Um, if the research was about the existence of or the reasons for these movements, you'd be right, it wouldn't be news. Those are things that have been known for decades.
If you actually read the article, you'd see what's new here. It's not anything that's been well known for decades, or even strongly suspected for decades.
Actually, all that means is you read the inaccurate summary too well and didn't read the actual article carefully enough. (What's new here has nothing to do with anything you just said, and is not something anyone knew about back in 1983.)
What's new here has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that these movements occur, nor anything to do with their purpose, which has also been well understood for decades. What's new here is the pinpointing (or at least narrowing down) of the mechanism (or at least the area of the brain) that generates and controls these movements, and it's not where a lot of people thought it was.
I doubt a 7th grade class on the subject would have even touched on these details. Do you remember them discussing the various brain regions involved in the different parts of visual perception?
Most small orbital objects (on the order of a few grams or less) reentering the atmosphere just don't produce much of a display; you need more mass - a whole intact satellite, for example.
The two satellites weren't vaporized. Their pieces aren't going to be a few grams or less. The combined weight of the two satellites was over a ton, and I don't think they shred into literally a million one gram pieces. If they shred into two thousand pieces, the average piece would weigh a pound. Now, it could be there are many more pieces than that, with a smaller average, but it would be highly surprising if this collision did not generate literally thousands of pieces of debris that WILL be easily visible on reentry.
There are many possible mechanisms that suggest themselves, operating either on the embryo or on the newborn - parents who are more intelligent are likely to be able to pass on more of what they've learned and/or provide a "richer" environment for their offspring, even if we're only talking about mice.
"The findings held true even when pups were raised by memory-deficient mice that had never had the benefits of toys and social interaction."
So, tell us, how are the more intelligent parents passing this on to their children when their children are being raised by the less intelligent "control mothers"? Are you suggesting some sort of psychic connection of between these mice and their real, more intelligent mothers? Or did you just not read the article in question, and are basing the criticism on the summary alone? I know, it's/., but still...
Booth was willing to die for what he felt was an attack on his country.
If Booth was willing to die to prevent an attack on his country, that would make him patriotic. OTOH, being willing to die in an act of revenge just makes you an asshat...
...he once was remarked that he did not care if slavery ended or continued.
Absolutely false.
"If freeing the slaves would preserve the Union, I would do it. If keeping slavery would preserve the Union, I would do that." (Source: CBS News Morning show, this past Thursday)
Okay, you've quoted something that establishes he valued preserving the Union over ending slavery. Now where's this quote that would establish he did not care if slavery ended or continued?
Lincoln was an abolitionist. He was a notorious abolitionist. So much so that southern states started seceding before he even took office. To suggest he didn't care if slavery ended or continued flies in the face of the facts. He cared very much. He just cared for the Union even more.
Memory is primarily a function of the imagination. The primary source will change what is remembered over time in any case. It would be unsurprising if a retelling by someone else changed what the subject remembers. In fact, that's quite common.
Wikipedia almost always avoids original research, because original research requires that they have staff on hand who will vet the information, and Wikipedia doesn't have the staff on hand to do this.
However, Wikipedia is quite happy to allow users to do original research, provided they first post it on a website somewhere, then "cite" the website.
That website also states a bunch of "facts" that were made up as a joke...
Chuck Norris, is that you?
It should be noted that, considering the standards allow a simply website link, you can make a page on a website stating that those facts are made up, and set the record straight, then link to that website to correct the error. How this is supposed to be more reliable, I'm not sure, but that's Wikipedia for ya...
Considering Wikipedia's standards, you can probably just link to this thread.
Really? Already done in Quake 3? I missed the part about Quake 3 causing my computer's energy usage to drop 97% while playing, and I'm afraid the article you linked to didn't really explain how Quake 3 achieved this.
As an example of how some bit-flips make a bigger difference than others (which is what it's supposed to be an example of), it's a great example.
As an example of an application where it makes sense to use this kind of processor, it would be a lousy example, but that's not what it was supposed to be an example of anyhow.
Moral: No matter how reasonable your analogy, some people with poor reading comprehension skills will think you're an idiot because they can't read very well. Don't worry about it, it's unavoidable, just carry on...
... they would need to use a crowd of these processors and some kind of "wisdom of crowds" algorithm to figure out which of the output values is good.
No. They would use one processor and accept the result. If you're trying to cobble together a "wisdom of crowds" solution, you've completely missed the point. If one of these processors isn't good enough, you're using the wrong kind of processor -- you need the kind designed for accuracy instead.
It looks like you got sucked into the bad example land.
