"Borjigan thinks the phenomenon is really just the brain going on hyperalert to survive while at the same time trying to make sense of all those neurons firing and it's like a more intense version of dreaming."
Talk about over-interpreting data... This "surge in activity" which they see could be pretty much anything. We have no idea what it means, only speculation.
Snowden has been charged with two things- theft of government property (4 laptops) and giving classified information to a person without security clearance. The later charge was created by the Espionage Act of 1917. It is not "espionage" in any common use of the word.
I'm not expert on the Espionage act, but the Wikipedia tells me that the original Act made the following a crime:
1. To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. This was punishable by death or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years or both.
2. To convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies when the United States is at war, to cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or to willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States. This was punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or both.
Snowden hasn't done either of things and there is no basis for Obama to be pursuing him based upon the Espionage Act. He has not handed sensititve secrets to the enemy, either directly or by way of the media. So unless you are aware of another part of the Espionage Act, it seems that Obama is stretching its definition to pursue Snowden.
Equations are just a way of expressing logic. Well thought through and logically written science articles aren't particularly common in the mainstream media, with their love scare stories, etc. I think a vital first step would be to improve on the quality of the in general articles and guide the reader through the scientific process. Once they've nailed that (if they every do) the presence or otherwise of equations is hardly worth worrying about.
One could code a virtual Rubik's cube solver and do it all on-screen with a virtual cube. But isn't the hardware implementation so much more cool? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d0LfkIut2M
So yes, you could pass your image through [FAVORITE PAINT PROGRAM] but that's boring. What's interesting about this robot is the implementation, the fact that you could have produced a similar final image at home by clicking a button isn't relevant.
I've got to say, I'm surprised at the negative comments thus far. A lot of engineering creativity obviously went into creating this robot, do you people not appreciate that? Do you have any idea how hard it is to get something this elaborate to work reliably? Have any of you naysayers actually tried to build even a simple robot?
You call it a simple plotter. Really? A plotter is basically a dumb printer. This is is not a dumb printer. It creates the image iteratively by examining what it looks like and modifying as appropriate.
BTW, the tree's shadow would be roughly consistent with the sun being about 15 degrees above the left horizon.
Did you read article to which the (poor and short) summary links? The whole point is that they create a fear response in a situation where there previously wasn't one. In other words, they control for the concern you raise and it's a non-issue. I know there are some crappy papers in Science, but concerns as glaring as the one you cite are going to be controlled for. In this case there is a third context.
For many shows currently being broadcast, particularly on HBO and Showtime, of course the option it "1 or wait 6 months then try 2 because paying now isn't possible"
Of course "paying now" is possible. You subscribe to HBO or Showtime. Perhaps you don't want to do that, but don't pretend it's not possible.
Firstly, what patients are charged and what it actually costs are two very different things. Secondly, there are a lot of scanners out there, and plenty of them are there for research purposes. Their presence is due to funding from research organisations and their running costs are funded from research organisations.
The reason we have real-time MRI and fMRI is because of people doing pure research. Both of these techniques have clinical applications. It is because of this pure research (which you are rubbishing) that partients have access to MRI in the first place.
They gave it to Obama because he wasn't Bush. They had the idea that because Obama wasn't Bush he would behave differently and step back on the warmongering.
I would argue it was also because he was the first black US president. Although I do agree that the political message (anti Bush doctrine) component likely played a role too. That one didn't work out so well...
... but considering we are talking about a company with a history of abandoning products that don't become hits (Zune, Sidekick,Kin,WinPhone 7) do you REALLY want to take the chance?
I'm no MSFT fan, but another way of saying this is that they abandoned products that weren't profitable. Why would any company do otherwise?
In theory you're right, but in practice the man in the funny hat has a lot of power. His stance on sexual abstinence and contraception, to name but one thing, is taken seriously by millions of people and causes untold harm. There are millions of Catholics around the world, and the Pope's opinions politics influence them via their local Church. Dismissing him because it's 2013 is, unfortunately, not going to work.
Slashdot Mirror
"Borjigan thinks the phenomenon is really just the brain going on hyperalert to survive while at the same time trying to make sense of all those neurons firing and it's like a more intense version of dreaming." Talk about over-interpreting data... This "surge in activity" which they see could be pretty much anything. We have no idea what it means, only speculation.
Snowden has been charged with two things- theft of government property (4 laptops) and giving classified information to a person without security clearance. The later charge was created by the Espionage Act of 1917. It is not "espionage" in any common use of the word.
I'm not expert on the Espionage act, but the Wikipedia tells me that the original Act made the following a crime:
1. To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. This was punishable by death or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years or both.
2. To convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies when the United States is at war, to cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or to willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States. This was punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or both.
