, Sherlock Holmes you are not; I am Dutch. The spelling error is caused by roman influences.
Although a few critical words in your reasoning are missing, I agree that there is a risk that we will repeat the nazi's errors. However, that's not the same as saying "They were not the first genocids in history, though, not even in recent history. I don't think they were any superlative, as people usually imply, here. Many countries committed awful crimes against humanity, too." That only puts other regimes (not countries) in the evil corners with the nazis, it does not make the nazi regime any less evil. Because evil is what they were. E.g., shortly after rising to power, they started killing disables people, with an economical justification. If that's not evil, nothing is.
And while Israel is a direct consequence of WWII (with the nazis being the principal cause), Iraq is the result of British pre-war colonial policy, just like the Pakistan/India conflict. Yes, colonialism is a bad thing, but doesn't kill people per se.
And communism in Russia was not about a more equitable world. It was a simple power struggle, in which the communists got the support of the masses who hoped for a better life. Lenin wanted to set up a very dictatorially led country, with himself on top. If he wanted any equity, it was by making the rich and noble lose their money and lives, not by giving the poor a better life.
If you're going to argue on the basis of original ideas, you might like to look at the original nazi philosophy (the -zi stands for socialist). To spell it out: intentions don't count, the result does.
So, Churchill is evil, because he writes in admiring terms about a battle with a slave trader and his followers (yes, they were trading slaves), where some 10.000 people were killed. And Hitler is respectable, because he ordered the killing of some 20 million people who were not even partaking in a battle, and caused the death of some 20 million more as a consequence of the war he started.
You are a very sorry person, and the people who modded you up (again) are just as sick.
You are wrong. While the original idea behind communism was supposed to be appealing to the masses because of a fair distribution of wealth, all implementations of that idea have miserably failed. Stalin alone can be held responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people. That's not equitable. The masses lived in misery because of bizarre decisions. These masses didn't have any influence on the decisions; the regime was not even close to democratic. Communism always has lead to dictature and rather brutal ones.
That doesn't mean the USA (probably the "we" you mean) is good to the world. But that world is not the "new world built by the winners", but the old world we inherited.
And when someone is bad, doesn't imply his opponent is good.
And, my god, now that I read it again: you're even condoning the nazis. On one hand, you're blaming "us" for not being good, while in reality we're not doing anything at all, but you condone the cruelest of crimes with a relativistic "other guys are not nice either, you know". You are seriously sick.
Man, how many reasoning errors can you make in one simple post.
Does that count as a major shake-up?
And you, prat, how much of it did you solve already? Why don't you spend your time better than commenting on Slashdot. Find the solution for world peace, then come back.
How does this kind of hatred end up being modded "insightful?" Is this the end of Slashdot as we know it?
BTW, if you believe that the nazis and communists fought for a more equitable world, I would urge you to speak to the people who lived there and then. I think you'll find another view.
I agree with above poster. When you are serious about this, you're either a way-out heremite, or you're going to need professional help. Quickly.
Most people cannot live without other people (hey, even the brain improves from social relations), and most of those that claim they can, are, well, let's be polite, lying. There's a very, very small group that could do so without negative consequences for themselves, and assuming this kid belongs to this minority is presumptuous.
You go and fool yourself that you don't need other people; I know you could be a lot happier in company, although I agree you would have to find the right kind.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. I'm putting this bluntly, but social skills are what makes you move through life without suicidal tendencies... Yes, absence of social life can seriously depress you.
"Evaluating the interpreter by hand" is not interpreting, which is what you demanded. And no, the scheme would apply to all objects.
The run-time library doesn't contain language specific objects, but even then name lookup is possible since most compilers support debugging information.
And that's not the point. The point is that in Python the language gives it to you for free, whereas in C you need to add some (or quite a lot) of code to obtain the same, without interpretation.
And btw, the reverse also holds. I'm pretty sure you can't write bitfield structure members in Python, nor can you do the remarkable pointer arithmetic C is capable of. Ergo, C is a more powerful language than Python.
Hmm, now let me think: C > Python && Python > C. There something wrong here... Ah, I see, it's the operator. It hasn't been defined really properly, has it? Consequently, saying one language is more powerful than the other is really asking for trouble.
Ok, it's absolutely not working yet, but it's a lot more than I could have imagined!
That seems put wrongly. I surely can write object introspection in C without resorting to an interpreter. I would, just like Python, add some kind of identifier to each object, during allocation or whatever. Just like the dynamic rtti and virtual functions in C++.
What he probably *should* have said is that a language is more powerful with respect to a certain task if it gives you features to avoid constructs necessary in the other language.
The need for an interpreter is nonsense since it can always be avoided.
When you've got the Core Data bit done, call me.
I say: nonsense. Everything that can be programmed can be programmed in C++. Or C. Heck, even in Perl.
I know Objective-C (I do my modelling in Cocoa), and I know how the dynamic bit works, but to say that it cannot be done in C++ is BS in principle. It cannot be done in the same way, but it surely can be done.
Giving a book with misleading/unverified information CAN BE HARMFUL!
And with regard to the languages for the biggger Wikipedias: Swedish is not generally spoken in the third world. Nor is Finnish, Bokmal, Danish, and Czech. Esperanto, don't make me laugh. Catalan and Asturian, Oh My God, I see all Spanish regiolects there!
Then we come to the smaller ones: Welsh! Euskara! Limburgs (that's really embarrasing). And Indonesia hardly qualifies as a third world country, does it?
There is hardly a language there that's spoken in real third world countries. Not surprising, since real third world countries don't have a whole group of people with nothing to do but edit Wikipedia.
No, this is a bad, bad, bad idea. It's a waste of resources.
A sub-culture is not a mixture of communication styles, to begin with, as the Wikipedia entry points out. And of course sarcasm is a phenomenon older than Slashdot, and it didn't originate in Usenet either.
But well, I suppose Wikipedia is very much like the internet: there's a lot of information, provided it's somebody's hobby, without commercial interest, and given up after a short initial effort.