I challenge you to find an AT&T pay phone in my neck of the woods (San Francisco). Most of the ones I've seen recently have look-alike paint jobs, but upon close examination they're owned by some no-name operator (and priced to match).
And it happened in Europe -- and in particular, mobile phone-happy countries like Sweden and Norway -- even longer ago. Last time I found myself in need of a phone on a street in Oslo in the middle of the night, I was hard pressed to even find the type of coin the phone took. Then, when I plunked them in, it turned out to be broken.
It makes sense, if you think about it. Who wants to be in that business? People used to gripe at how expensive pinball games had become compared to video games, but if you consider how much wear and tear all the moving parts in a pinball machine get -- not to mention the abuse from being pushed, pulled, shoved, kicked, and dropped on the ground -- the maintenance far outweighs the profits that a few quarters would bring in. Same with pay phones. How many laundromats in major metropolitan areas have pay phones that are occupied by hookers or drug dealers, 24/7? How many screaming mad arguments over money, or drugs, or "relationship issues," happen over pay phones that then end up getting smashed a few times in frustration? Those things have to be built like tanks, and they're just not paying for themselves anymore.
You've hit it right there. All over this story I see people applying terms like "corruption" to a branch of journalism that's essentially all about buying products or services. They are only there to answer the question "where should I spend my money today?" Are we meant to be shocked when it turns out that the movement of money influences what they say? The shame of it is that this form of journalism is so prevalent in the current media environment that it's easy to forget that there is way more stuff to talk about than that.
Not long ago I interviewed for a position at the business desk of a major daily newspaper, where I would be writing about technology. "Sounds right up my alley," I thought. But when I went in and spoke to the people there, it became clear that management at the newspaper wasn't really interested in business, or technology, or... god forbid... news. Technology stories for the business section did not mean covering the strategies of Silicon Valley tech companies, or the SCO lawsuit, or data leak scandals, or what-have-you. What they were looking for, pretty much, was stories about the iPhone, reviews of Halo 3, stories about "technology art" at Burning Man, and holiday gift guides.
Do you see the difference? What was once ostensibly the business section of a major newspaper is now devoted to pretty much two types of stories: 1. "What should I do this weekend?" and 2. "What should I spend my disposable income on?"
This is actually pretty scary to me. OK, so the trade press allows their advertisers to color the review content that they publish -- deplorable, sure, but it's not like anybody's shocked. What IS shocking, and reprehensible, is that the major media outlets, the ones that SHOULD be publishing serious stories about all the thousands of topics that aren't about 20-30 year olds flinging their cash around on pointless consumer products, are instead allowing themselves to be turned into trade rags.
When the real news can be bought just as easily as a videogame review can, we're all in trouble.
The more corruption is exposed and reacted to (by not going to gamespot ever again) the more likely we can select what mediums have not been corrupted. If we teach our children to shun corruption, perhaps there is hope for the future.
Part of the problem, I think, is that you're applying terms like "corruption" to a branch of journalism that's essentially all about buying products or services. They are only there to answer the question "where should I spend my money today?" The shame of it is that this form of journalism is so prevalent in the current media environment that it's easy to forget that there is way more stuff to talk about than that.
Not long ago I interviewed for a position at the business desk of a major daily newspaper, where I would be writing about technology. "Sounds right up my alley," I thought. But when I went in and spoke to the people there, it became clear that management at the newspaper wasn't really interested in business, or technology, or... god forbid... news. Technology stories for the business section did not mean covering the strategies of Silicon Valley tech companies, or the SCO lawsuit, or data leak scandals, or what-have-you. What they were looking for, pretty much, was stories about the iPhone, reviews of Halo 3, stories about "technology art" at Burning Man, and holiday gift guides.
Do you see the difference? What was once ostensibly the business section of a major newspaper is now devoted to pretty much two types of stories: 1. "What should I do this weekend?" and 2. "What should I spend my disposable income on?"
This is actually pretty scary to me. OK, so the trade press allows their advertisers to color the review content that they publish -- deplorable, sure, but it's not like anybody's shocked. What IS shocking, and reprehensible, is that the major media outlets, the ones that SHOULD be publishing serious stories about all the thousands of topics that aren't about 20-30 year olds flinging their cash around on pointless consumer products, are instead allowing themselves to be turned into trade rags.
When the real news can be bought just as easily as a videogame review can, we're all in trouble.
there have also been plenty of complaints that the OSX version is buggy and doesn't run as well.
From who? Most of the people I know who have used both say that Mac Office 2004 is better than Office 2003 for Windows (and they think that makes no sense and they don't get what the hell is wrong with Microsoft).
By and large, the medicine portrayed in House is accurate, even if it is rare and farfetched.
