No, this is all absolutely correct. It's fine for them to seek revenue for people who want to profit by directly associating their product with the iPod trademark. When they make it mandatory under any circumstances, unless the independent manufacturer is violating one of Apple's patents, there stance has no legal validity. It's fine though, if they screw with interfere with the device's utility too much, it will lose market share and balance will be restored in the marketplace.
Absolutely true story: my novel in progress (don't tease) is about a young man going to San Diego to work for a wealthy maverick technology guru on a project involving reverse engineering. Is this a good omen or some kind of cosmic goof on me?
"In a statement, Ballmer described Lucovsky's recollection as a "gross exaggeration. Mark's decision to leave was disappointing and I urged him strongly to change his mind. But his characterization of that meeting is not accurate.""
He doesn't specifically deny doing or saying anything he is said to have said or done. Sounds like the kind of non-response response that suggests that the rendition of the outburst is essentially true. And prima donna though he may be (I've never met him) it is one thing to be capable of embellishment, another entirely to offer such in a sworn statement. None of this is conclusive of course, merely suggestive.
It would be nice if the linked article or the AP summary it cites related any of the actual facts of the APA study. Here's their own assessment.
Here's the APA press release which provides some instructive details.
To summarize: two studies. First study, they interview a bunch of college kids. In a nutshell they found a statistical correlation between playing violent video games and a measurement of "trait aggressiveness" as well as actual aggressive behavior. All the usual issues of advocacy research here: they ignore whether video games cause their definition of aggression or vice versa, or if both are increased simultaneously in individuals by another unknown factor. Or if self-reporting of aggressive behavior and thoughts might be greater in video game players for some unknown reason. The question of what kind of bias might exist in the metrics developed is wide open as well.
Second study - hell, this one is such a beauty I'll just give you the quote:
In the second study, 210 college students played either a violent (Wolfenstein 3D) or nonviolent video game (Myst). A short time later, the students who played the violent video game punished an opponent (received a noise blast with varying intensity) for a longer period of time than did students who had played the nonviolent video game.
Invite a person to engage in an artificial act of aggression against a person with whom they have been placed in an adversarial relationship (the subject is described as an "opponent") immediately after engaging in: scenario A, an intrinsically adversarial game, scenario B, an artistic, environment-centered puzzle-solving game. Clearly, the video game has made this person aggressive.
The bias the APA shows in presenting these two studies side by side is a totally separate line of fruitful inference. But I imagine there's good money in generating garbage research like this in this hysterical age.
So it's sort of a moot point. The money may travel a circuitous route, but if you force manufacturers to cover the cost of recycling, it will filter into consumer cost one way or another.
Doesn't everyone just sell their old computers for ten or twenty bucks on eBay? People actually throw these things away?
It's pure blue-sky speculation, and dressing it up in sciencesque jargon doesn't make it any more likely. "Most likely a simulation" is a gap dangerously close to "and then a miracle occurs" in terms of justifying this kind of prediction: our knowledge of how physical interactions in the brain function, as well as how to model complex systems, are not necessarily progressing as quickly as the development of computer processing power. It seems entirely feasible that the highest functions of the mind (consciousness, will) are tied into quantum -level effects (the only area, as far as I can see, where there is sufficient ambiguity in outcomes of phsyical phenomena to allow such things, though that's blue sky nonsense at this point, just no more nonsensical) and may run afoul of the Uncertainty Principle in that the development of a complete model to allow of an individual's phsyiology (the brain would not be sufficient, our consciousnesses are more than just the brain, they are influenced by the totality of our phsyical bodies) to create a functioning model of consciousness would in fact be impossible - and you don't have to apply to mysticism to make the argument.
