Amazingly enough though, Spam is part of what the article recommends:
"Some 15 percent of interactive ad revenue at Yahoo! is e-mail marketing, and this percentage is expected to grow. Ninety percent of the online newspaper industry doesn't even collect e-mail [addresses] and few use them to generate revenue."
It's nice to know that Harvard Business School is urging companies to Spam their clients. God knows its important to scrape the revenue this quarter so who cares if you alienate your entire customer base by next quarter.
No it's true! He was crushed by a beowulf cluster of "BSD is dying" posts.
Re:Has anyone here ever heard...
on
Wolframania
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
I think that the big problem is that fundamentally Wolfram's point is rather trite. We can all agree I think that physical processes of growth, differentiation, and plasticity rely upon fairly simple iterated rules. Understanding those rules is the really important/difficult part, especially when the system is utilizing protein as the substrate. Pigment patterning in shells and zebras is well understood not because of a deep understanding of CA, but because of a deep understanding of the biological system. This is where Wolframs approach fails miserably. Can he apply CA to a problem like protein folding? We all know that the rules to produce a thermodynamically stable protein exist, but until we know what the rules are no amount of CA diddling is going to help. After a huge effort to understand protein folding somebody like Wolfram will stand astride that mountain of knowledge and say clearly CA can explain it now that the rules are known, its just that the parameter space is so large CA can not _predict_ what those rules will be.
No I haven't finished the book yet, and I'm beginning to regret spending $45.
The petition was something between fraudulent and a horrible joke. Robinson's co-authors included his home-schooled son, 22 at the time, and two astrophysicists. None of the authors had ever done any climate work.
The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson and three other people, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A cover note from Frederick Seitz, who had served as president of the NAS in the 1960s, added to the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal.
The NAS(USA) eventually sent out a public rebuke disavowing involvement and pointing out that it's own committee had reached the opposite conclusion.
"The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."
I'm writing from St. John's and I take that apology back. Sorry for nothing if some arrogant prick wants to pretend that he can't function without his cappacino micro slung in a pouch and whine whine whine about how much the contact electrode hurt during removal because he had put in on with the strong adhesive. Wah wah wah. My rights are being violated because I can't do whatever the hell I want. I'm a vampire I want to fly in my coffin.
Well the ferry doesn't meet the train. No trains in North Sydney where the ferry puts in. Best bet is to hitch a ride into Sydney and rent a car, or walk ~2 km to the bus station. I really like the ferry, but the connections and sail times kinda suck.
Re:Paradox: Publishing a googlewhack destroys it
on
Google Juice
·
· Score: 1
The same type of person who would go looking for Hodology Whore.
Re:affecting results?
on
Google Juice
·
· Score: 1
Nope no rules. I think I've got one: orangade sentient!
The and name them after nuclei. The rule is that it should sound dirty. My three favourites are flocculus, fornix, and zona_incerta. We are still waiting for a machine suitable for Nucleus_O (a case with curves?).
Re:Biologists and Psychologists Abuse this...
on
Digital Biology
·
· Score: 2
Even worse the metaphor begins to fall apart fairly rapidly the moment you poke deeper than the metaphor's skin.
Metaphor is a difficult thing, because you are attempting to illustrate an independant reality using something that is familiar to the listener. The danger is that the listener may mistake the analogy for formal equivalency. I tend to open my lectures with bold metaphor (the brain is a swiss army knife...)to try to grab students attention and give them a conceptual framework, and then often spend the rest of the lecture (term?) fighting this phantom notion of formal equivalency (no a ligand is not a key, and a receptor is not a lock). Formal concepts are difficult to absorb, just think of metaphor as the vehicle that carries ideas (whoops there I go again). Of course if your professor does not pick apart his/her own metaphor by the end of the term, then perhaps he/she is doing a disservice to the less engaged students.
What I find really fascinating is how teaching and general discussion is limited by metaphor. When discussing things among collegues there is little elaboration of many things because they grok the independant reality of a phenomena as well as I do (probably better). The metaphors come out when you need to discuss/explain something to the less-expert. I don't think that anyone ever believed that working memory was a "scratch-pad" or that long-term memory was a "tape-recorder". While many of my collegues might argue for the brain as universal-Turing-machine in the formal conception, I don't think any of us believe that the brain is a computer like the one on your desk (we are analog). All of us in our technical capacities just lack the language to express our ideas to the less technically adept.