Snowden hasn't done either of things and there is no basis for Obama to be pursuing him based upon the Espionage Act. He has not handed sensititve secrets to the enemy, either directly or by way of the media. So unless you are aware of another part of the Espionage Act, it seems that Obama is stretching its definition to pursue Snowden.
Congress clearly considers Snowden to be a whistleblower, or they wouldn't be voting on proposals to restrict the activity of the NSA http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/07/24/plan-to-defund-nsa-phone-collection-program-has-broad-support-sponsor-says/ Yet Obama continues to label Snowden's actions as espionage. He knows this bullshit, because apparently he's taken down from the internet his promise to protect whistleblowers http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/26/obama-whistleblower-website_n_3658815.html Good thing we have the Way Back Machine, then, isn't it? http://web.archive.org/web/20090227184741/http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/
You have to work hard.
If working hard was all it took their would be far fewer people complaining.
Equations are just a way of expressing logic. Well thought through and logically written science articles aren't particularly common in the mainstream media, with their love scare stories, etc. I think a vital first step would be to improve on the quality of the in general articles and guide the reader through the scientific process. Once they've nailed that (if they every do) the presence or otherwise of equations is hardly worth worrying about.
The video of the arm moving is very pretty, but the 3-D printed results not so much: http://www.gizmag.com/suspended-deposition-3d-printing/28508/pictures#4 Very much not ready for prime time.
One could code a virtual Rubik's cube solver and do it all on-screen with a virtual cube. But isn't the hardware implementation so much more cool? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d0LfkIut2M So yes, you could pass your image through [FAVORITE PAINT PROGRAM] but that's boring. What's interesting about this robot is the implementation, the fact that you could have produced a similar final image at home by clicking a button isn't relevant.
I've got to say, I'm surprised at the negative comments thus far. A lot of engineering creativity obviously went into creating this robot, do you people not appreciate that? Do you have any idea how hard it is to get something this elaborate to work reliably? Have any of you naysayers actually tried to build even a simple robot?
You call it a simple plotter. Really? A plotter is basically a dumb printer. This is is not a dumb printer. It creates the image iteratively by examining what it looks like and modifying as appropriate.
BTW, the tree's shadow would be roughly consistent with the sun being about 15 degrees above the left horizon.
I actually do not see a major problem with that. I do not see any benefit of having professional athletes anyway. The olympic ideals are all overdue.
The Olympic ideals are a modern myth that was born when the Olympics were rebooted in the modern era. The original Olympics did not live up to this ideal. This article is well worth reading: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jun/22/olympic-games-ancient-modern
Did you read article to which the (poor and short) summary links? The whole point is that they create a fear response in a situation where there previously wasn't one. In other words, they control for the concern you raise and it's a non-issue. I know there are some crappy papers in Science, but concerns as glaring as the one you cite are going to be controlled for. In this case there is a third context.
To be fair, it was "1 or 2" not "1 then 2".
For many shows currently being broadcast, particularly on HBO and Showtime, of course the option it "1 or wait 6 months then try 2 because paying now isn't possible"
Of course "paying now" is possible. You subscribe to HBO or Showtime. Perhaps you don't want to do that, but don't pretend it's not possible.
But can it levitate a frog? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1vyB-O5i6E
Forget MRI scanners. This issue is *everywhere* in healthcare. Read the Bitter Pill article in Time: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2136864,00.html
Firstly, what patients are charged and what it actually costs are two very different things. Secondly, there are a lot of scanners out there, and plenty of them are there for research purposes. Their presence is due to funding from research organisations and their running costs are funded from research organisations. The reason we have real-time MRI and fMRI is because of people doing pure research. Both of these techniques have clinical applications. It is because of this pure research (which you are rubbishing) that partients have access to MRI in the first place.
They gave it to Obama because he wasn't Bush. They had the idea that because Obama wasn't Bush he would behave differently and step back on the warmongering.
I would argue it was also because he was the first black US president. Although I do agree that the political message (anti Bush doctrine) component likely played a role too. That one didn't work out so well...
That's the point: it's a normal business practice that you can spin whichever way you like.
... but considering we are talking about a company with a history of abandoning products that don't become hits (Zune, Sidekick,Kin,WinPhone 7) do you REALLY want to take the chance?
I'm no MSFT fan, but another way of saying this is that they abandoned products that weren't profitable. Why would any company do otherwise?
In theory you're right, but in practice the man in the funny hat has a lot of power. His stance on sexual abstinence and contraception, to name but one thing, is taken seriously by millions of people and causes untold harm. There are millions of Catholics around the world, and the Pope's opinions politics influence them via their local Church. Dismissing him because it's 2013 is, unfortunately, not going to work.
Yeah, just probably not from NASA, ever again. I'd say China ;)
Then India.