I'm not saying that it's impossible or it won't happen - I think such a statement is equally unfounded at our current level of knowledge - just that it is silly at this point to say it is likely or unlikely, or even possible or impossible. I'd argue we just don't have the data. It sort of irks me that this sort of bullshit analysis (not yours, |/|/|||, I think you state the basic parameters of the problem well and agree that if those two big assumptions you state in paragraph 5 prove to be possible, it makes success at least significantly more likely... I'm talking about the original contentions of Dr. What's-His-Name), basically "in X years computer processing on the scale of the brain will be available, therefore we'll be able to download the brain!" is put forth as worthwhile news. It's hardly a new speculation and I don't see this guy has added anything to the debate.
If consciousness and will are indeed simply automatically emergent outcomes of sufficiently large and complex information processing networks, it seems more likely to me (because of the potential of skipping that whole recording and dynamically modelling issue) that true AI will come before the possibility of downloading consciousness... and whether it does or not may tell us a lot more about whether modelling consciousness is really possible. 'Course, the problem is at that point all bets are off. The Big Computers may solve the problem of uploading your brain in a trice... or they may go all Skynet on us and rapidly download all of our consciousnesses straight into oblivion. Futurologists got about as much credibility as astrologers in my book.
Just watch out for the 2' inflatable billy-clubs the ushers will be carrying to beat anyone attempting to bring a camcorder into the theater into submission.
My first question on reading this was what the hell is a pea-sized hydrogen pellet (being under the impression that hydrogen was a gas and did not come in pellet form) but then I RTFA and saw it was in fact a "pea-sized hydrogen fuel capsule." Which is not a lot more informative but at least makes sense. Usually I feel grumpy about the way people just paste text clearly copied right out of articles into their posts, but now I see that encouraging people write their own treatments of articles will just cause more problems. So cheers and command-C away, all.
I imagine when it came down to business, the components and leaders capable of making (or avoiding losing, as the case might be) the most money ended up running the show.
I think this could revolutionize fear factor... combine the hissing cockroach challenges with the driving stunts... I can just hear Joe Rogan, "the hissing cockroach will then drive directly into your mouth!"
On further reflection, my only worthwhile point (that I would have made if I hadn't just crankily puked on the keyboard instead, ah well, the internet) is simply that you are presenting what is, however accurate a presentation of some particular subgroup's arguments it is or isn't, just this one specific thing: viewpoints that could only be attributed to young Earth, Biblical creationism.
Attributing this argument as representative of "Religion" is just not accurate. Biblical "literalism" of the type that leads to these varieties of creationism arguments is far from universal in Judaism, Islam, or Christianity (the religions which include Genesis in their biblical scripture).
Ah, maybe I'm totally wrong. I've never seen anyone making these specific arguments regarding some sort of pseudoscientific justification of literal Genesis interpretation. On reflection someone is probably arguing any ridiculous thing that can possibly be conceived.
You fucking rock and rolled that imaginary argument with an imaginary group of people. The ideas you invented for your imaginary adversaries were foolish, while your responses to the foolish arguments you invented were sane and reasonable. A for rhetoric!
yeah, it read to me like this: Physicists at Utrecht University in the Netherlands have come up with a way of observing a superstring by utilizing blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Hopefully this will allow observation of the blah blah blah blah blah, thus providing the first experimental evidence to support superstring theory."
I don't think it would appeal to the average consumer - 50 bucks a year, 3 bucks an article, both sound about the same to me - as in, sounds like I won't be reading that article - but I wonder if NTY even believes it would. For a research reference, it could be well worth it though. I could see political campaigns, lobbyists, PR agencies, a lot of different things finding a $50 fee well worthwhile for being able to get that instant access online to the NYT archives.
your sig puts me into mind of the whole galaxy of "clippy" jokes for this thread. It looks like we're about to crash you head on! Would you like to a)deploy airbags...
Slashdot Mirror
No, this is all absolutely correct. It's fine for them to seek revenue for people who want to profit by directly associating their product with the iPod trademark. When they make it mandatory under any circumstances, unless the independent manufacturer is violating one of Apple's patents, there stance has no legal validity. It's fine though, if they screw with interfere with the device's utility too much, it will lose market share and balance will be restored in the marketplace.