I suspect that students are much better informed of what infringement is, and the repercussions of infringement. What would you reply if you were infringing and knew how the study was going to be used?
The important thing is not what a nerve fiber is doing, in the case of the neuron the action potential is quite stereotyped in the axon, but what the effect on the _target_ is. Again for brain (what I know best) a transmitter release event is an analog event as far as the post-synaptic cell is concerned. The fundamental event from the viewpoint of the post-synaptic cell is rate of ion flow through a gated channel. You can't get much more analog than that.
For the pre-synaptic cell the stereotyped AP is only good until it hits the terminal region. The calcium entry is an analog event, vesicle docking and transmitter release is pretty much a binary event, but the content of the vesicle and transmitter/receptor kinetics are analog all the way.
Because networks are not in the business of producing quality entertainment for your enjoyment. They are in the business of selling your eyeballs to advertisers, the cheapest programming that will get you to be on the couch is the stuff they will show. What I can't understand is why people pay to have that crap pumped into the house. I figure that if they want me to watch it they should string the cable and provide me with starchy snacks. Obviously I don't have cable. I get two stations.
I was just trying to find this paper in Nature Neuroscience (as referenced in the article) and all that's returned is...
No documents matched the query. Search query:Author: Semendeferi Your search yielded no results. You may refine this query or perform a new query
It's not in Nature either. The newest paper I can find is: Am J Phys Anthropol 2001 Mar;114(3):224-41 which is only area 10 and is hardly new enough to be "news for nerds". Anybody have the correct cite?
Microwave radiation is a relatively new technique employed mainly by neuroscientists who wish to maintain the anatomic, enzymatic and physiological chemical composition of the animal's brain in an unaltered state (Stavinoha, 1983; Ikarashi, Maruyama and Stavinoha, 1984). Microwave radiation must be delivered specifically to the brain; therefore, standard household microwave ovens must not be used (Stavinoha, Frazer and Modak, 1977);,only instruments which have been designed specifically for this purpose and have the appropriate power and microwave distribution may be utilized.[their emphasis]
I can't find a catalog nearby, but I seem to remember prices in the $50K+ range.
High altitude decompression is considered unacceptable by the CCAC. At one time, it was used by some animal control agencies and humane societies for killing unwanted dogs and cats, but is now not recommended by them (White, 1984).
Decompression hasn't been used for at least sixteen years. And the CCAC has not approved it as long as I can remember. It was the animal control societies themselves who used it, and now even they won't go near it. I'm reviewed by the CCAC regularly and "unacceptable" means exactly what it says. I actually have trouble (albeit often minor) getting approval for procedures rated "acceptable"
When I grew up in Toronto it was illegal to take a cold bath. It seems that there was some difficulty with getting a specific landlord to provide hot water in a low rent district. Since the legislation covering rental standards was provincial, the municipality did what it could; mandate weekly baths, and regulate the temperature of the water.
Exactly the point. I have no idea either, and neither does anyone else. My wife received a mail-in ballot but I didn't (we have lived there for 6+ years). Thousands of residents were missed and had to present in person anyways, and God help you if their records showed that they had mailed you one. The automatic assumption was that you were trying to rip-off the system, rather than some random jerk systematically skewing the process. Yes coincidentally the "voter turnout" was higher than ever.
The city council has moved to mail-in ballots for municipal elections in my jurisdiction. This too was a schmozzle of the hugest proportions, and think of how trivial that is compared to electronic voting...
you know where people live, they don't change their address every time they go home, you know from tax returns how many people live at an address. Who can verify anything electronically. Remember that old saw "on the internet no one knows your a dog"?
Well yeah it is. I think the point of the study (and similar work by Buzsaki at Rutgers) is that not only does network replay itself, but it does it at a faster timescale. It's this replay on fast-forward that allows connections between individual units of the network to become strengthened (Hebbian theory if you follow this stuff) by calcium flow through the NMDA receptor. The time scales of real time playback are too long to engage the consolidation-like processes that we know about.
When I was in Japan this summer I heard a lecture from Mitsuo Kawato, who I believe is a member of the research team. The general approach used by Kawato is called feed-forward control, and is based on the physiology of the cerebellum. Kawato argued that feed forward control has signifigant speed advantages over feed back models. Rather than botch the model by trying to explain it (I'm a brain guy, not an engineer) I'll just point you to the references:
Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2:338-345 (review)
Neural Networks 11:1317-1329 (equations here)
Current Opinion in Neurobiology 9:718-727
Nature 403:192-195 (human application)
By the way, one of the videos he showed during his lecture had the robot hitting tennis balls!
