Occam's Razor is a terrible way to logically reason something out. First of all, in science, one assumes an infinate number of factors which must be controlled for - secondly:
Occam says: "God did it."
Provide me with a simpler explanation that uses less entities?
ou should check out avians, reptiles and fish who see a much richer world than we could ever hope to perceive due to their much more complex retinal circuitry and spectral detection.
I work in an avian visual cognition lab.:) While this is a good idea in theory, we see a very rich world that they cannot as well - the world of figures and space. Humans are extremely good at mapping patterns out of specifics and matching them to previously seen objects and figures. We're very good at detecting relationships. This, however, is another discussion altogether.;)
Your post seemed to indicate that you have done such isolation of humans. I've read the basic literature on circadian cycles and things like that, including the "drift" from the 24 hour period.
I was just wondering how *your* lab specifically found that a number of subjects with overexposure to light had significant decline in function. While I no doubt agree that we are, in many cases, saturated by our own artificial control of our environment, I must remind you that society is, in part, dictated by evolution. It's a difficult and strange question to ask: If human beings are finding negative consequences in the long term for overexposure to light and light-related activities, why do we continue to persue them?
How do your sleep labs obtain experimental participants?
Because of the way our society works, it would be extremely difficult to test people who have no exposure to light during the non-naturally-lit hours. Almost everyone in America uses artificial lighting. How did you find people to test your theories on?
I would guess that you did your studies on other animals, as it would be extremely difficult to regulate someone's lifestyle so that they only had daytime exposure to light. In this case, do you find it hard to generalize your results to humans, who have specifically evolved tetra-chromatic vision to allow for better light-sight (remember, at one point in our evolutionary line, mammals were mostly nocturnal)?
Just wondering if you have scientific references.:)
But in general, I can see where you're coming from.
options.c/*Please comment out this option if you want to disable DRM. Doing so *may* make you liable for copyright infringement!*/ bool DRM_Enabled = True;/*Please comment out this option if you want to disable the automatic sending of personal information (shopping habits, social security number, recently visited pr0n sites) to RealNetworks. Doing so *may* disable use of this player!*/ bool player_works = True
If you read the fucking story, you'd note that the *poster* says he thinks that Nasa has been launching probes (they've launched two to Mars in recent months, rememeber?) to take advantage of this phenomenon. Launching them on "the day" doesn't really accomplish anything, because by the time your probe is launched, Mars is already heading farther away (remember, probes take longer than a day to get to Mars?).
I think you've taken a lot of urban legend and stuffed it into one big slashdot post.
DNA analysis by RFLP (Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism) is very, very accurate. This is how it works:
On your DNA, you've got lots of little molecules. These molecules form a sequence. Every so often, there will be certain repeated sequences by chance.
Restriction Enzymes locate these sequences and go *snip*! They break down the DNA at these specific sequence points.
The DNA is then run through a gel - the smaller fragments go farther through the gel. The gel is then analyzed for the particular pattern of fragments in the gel.
In case you didn't catch the variabilty associated with all of this - these restriction fragments snip only at repeated sequences, repeated sequences which occur at random in our DNA. The chances of two people having exactly the same combination of restriction-snipped fragments is so so so so *so* small it is difficult to express in numbers - think about what you're saying.
There ARE cases of fallible DNA tests - DNA tests that aren't done properly, etc. But few people are ever jailed wrongly because of properly collected DNA evidence.
My biggest issue with DNA evidence is that it only proves that the suspect was at the scene, not that he commited the crime.
I work in a avian cognition lab, and we have many pigeons.
Most animals never display this type of behavior. There are a sad few that do - they develop tics from being kept in captivity. I'm not advocating removing animals from their natural environment, but our pigeons are kept quite well.
Our bird (Matisse) constantly pecks at the back-side of his food dish. If you walk in the room, he'll look up at you and stop for a few minutes, and then go back to doing this. He doesn't do it all day, but he does it quite a long while.
This behavior, like I said before, is extremely rare. It's not the widespread problem you make it out to be.
Teaching chess, I find the biggest problem to be explaining the concept of forced moves.
I think it's very difficult for a novice to understand that most chess strategy depends on assuming where the other person will be moving on the next move, what you'll be doing, assuming where the person will move, etc.
It's difficult to assume where someone else will move if you can't figure out where to move yourself.