Absolutely true story: my novel in progress (don't tease) is about a young man going to San Diego to work for a wealthy maverick technology guru on a project involving reverse engineering. Is this a good omen or some kind of cosmic goof on me?
Carbon Dating has found the remains to be over 4000 years old
I'm pretty sure some of the Smack ramen I subsisted on in college was pretty close to that.
"In a statement, Ballmer described Lucovsky's recollection as a "gross exaggeration. Mark's decision to leave was disappointing and I urged him strongly to change his mind. But his characterization of that meeting is not accurate.""
He doesn't specifically deny doing or saying anything he is said to have said or done. Sounds like the kind of non-response response that suggests that the rendition of the outburst is essentially true. And prima donna though he may be (I've never met him) it is one thing to be capable of embellishment, another entirely to offer such in a sworn statement. None of this is conclusive of course, merely suggestive.
It would be nice if the linked article or the AP summary it cites related any of the actual facts of the APA study. Here's their own assessment.
Here's the APA press release which provides some instructive details.
To summarize: two studies. First study, they interview a bunch of college kids. In a nutshell they found a statistical correlation between playing violent video games and a measurement of "trait aggressiveness" as well as actual aggressive behavior. All the usual issues of advocacy research here: they ignore whether video games cause their definition of aggression or vice versa, or if both are increased simultaneously in individuals by another unknown factor. Or if self-reporting of aggressive behavior and thoughts might be greater in video game players for some unknown reason. The question of what kind of bias might exist in the metrics developed is wide open as well.
Second study - hell, this one is such a beauty I'll just give you the quote:
In the second study, 210 college students played either a violent (Wolfenstein 3D) or nonviolent video game (Myst). A short time later, the students who played the violent video game punished an opponent (received a noise blast with varying intensity) for a longer period of time than did students who had played the nonviolent video game.
Invite a person to engage in an artificial act of aggression against a person with whom they have been placed in an adversarial relationship (the subject is described as an "opponent") immediately after engaging in: scenario A, an intrinsically adversarial game, scenario B, an artistic, environment-centered puzzle-solving game. Clearly, the video game has made this person aggressive.
The bias the APA shows in presenting these two studies side by side is a totally separate line of fruitful inference. But I imagine there's good money in generating garbage research like this in this hysterical age.
I heard that Skype kills Dunnhumby in the sixth book.
Can we get some naked hippies on this dangerous development, stat?
So it's sort of a moot point. The money may travel a circuitous route, but if you force manufacturers to cover the cost of recycling, it will filter into consumer cost one way or another.
Doesn't everyone just sell their old computers for ten or twenty bucks on eBay? People actually throw these things away?
Is referring to what gets reported in the "Journal of Economic Psychology" as "science."
Assuming this is true, in that case, I'm an idiot. NEXT!
It's pure blue-sky speculation, and dressing it up in sciencesque jargon doesn't make it any more likely. "Most likely a simulation" is a gap dangerously close to "and then a miracle occurs" in terms of justifying this kind of prediction: our knowledge of how physical interactions in the brain function, as well as how to model complex systems, are not necessarily progressing as quickly as the development of computer processing power. It seems entirely feasible that the highest functions of the mind (consciousness, will) are tied into quantum -level effects (the only area, as far as I can see, where there is sufficient ambiguity in outcomes of phsyical phenomena to allow such things, though that's blue sky nonsense at this point, just no more nonsensical) and may run afoul of the Uncertainty Principle in that the development of a complete model to allow of an individual's phsyiology (the brain would not be sufficient, our consciousnesses are more than just the brain, they are influenced by the totality of our phsyical bodies) to create a functioning model of consciousness would in fact be impossible - and you don't have to apply to mysticism to make the argument.