Slashdot Mirror
Amazingly enough though, Spam is part of what the article recommends:
"Some 15 percent of interactive ad revenue at Yahoo! is e-mail marketing, and this percentage is expected to grow. Ninety percent of the online newspaper industry doesn't even collect e-mail [addresses] and few use them to generate revenue."
It's nice to know that Harvard Business School is urging companies to Spam their clients. God knows its important to scrape the revenue this quarter so who cares if you alienate your entire customer base by next quarter.
No it's true! He was crushed by a beowulf cluster of "BSD is dying" posts.
I think that the big problem is that fundamentally Wolfram's point is rather trite. We can all agree I think that physical processes of growth, differentiation, and plasticity rely upon fairly simple iterated rules. Understanding those rules is the really important/difficult part, especially when the system is utilizing protein as the substrate. Pigment patterning in shells and zebras is well understood not because of a deep understanding of CA, but because of a deep understanding of the biological system. This is where Wolframs approach fails miserably. Can he apply CA to a problem like protein folding? We all know that the rules to produce a thermodynamically stable protein exist, but until we know what the rules are no amount of CA diddling is going to help. After a huge effort to understand protein folding somebody like Wolfram will stand astride that mountain of knowledge and say clearly CA can explain it now that the rules are known, its just that the parameter space is so large CA can not _predict_ what those rules will be.
No I haven't finished the book yet, and I'm beginning to regret spending $45.
The NAS(USA) eventually sent out a public rebuke disavowing involvement and pointing out that it's own committee had reached the opposite conclusion.
Yeah but Halifax is no good when I'm trying to get to NB ;)
I'm writing from St. John's and I take that apology back. Sorry for nothing if some arrogant prick wants to pretend that he can't function without his cappacino micro slung in a pouch and whine whine whine about how much the contact electrode hurt during removal because he had put in on with the strong adhesive. Wah wah wah. My rights are being violated because I can't do whatever the hell I want. I'm a vampire I want to fly in my coffin.
Well the ferry doesn't meet the train. No trains in North Sydney where the ferry puts in. Best bet is to hitch a ride into Sydney and rent a car, or walk ~2 km to the bus station. I really like the ferry, but the connections and sail times kinda suck.
The same type of person who would go looking for Hodology Whore.
Nope no rules. I think I've got one:
orangade sentient!
The and name them after nuclei. The rule is that it should sound dirty. My three favourites are flocculus, fornix, and zona_incerta. We are still waiting for a machine suitable for Nucleus_O (a case with curves?).
Even worse the metaphor begins to fall apart fairly rapidly the moment you poke deeper than the metaphor's skin.
Metaphor is a difficult thing, because you are attempting to illustrate an independant reality using something that is familiar to the listener. The danger is that the listener may mistake the analogy for formal equivalency. I tend to open my lectures with bold metaphor (the brain is a swiss army knife...)to try to grab students attention and give them a conceptual framework, and then often spend the rest of the lecture (term?) fighting this phantom notion of formal equivalency (no a ligand is not a key, and a receptor is not a lock). Formal concepts are difficult to absorb, just think of metaphor as the vehicle that carries ideas (whoops there I go again). Of course if your professor does not pick apart his/her own metaphor by the end of the term, then perhaps he/she is doing a disservice to the less engaged students.
What I find really fascinating is how teaching and general discussion is limited by metaphor. When discussing things among collegues there is little elaboration of many things because they grok the independant reality of a phenomena as well as I do (probably better). The metaphors come out when you need to discuss/explain something to the less-expert. I don't think that anyone ever believed that working memory was a "scratch-pad" or that long-term memory was a "tape-recorder". While many of my collegues might argue for the brain as universal-Turing-machine in the formal conception, I don't think any of us believe that the brain is a computer like the one on your desk (we are analog). All of us in our technical capacities just lack the language to express our ideas to the less technically adept.
I suspect that students are much better informed of what infringement is, and the repercussions of infringement. What would you reply if you were infringing and knew how the study was going to be used?
Ummmm yeah. Sort of....