That's why I find chess puzzles so helpful. Teaching chess a few times about two years ago taught me that chess puzzles are everyone's best friend. The only correct solution are a series of forced moves, and the board positions are very "coaxing". There's no way to *not* see these sorts of things, given enough examples and enough time.
Masterful chess players (Grandmasters) often offer draws at unthinkable positions because they know exactly what is going to happen. Novices never draw because they can't predict what is going to happen next.
The people downloading music are of two types: the computer literate and the mostly ignorant masses.
Computer literate folks are likely to be following the cases and have some degree of knowledge about the latest DRM legislation. Most of you all know how the cases are going, you read them every day on slashdot.
Most of everyone doesn't. When the RIAA says: "Don't do this, it's against the law!", and it gets reported in the national media, people will stop downloading. It has nothing to do with whether or not they're right, they have media control, so they can change the opinion of the public. KaZaA et al. can only gain media attention by being sensationalist, and they generate press coverage this way.
Here's the crux of the "generate press coverage" arguement: most people tend to ignore the correction of information. Told a statistic, you will likely go on believing that statistic even if you are later alerted to the fact it's false. Since KaZaA can't generate "real" positive press coverage, it has to resort to this type of marketing.
No one will hear that the judge says KaZaA can't sue. Everyone will hear that KaZaA says it's doing the right thing by making music available. That's the point. It weakens their arguments to the small group of tech-elite, and widens their appeal to the masses.
Because National Highways all interconnect and have alternate routes. Redundancy is one of the principles on which our highway system was built, believe it or not.
In a sense, it would be sort of like, "What would happen if you were to find a way to stop significant traffic from Boston to New York in one swift blow?" or "What would happen if you were to find a way to stop significant traffic in and out of Washington, DC?"
I'm not arguing for the information to be covered up, I'm just arguing for a better analogy. In my opinion, a better analogy would be something like, "What would happen if we were to suddenly lose Chicago or LA Airports, which are major hub centers for almost every airline?"
Okay. One more. Suppose my copy is on a Sony brand CD made with a Sony brand CD burner using bundled software, and I willingly give it to a friend.
In this context, isn't Sony Recording equipment acting as the distribution medium? How is this different from Kazaa, besides the fact that Sony isn't going to sue itself?
Who's guilty of copyright infringement here? I suggest that it doesn't make sense to outlaw this type of behavior, as the law is unenforceable. The RIAA is essentially making the tools that they are fighting against.
I also suggest that no matter how much copyrighted music one might have on his machine, chances are that he buys CDs and watches movies for full cost every so often. I fail to understand why this is a problem for the RIAA.
And since we're on topic, I think we should turn to American Idol for a quick lesson in music marketing. The American Idol winners have sold more CD singles combined than many artists do in a lifetime, even though the market to the exact age-group that the RIAA accuses of copyright piracy. Surely they can see the logical in saying that they don't sell CDs when they actually do?
Suppose I have a friend over for dinner and I'm listening to a burned copy of a CD I legally own. It's playing over the stereo in the kitchen.
I get up and leave the room, needing to go check on the burgers on the grill. My friend is the only one listening to the music.
Is this copyright infringement, because my friend is listening to a copied CD that I'm willingly playing for him? I've made an authorized copy and I'm playing it for a friend - that's all I've done so far.
Suppose we take it a step farther. My friend really likes the band, and he swipes the CD while I'm not looking. I don't notice because I was too busy fiddling with the burgers, and he switches on the radio in it's place. Am I guilty of copyright infringement because my friend's taken my CD, or is he guilty of theft from me, for which I'm certainly not going to prosecute if I ever find out, or is my friend guilty of copyright infringement, taking a legal copy of a CD from me?
I'm lost on where the copyright infringement happens in this situation. If it happens while my friend is listening to my music, virtually every CD owner everywhere is guilty of copyright. If I'm guilty when my friend takes my CD, *I* become guilty of copyright infringement for the sins of my friend; and if my friend is guilty when he takes my CD, then he's going to be the most heavily prosecuted thief in the world: when's the last time a shoplifted was prosecuted for illegal possession of a copyrighted work?
If there's NO copyright infringement at all in this situation, then what happens if I set up my computer to transfer files, I've got legal copies on my computer, and someone else takes them without me having given explicit permission?
If you're doing DNA testing, most of the time you're busy amassing evidence on a person or deciding between few people. The article is a very rare case, because making a DNA match requires that you've got the guilty suspect's DNA to match it with.