Actually, it's a great example of how certain parts of a result are more important than others. If you mistakenly thought it was an example of a good application for this sort of thing, it would seem like a bad example, but that would be due to the error in reading comprehension, not in the example. The average person doesn't know how digital music is encoded, but they understand dollars and cents. If you're trying to explain why some bits flipped make more difference than others, this is a great example for a general audience.
I don't want my planes, trains, automobiles, bank balances, MP3 players, GPS receiver, microwave, timed lights, alarm system, fuel-injection computer, television, DVR, or anything else providing me with extra excitement. I want them all to do EXACTLY what their specs say they will do.
At least half of the devices you mentioned do exactly what their specs say they will do inaccurately. They could do exactly what their specs say they will do deterministically inaccurately, or nondeterministically inaccurately much faster while using less power. Your eyes and ears will not notice the fact that the inaccuracies you're not really seeing and hearing are nondeterministic rather than deterministic.
The moral of the story is that in 2009 and beyond its probably best to have hardware continue to be accurate.
Um, no. If we had to choose one or the other, you're right, that's the best choice. But only if first you make the extremely poor choice of insisting it has to be one way or the other rather than the actual best choice, which is, it's best to have hardware be offered in a variety of configurations. The best choice is to offer a choice.
*psst* There's more than one chip on your laptop's motherboard. I'm sure you won't be forced into any tough decisions. The engineers who make your laptop will decide whether your FPU requires more accuracy than your DSP and MPEG decoder.
Do you have any reason to suggest that Google is handing over data to the RIAA when Google has historically fought to protect the privacy of its users?
I have no reason to suspect Google would not do precisely that, if ordered to by the courts (after the inevitable, expensive appeals are finally exhausted). Much as I like cyberpunk sci-fi, I don't see Google declaring itself an extraterritorial sovereign entity no longer subject to national laws any time soon...
Well, if we keep finding new ways to encode information and to engage in computation, it's conceivable that someday, everything in the universe could be used for computing. Essentially, every last bit of matter and energy will be part of a Beowulf cluster.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Um, if the research was about the existence of or the reasons for these movements, you'd be right, it wouldn't be news. Those are things that have been known for decades.
If you actually read the article, you'd see what's new here. It's not anything that's been well known for decades, or even strongly suspected for decades.
Actually, all that means is you read the inaccurate summary too well and didn't read the actual article carefully enough. (What's new here has nothing to do with anything you just said, and is not something anyone knew about back in 1983.)
What's new here has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that these movements occur, nor anything to do with their purpose, which has also been well understood for decades. What's new here is the pinpointing (or at least narrowing down) of the mechanism (or at least the area of the brain) that generates and controls these movements, and it's not where a lot of people thought it was.
I doubt a 7th grade class on the subject would have even touched on these details. Do you remember them discussing the various brain regions involved in the different parts of visual perception?
Most small orbital objects (on the order of a few grams or less) reentering the atmosphere just don't produce much of a display; you need more mass - a whole intact satellite, for example.
The two satellites weren't vaporized. Their pieces aren't going to be a few grams or less. The combined weight of the two satellites was over a ton, and I don't think they shred into literally a million one gram pieces. If they shred into two thousand pieces, the average piece would weigh a pound. Now, it could be there are many more pieces than that, with a smaller average, but it would be highly surprising if this collision did not generate literally thousands of pieces of debris that WILL be easily visible on reentry.
Really, this is hardly a surprising result.
o.O
There are many possible mechanisms that suggest themselves, operating either on the embryo or on the newborn - parents who are more intelligent are likely to be able to pass on more of what they've learned and/or provide a "richer" environment for their offspring, even if we're only talking about mice.
"The findings held true even when pups were raised by memory-deficient mice that had never had the benefits of toys and social interaction."
So, tell us, how are the more intelligent parents passing this on to their children when their children are being raised by the less intelligent "control mothers"? Are you suggesting some sort of psychic connection of between these mice and their real, more intelligent mothers? Or did you just not read the article in question, and are basing the criticism on the summary alone? I know, it's /., but still...
Booth was willing to die for what he felt was an attack on his country.
If Booth was willing to die to prevent an attack on his country, that would make him patriotic. OTOH, being willing to die in an act of revenge just makes you an asshat...
...he once was remarked that he did not care if slavery ended or continued.
Absolutely false.
"If freeing the slaves would preserve the Union, I would do it. If keeping slavery would preserve the Union, I would do that." (Source: CBS News Morning show, this past Thursday)
Okay, you've quoted something that establishes he valued preserving the Union over ending slavery. Now where's this quote that would establish he did not care if slavery ended or continued?
Lincoln was an abolitionist. He was a notorious abolitionist. So much so that southern states started seceding before he even took office. To suggest he didn't care if slavery ended or continued flies in the face of the facts. He cared very much. He just cared for the Union even more.