I'm not saying that it's impossible or it won't happen - I think such a statement is equally unfounded at our current level of knowledge - just that it is silly at this point to say it is likely or unlikely, or even possible or impossible. I'd argue we just don't have the data. It sort of irks me that this sort of bullshit analysis (not yours, |/|/|||, I think you state the basic parameters of the problem well and agree that if those two big assumptions you state in paragraph 5 prove to be possible, it makes success at least significantly more likely... I'm talking about the original contentions of Dr. What's-His-Name), basically "in X years computer processing on the scale of the brain will be available, therefore we'll be able to download the brain!" is put forth as worthwhile news. It's hardly a new speculation and I don't see this guy has added anything to the debate.
If consciousness and will are indeed simply automatically emergent outcomes of sufficiently large and complex information processing networks, it seems more likely to me (because of the potential of skipping that whole recording and dynamically modelling issue) that true AI will come before the possibility of downloading consciousness... and whether it does or not may tell us a lot more about whether modelling consciousness is really possible. 'Course, the problem is at that point all bets are off. The Big Computers may solve the problem of uploading your brain in a trice... or they may go all Skynet on us and rapidly download all of our consciousnesses straight into oblivion. Futurologists got about as much credibility as astrologers in my book.
Just watch out for the 2' inflatable billy-clubs the ushers will be carrying to beat anyone attempting to bring a camcorder into the theater into submission.
My first question on reading this was what the hell is a pea-sized hydrogen pellet (being under the impression that hydrogen was a gas and did not come in pellet form) but then I RTFA and saw it was in fact a "pea-sized hydrogen fuel capsule." Which is not a lot more informative but at least makes sense. Usually I feel grumpy about the way people just paste text clearly copied right out of articles into their posts, but now I see that encouraging people write their own treatments of articles will just cause more problems. So cheers and command-C away, all.
I imagine when it came down to business, the components and leaders capable of making (or avoiding losing, as the case might be) the most money ended up running the show.
I think this could revolutionize fear factor... combine the hissing cockroach challenges with the driving stunts... I can just hear Joe Rogan, "the hissing cockroach will then drive directly into your mouth!"
yeah, if ever a FARK-style "obvious" tag had a place in a Slashdot article...
On further reflection, my only worthwhile point (that I would have made if I hadn't just crankily puked on the keyboard instead, ah well, the internet) is simply that you are presenting what is, however accurate a presentation of some particular subgroup's arguments it is or isn't, just this one specific thing: viewpoints that could only be attributed to young Earth, Biblical creationism.
Attributing this argument as representative of "Religion" is just not accurate. Biblical "literalism" of the type that leads to these varieties of creationism arguments is far from universal in Judaism, Islam, or Christianity (the religions which include Genesis in their biblical scripture).
Ah, maybe I'm totally wrong. I've never seen anyone making these specific arguments regarding some sort of pseudoscientific justification of literal Genesis interpretation. On reflection someone is probably arguing any ridiculous thing that can possibly be conceived.
You fucking rock and rolled that imaginary argument with an imaginary group of people. The ideas you invented for your imaginary adversaries were foolish, while your responses to the foolish arguments you invented were sane and reasonable. A for rhetoric!
yeah, it read to me like this: Physicists at Utrecht University in the Netherlands have come up with a way of observing a superstring by utilizing blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Hopefully this will allow observation of the blah blah blah blah blah, thus providing the first experimental evidence to support superstring theory."
Of course it would.
I've got about six hundred gmail accounts to give away if anyone is even considering using this service.
There is also the issue that the illustrations are of a featureless rectangle.
I don't think it would appeal to the average consumer - 50 bucks a year, 3 bucks an article, both sound about the same to me - as in, sounds like I won't be reading that article - but I wonder if NTY even believes it would. For a research reference, it could be well worth it though. I could see political campaigns, lobbyists, PR agencies, a lot of different things finding a $50 fee well worthwhile for being able to get that instant access online to the NYT archives.
your sig puts me into mind of the whole galaxy of "clippy" jokes for this thread. It looks like we're about to crash you head on! Would you like to a)deploy airbags...
Heh, of course, when you're the third one to make that joke it also loses a bit of its shine...
slashdot, now with instant karma shaming!