In this case, if you've got the suspect and his twin, there are plenty of *other* chemical tests that can be performed on that blood/hair sample you're using to do your DNA test - is the blood infected with a disease only one suspect has? Is the hair sample treated with some sort of shampoo? Does one of the men crack easy when told he's the one who did it and there's DNA evidence to prove it?
About statistical testing, the most extensive and commonly used DNA test is a RFLP test - Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism. If you were to go read up on it, you'd realize that the false match possibility was so extremely statistically improbable that the evidence is extremely hard to argue.
Not only that, but language isn't integral to concept formation, as many people believe. The fact that we can represent concepts abstractly has nothing to do with the fact that we can represent them through language, many other animals (including chimps and birds [see http://pigeon.psy.tufts.edu]) can form abstract mental representations (like same vs. different, around vs. through, left vs. right) on different dimensions (visual and auditory).
Animal research has proven this, so I'm not really sure why people are so hung up on the language = reason issue.
Microsoft, mentioned in the story, has just announced that they also plan to be releasing a live-action version of the Lord of the Rings saga, focused in Washington.
Excerpt from the Press Release: Striving to recreate the atmosphere and saga of Lord of the Rings as much as possible, Microsoft has announced a 'Live Action' version of 'Lord of the Rings' in which teams of two set off from Boston, MA, trek across the United States, and eventually make it to Redmond, WA, where they seek to destroy Microsoft's base of power. The team of two will be responsible for carrying a symbolic copy of Windows XP...
"...you need to get his favorite tech to take him off-site, dinner or to a strip club, and off the record find out why he is leaving..."
Or - you could lock him away on some Island someplace after gassing him just as he arrives at his Apartment and give him the number six as a code-name.
Slashdot Mirror
Outlook actually uses this port. Not that this is a good reason to have the port open.
Most games have a EULA that prevents people from legally doing this.
:)
While they don't have a way to enforce it on a personal level, they'd certainly do something about it if it was ever taken to a business level.
Occam's Razor is a terrible way to logically reason something out. First of all, in science, one assumes an infinate number of factors which must be controlled for - secondly:
Occam says: "God did it."
Provide me with a simpler explanation that uses less entities?
ou should check out avians, reptiles and fish who see a much richer world than we could ever hope to perceive due to their much more complex retinal circuitry and spectral detection.
:) While this is a good idea in theory, we see a very rich world that they cannot as well - the world of figures and space. Humans are extremely good at mapping patterns out of specifics and matching them to previously seen objects and figures. We're very good at detecting relationships. This, however, is another discussion altogether. ;)
I work in an avian visual cognition lab.
Your post seemed to indicate that you have done such isolation of humans. I've read the basic literature on circadian cycles and things like that, including the "drift" from the 24 hour period.
I was just wondering how *your* lab specifically found that a number of subjects with overexposure to light had significant decline in function. While I no doubt agree that we are, in many cases, saturated by our own artificial control of our environment, I must remind you that society is, in part, dictated by evolution. It's a difficult and strange question to ask: If human beings are finding negative consequences in the long term for overexposure to light and light-related activities, why do we continue to persue them?
That's a good way to look at the world. Why'd you post this advice to the story? What's in it for you?
So here's my question for you:
:)
How do your sleep labs obtain experimental participants?
Because of the way our society works, it would be extremely difficult to test people who have no exposure to light during the non-naturally-lit hours. Almost everyone in America uses artificial lighting. How did you find people to test your theories on?
I would guess that you did your studies on other animals, as it would be extremely difficult to regulate someone's lifestyle so that they only had daytime exposure to light. In this case, do you find it hard to generalize your results to humans, who have specifically evolved tetra-chromatic vision to allow for better light-sight (remember, at one point in our evolutionary line, mammals were mostly nocturnal)?
Just wondering if you have scientific references.
But in general, I can see where you're coming from.
options.c
bool DRM_Enabled = True;
bool player_works = True
etc.. etc..
Hey, are these the same guys that put 'Hackers' and 'The Matrix' into theaters?
Just checking.
If you read the fucking story, you'd note that the *poster* says he thinks that Nasa has been launching probes (they've launched two to Mars in recent months, rememeber?) to take advantage of this phenomenon. Launching them on "the day" doesn't really accomplish anything, because by the time your probe is launched, Mars is already heading farther away (remember, probes take longer than a day to get to Mars?).