Precisely. The only way to ensure a corporation places value on people's lives is with trial lawyers. Oddly, people consider them disgusting too.
You mean like the actual fucking person the article is about? Oh wait, Wikipedia doesn't consider the actual fucking person to be a "primary source"!
And therein lies Wikipedia's problem.
Because people never lie. Not even about themselves.
Ah yes, but thankfully, people never lie about other people, so your point isn't completely illogical.
Oh, wait...
Memory is primarily a function of the imagination. The primary source will change what is remembered over time in any case. It would be unsurprising if a retelling by someone else changed what the subject remembers. In fact, that's quite common.
Wikipedia almost always avoids original research, because original research requires that they have staff on hand who will vet the information, and Wikipedia doesn't have the staff on hand to do this.
However, Wikipedia is quite happy to allow users to do original research, provided they first post it on a website somewhere, then "cite" the website.
That website also states a bunch of "facts" that were made up as a joke...
Chuck Norris, is that you?
It should be noted that, considering the standards allow a simply website link, you can make a page on a website stating that those facts are made up, and set the record straight, then link to that website to correct the error. How this is supposed to be more reliable, I'm not sure, but that's Wikipedia for ya...
Considering Wikipedia's standards, you can probably just link to this thread.
A lot of us read /. for quite a while before deciding to actually sign up...
Perl is unnecessary:
date -d@1234567890
Thus proving TMTOWTDI. ;)
Really? Already done in Quake 3? I missed the part about Quake 3 causing my computer's energy usage to drop 97% while playing, and I'm afraid the article you linked to didn't really explain how Quake 3 achieved this.
As an example of how some bit-flips make a bigger difference than others (which is what it's supposed to be an example of), it's a great example.
As an example of an application where it makes sense to use this kind of processor, it would be a lousy example, but that's not what it was supposed to be an example of anyhow.
Moral: No matter how reasonable your analogy, some people with poor reading comprehension skills will think you're an idiot because they can't read very well. Don't worry about it, it's unavoidable, just carry on...
... they would need to use a crowd of these processors and some kind of "wisdom of crowds" algorithm to figure out which of the output values is good.
No. They would use one processor and accept the result. If you're trying to cobble together a "wisdom of crowds" solution, you've completely missed the point. If one of these processors isn't good enough, you're using the wrong kind of processor -- you need the kind designed for accuracy instead.
It looks like you got sucked into the bad example land.
Actually, it's a great example of how certain parts of a result are more important than others. If you mistakenly thought it was an example of a good application for this sort of thing, it would seem like a bad example, but that would be due to the error in reading comprehension, not in the example. The average person doesn't know how digital music is encoded, but they understand dollars and cents. If you're trying to explain why some bits flipped make more difference than others, this is a great example for a general audience.
Sorry, I missed the part back in the 80's where using fuzzy logic caused my processor to consume 1/30th the power.
I don't want my planes, trains, automobiles, bank balances, MP3 players, GPS receiver, microwave, timed lights, alarm system, fuel-injection computer, television, DVR, or anything else providing me with extra excitement. I want them all to do EXACTLY what their specs say they will do.
At least half of the devices you mentioned do exactly what their specs say they will do inaccurately. They could do exactly what their specs say they will do deterministically inaccurately, or nondeterministically inaccurately much faster while using less power. Your eyes and ears will not notice the fact that the inaccuracies you're not really seeing and hearing are nondeterministic rather than deterministic.
No, the new thing here is that, using this technology, you could make the next-gen DXR3 much faster while using a fraction of the power.
The moral of the story is that in 2009 and beyond its probably best to have hardware continue to be accurate.
Um, no. If we had to choose one or the other, you're right, that's the best choice. But only if first you make the extremely poor choice of insisting it has to be one way or the other rather than the actual best choice, which is, it's best to have hardware be offered in a variety of configurations. The best choice is to offer a choice.
No, it means you've completely misunderstood the purpose of the analogy.
*psst* There's more than one chip on your laptop's motherboard. I'm sure you won't be forced into any tough decisions. The engineers who make your laptop will decide whether your FPU requires more accuracy than your DSP and MPEG decoder.
Do you have any reason to suggest that Google is handing over data to the RIAA when Google has historically fought to protect the privacy of its users?
I have no reason to suspect Google would not do precisely that, if ordered to by the courts (after the inevitable, expensive appeals are finally exhausted). Much as I like cyberpunk sci-fi, I don't see Google declaring itself an extraterritorial sovereign entity no longer subject to national laws any time soon...
Well, if we keep finding new ways to encode information and to engage in computation, it's conceivable that someday, everything in the universe could be used for computing. Essentially, every last bit of matter and energy will be part of a Beowulf cluster. ;)