The important thing is not what a nerve fiber is doing, in the case of the neuron the action potential is quite stereotyped in the axon, but what the effect on the _target_ is. Again for brain (what I know best) a transmitter release event is an analog event as far as the post-synaptic cell is concerned. The fundamental event from the viewpoint of the post-synaptic cell is rate of ion flow through a gated channel. You can't get much more analog than that.
For the pre-synaptic cell the stereotyped AP is only good until it hits the terminal region. The calcium entry is an analog event, vesicle docking and transmitter release is pretty much a binary event, but the content of the vesicle and transmitter/receptor kinetics are analog all the way.
Because networks are not in the business of producing quality entertainment for your enjoyment. They are in the business of selling your eyeballs to advertisers, the cheapest programming that will get you to be on the couch is the stuff they will show. What I can't understand is why people pay to have that crap pumped into the house. I figure that if they want me to watch it they should string the cable and provide me with starchy snacks. Obviously I don't have cable. I get two stations.
I was just trying to find this paper in Nature Neuroscience (as referenced in the article) and all that's returned is...
No documents matched the query.
Search query:Author: Semendeferi
Your search yielded no results. You may refine this query or perform a new query
It's not in Nature either. The newest paper I can find is: Am J Phys Anthropol 2001 Mar;114(3):224-41 which is only area 10 and is hardly new enough to be "news for nerds". Anybody have the correct cite?
Again RTFM ....
,only instruments which have been designed specifically for this purpose and have the appropriate power and microwave distribution may be utilized. [their emphasis]
Microwave radiation is a relatively new technique employed mainly by neuroscientists who wish to maintain the anatomic, enzymatic and physiological chemical composition of the animal's brain in an unaltered state (Stavinoha, 1983; Ikarashi, Maruyama and Stavinoha, 1984). Microwave radiation must be delivered specifically to the brain; therefore, standard household microwave ovens must not be used (Stavinoha, Frazer and Modak, 1977);
I can't find a catalog nearby, but I seem to remember prices in the $50K+ range.
Hey RTFM.
High altitude decompression is considered unacceptable by the CCAC. At one time, it was used by some animal control agencies and humane societies for killing unwanted dogs and cats, but is now not recommended by them (White, 1984).
Decompression hasn't been used for at least sixteen years. And the CCAC has not approved it as long as I can remember. It was the animal control societies themselves who used it, and now even they won't go near it. I'm reviewed by the CCAC regularly and "unacceptable" means exactly what it says. I actually have trouble (albeit often minor) getting approval for procedures rated "acceptable"
When I grew up in Toronto it was illegal to take a cold bath. It seems that there was some difficulty with getting a specific landlord to provide hot water in a low rent district. Since the legislation covering rental standards was provincial, the municipality did what it could; mandate weekly baths, and regulate the temperature of the water.
Exactly the point. I have no idea either, and neither does anyone else. My wife received a mail-in ballot but I didn't (we have lived there for 6+ years). Thousands of residents were missed and had to present in person anyways, and God help you if their records showed that they had mailed you one. The automatic assumption was that you were trying to rip-off the system, rather than some random jerk systematically skewing the process. Yes coincidentally the "voter turnout" was higher than ever.
The city council has moved to mail-in ballots for municipal elections in my jurisdiction. This too was a schmozzle of the hugest proportions, and think of how trivial that is compared to electronic voting...
you know where people live, they don't change their address every time they go home, you know from tax returns how many people live at an address. Who can verify anything electronically. Remember that old saw "on the internet no one knows your a dog"?
Well yeah it is. I think the point of the study (and similar work by Buzsaki at Rutgers) is that not only does network replay itself, but it does it at a faster timescale. It's this replay on fast-forward that allows connections between individual units of the network to become strengthened (Hebbian theory if you follow this stuff) by calcium flow through the NMDA receptor. The time scales of real time playback are too long to engage the consolidation-like processes that we know about.
When I was in Japan this summer I heard a lecture from Mitsuo Kawato, who I believe is a member of the research team. The general approach used by Kawato is called feed-forward control, and is based on the physiology of the cerebellum. Kawato argued that feed forward control has signifigant speed advantages over feed back models. Rather than botch the model by trying to explain it (I'm a brain guy, not an engineer) I'll just point you to the references: Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2:338-345 (review) Neural Networks 11:1317-1329 (equations here) Current Opinion in Neurobiology 9:718-727 Nature 403:192-195 (human application) By the way, one of the videos he showed during his lecture had the robot hitting tennis balls!