I think you've taken a lot of urban legend and stuffed it into one big slashdot post.
DNA analysis by RFLP (Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism) is very, very accurate. This is how it works:
On your DNA, you've got lots of little molecules. These molecules form a sequence. Every so often, there will be certain repeated sequences by chance.
Restriction Enzymes locate these sequences and go *snip*! They break down the DNA at these specific sequence points.
The DNA is then run through a gel - the smaller fragments go farther through the gel. The gel is then analyzed for the particular pattern of fragments in the gel.
In case you didn't catch the variabilty associated with all of this - these restriction fragments snip only at repeated sequences, repeated sequences which occur at random in our DNA. The chances of two people having exactly the same combination of restriction-snipped fragments is so so so so *so* small it is difficult to express in numbers - think about what you're saying.
There ARE cases of fallible DNA tests - DNA tests that aren't done properly, etc. But few people are ever jailed wrongly because of properly collected DNA evidence.
My biggest issue with DNA evidence is that it only proves that the suspect was at the scene, not that he commited the crime.
It's not a bug, it's a feature!
You forgot Step 7.5.
...
Step 7.5:
I work in a avian cognition lab, and we have many pigeons.
Most animals never display this type of behavior. There are a sad few that do - they develop tics from being kept in captivity. I'm not advocating removing animals from their natural environment, but our pigeons are kept quite well.
Our bird (Matisse) constantly pecks at the back-side of his food dish. If you walk in the room, he'll look up at you and stop for a few minutes, and then go back to doing this. He doesn't do it all day, but he does it quite a long while.
This behavior, like I said before, is extremely rare. It's not the widespread problem you make it out to be.
Teaching chess, I find the biggest problem to be explaining the concept of forced moves.
I think it's very difficult for a novice to understand that most chess strategy depends on assuming where the other person will be moving on the next move, what you'll be doing, assuming where the person will move, etc.
It's difficult to assume where someone else will move if you can't figure out where to move yourself.
That's why I find chess puzzles so helpful. Teaching chess a few times about two years ago taught me that chess puzzles are everyone's best friend. The only correct solution are a series of forced moves, and the board positions are very "coaxing". There's no way to *not* see these sorts of things, given enough examples and enough time.
Masterful chess players (Grandmasters) often offer draws at unthinkable positions because they know exactly what is going to happen. Novices never draw because they can't predict what is going to happen next.
Geeks might identify with it, they could call D&D 4.0 something like:
Dungeons and Dragons: GPA Edition.
Make the drinking age 21 or High School graduation. Helps the problem of younger kids drinking, and gives the dropouts a reason to reconsider.
What would the liquor store signs read?
Please have your ID or Highschool Equivalency Certificate ready before purchasing!
I think it's a good idea.
The people downloading music are of two types: the computer literate and the mostly ignorant masses.
Computer literate folks are likely to be following the cases and have some degree of knowledge about the latest DRM legislation. Most of you all know how the cases are going, you read them every day on slashdot.
Most of everyone doesn't. When the RIAA says: "Don't do this, it's against the law!", and it gets reported in the national media, people will stop downloading. It has nothing to do with whether or not they're right, they have media control, so they can change the opinion of the public. KaZaA et al. can only gain media attention by being sensationalist, and they generate press coverage this way.
Here's the crux of the "generate press coverage" arguement: most people tend to ignore the correction of information. Told a statistic, you will likely go on believing that statistic even if you are later alerted to the fact it's false. Since KaZaA can't generate "real" positive press coverage, it has to resort to this type of marketing.
No one will hear that the judge says KaZaA can't sue. Everyone will hear that KaZaA says it's doing the right thing by making music available. That's the point. It weakens their arguments to the small group of tech-elite, and widens their appeal to the masses.
Because National Highways all interconnect and have alternate routes. Redundancy is one of the principles on which our highway system was built, believe it or not.
In a sense, it would be sort of like, "What would happen if you were to find a way to stop significant traffic from Boston to New York in one swift blow?" or "What would happen if you were to find a way to stop significant traffic in and out of Washington, DC?"
I'm not arguing for the information to be covered up, I'm just arguing for a better analogy. In my opinion, a better analogy would be something like, "What would happen if we were to suddenly lose Chicago or LA Airports, which are major hub centers for almost every airline?"
Okay. One more. Suppose my copy is on a Sony brand CD made with a Sony brand CD burner using bundled software, and I willingly give it to a friend.
In this context, isn't Sony Recording equipment acting as the distribution medium? How is this different from Kazaa, besides the fact that Sony isn't going to sue itself?
Who's guilty of copyright infringement here? I suggest that it doesn't make sense to outlaw this type of behavior, as the law is unenforceable. The RIAA is essentially making the tools that they are fighting against.
I also suggest that no matter how much copyrighted music one might have on his machine, chances are that he buys CDs and watches movies for full cost every so often. I fail to understand why this is a problem for the RIAA.
And since we're on topic, I think we should turn to American Idol for a quick lesson in music marketing. The American Idol winners have sold more CD singles combined than many artists do in a lifetime, even though the market to the exact age-group that the RIAA accuses of copyright piracy. Surely they can see the logical in saying that they don't sell CDs when they actually do?
Suppose I have a friend over for dinner and I'm listening to a burned copy of a CD I legally own. It's playing over the stereo in the kitchen.
I get up and leave the room, needing to go check on the burgers on the grill. My friend is the only one listening to the music.
Is this copyright infringement, because my friend is listening to a copied CD that I'm willingly playing for him? I've made an authorized copy and I'm playing it for a friend - that's all I've done so far.
Suppose we take it a step farther. My friend really likes the band, and he swipes the CD while I'm not looking. I don't notice because I was too busy fiddling with the burgers, and he switches on the radio in it's place. Am I guilty of copyright infringement because my friend's taken my CD, or is he guilty of theft from me, for which I'm certainly not going to prosecute if I ever find out, or is my friend guilty of copyright infringement, taking a legal copy of a CD from me?
I'm lost on where the copyright infringement happens in this situation. If it happens while my friend is listening to my music, virtually every CD owner everywhere is guilty of copyright. If I'm guilty when my friend takes my CD, *I* become guilty of copyright infringement for the sins of my friend; and if my friend is guilty when he takes my CD, then he's going to be the most heavily prosecuted thief in the world: when's the last time a shoplifted was prosecuted for illegal possession of a copyrighted work?
If there's NO copyright infringement at all in this situation, then what happens if I set up my computer to transfer files, I've got legal copies on my computer, and someone else takes them without me having given explicit permission?
If you're doing DNA testing, most of the time you're busy amassing evidence on a person or deciding between few people. The article is a very rare case, because making a DNA match requires that you've got the guilty suspect's DNA to match it with.
In this case, if you've got the suspect and his twin, there are plenty of *other* chemical tests that can be performed on that blood/hair sample you're using to do your DNA test - is the blood infected with a disease only one suspect has? Is the hair sample treated with some sort of shampoo? Does one of the men crack easy when told he's the one who did it and there's DNA evidence to prove it?
About statistical testing, the most extensive and commonly used DNA test is a RFLP test - Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism. If you were to go read up on it, you'd realize that the false match possibility was so extremely statistically improbable that the evidence is extremely hard to argue.
Not only that, but language isn't integral to concept formation, as many people believe. The fact that we can represent concepts abstractly has nothing to do with the fact that we can represent them through language, many other animals (including chimps and birds [see http://pigeon.psy.tufts.edu]) can form abstract mental representations (like same vs. different, around vs. through, left vs. right) on different dimensions (visual and auditory).
Animal research has proven this, so I'm not really sure why people are so hung up on the language = reason issue.
At least DotComGuy will have nothing to worry about...
Microsoft, mentioned in the story, has just announced that they also plan to be releasing a live-action version of the Lord of the Rings saga, focused in Washington.
Excerpt from the Press Release:
Striving to recreate the atmosphere and saga of Lord of the Rings as much as possible, Microsoft has announced a 'Live Action' version of 'Lord of the Rings' in which teams of two set off from Boston, MA, trek across the United States, and eventually make it to Redmond, WA, where they seek to destroy Microsoft's base of power. The team of two will be responsible for carrying a symbolic copy of Windows XP...
Who'da thunk it?
"...you need to get his favorite tech to take him off-site, dinner or to a strip club, and off the record find out why he is leaving..."
Or - you could lock him away on some Island someplace after gassing him just as he arrives at his Apartment and give him the number six as a code-name.
Why did you resign?