I dunno...odd goofs are not uncommon, and they're often the type of basic stuff that you'd think even a cursory review by a medical adviser would pick up. I seem to remember one episode where they repeatedly referred to toxoplasmosis as a fungal infection, for example (it's not, it's a blood parasite -- kind of a big difference). And that was in the first two seasons (agreed with another poster that 3 & 4 have let the medicine slip pretty far).
Wouldn't happen to have the source for Framemaker would you? I'd love to get that working under OSX...
Haha, no. And, given that this was probably around 1997, I doubt that the code would be of much use to you anyway. If I remember right, what I got was neatly organized into CodeWarrior projects, but it wasn't complete, i.e. it wouldn't actually build a binary.
A company I worked for once participated in the beta test program for Adobe Illustrator... I think it was version 7. We were primarily a Mac shop, so we were using the Mac versions of the CD-ROMs they sent us. One build they sent us had a funny property... when you put the CD-ROM in the drive, the Trash can would turn full. Oh but wait -- before you old Mac people start going "ho ho ho," there wasn't actually anything important in the Trash can. But that's when I noticed that a couple of extra folders would appear on the desktop, too.;-) In one of those was about 340MB of source code for Adobe Illustrator, Dimensions, Streamline and some other stuff.
About four days after we received this particular build (and I had noticed its interesting attributes) I got a call from Adobe:
Adobe: There are problems with the latest build of Illustrator. We need to recall those CD-ROMs immediately.
Me: Gosh... sounds bad. Problems?
Adobe: Yes. We will be sending you a prepaid FedEx return envelope. It's extremely important that you return those discs to us right away.
Me: I see. Oh, my. Look... can you tell me what the problem is? It's not a virus, is it?
Adobe: I can't really say. It's a technical issue. But if you've installed Build 378468434 on any of your equipment, you should un-install it right away.
Me: Oh, dear. Oh, dear oh dear. I will do so, ma'am, immediately. It... it wouldn't damage any of our systems, would it?
Adobe: Um... you should be OK. But, just to be on the safe side you should be sure to uninstall it from any of your machines and make sure you send those CDs back to us right away.
Me: Yes ma'am, will do.
Adobe: Thanks, have a nice day.
Me: (pushes eject button on CD-R burner, grabs a Sharpie)
Do you have a reference? I suddenly don't trust you. A chemical reaction - the breaking or formation of a bond - can either release energy or absorb it. There are exothermic reactions (release energy) and endothermic reations (absorb energy).
An endothermic reaction, naturally, is one where you apply energy to break chemical bonds. The pieces of the original reactant(s) (left side of the chemical equation) then bond in new ways to form the product(s) (right side). A first-year chemistry example is the Haber process, which forms ammonia from hydrogen and nitrogen. It's pretty hard to do, and is endothermic -- but not because you need a lot of heat to glue the NH3 together, but because you need a lot of heat to break the triple bond on the N2 molecule to get the process going.
In an exothermic reaction, the bonds formed are a lower-energy state than the bonds broken, and so energy is released. But note that this is dependent on a chemical reaction that forms some kind of chemical bonds -- if all you wanted to do was break a bunch of bonds, you would need to add a lot of energy to the system.
Yeah, somehow the body releases energy contrary to the start of your paragraph.
Obviously your body derives energy from food or you would fall over. But however counterintuitive it may be, energy is released when compounds form chemical bonds, not when bonds are broken -- that's scientific fact. Usually, however, when we talk about food we explain it the opposite way, because it's simpler. If you think about it the real way, though, you just can't say "one sugar has energy = 4 so if I eat 4 sugars I am +16 energy." It's far more complicated than that, but it's sometimes useful to use simplistic models to get across basic ideas.
And that gets to my real point, which had more to do with the nature of blanket statements. You can quote the first law of thermodynamics and claim that it explains everything you need to know about nutrition, and it might sound really important and official, but party facts plus science is still party facts. You're really not saying anything more than the guy who says he eats a Big Mac three meals a day and never gains weight. If the laws of thermodynamics really explain everything you need to know about the optimum diet for a human being, then a whole lot of scientists have been wasting their lives for years.
Your own last paragraph pretty much sums it up -- yup, there's chemical energy in there, all right. But where it goes in any given moment might be anybody's guess, which is why everybody's got a theory but everybody keeps getting fat.
The law of conservation of energy is sufficient to result in that blanket statement.
Sure... provided you have no real understanding of the processes involved.
The common, simplistic explanation of nutrition is that you consume food, which your body then breaks down, releasing the energy of chemical bonds, which your body then uses as fuel. We measure the energy released in a unit called calories.
This description is fine, and it suffices for most day-to-day discussions of food, with one caveat: It's fiction, almost from top to bottom.
Just for starters, when nutritionists talk about calories, they're not really talking about calories like a physicist would. They're really talking about "food calories," which I believe are equivalent to kilocalories. This may be a minor point, but it serves to illustrate that if you think nutrition science maps directly onto physics, you are wrong.
Second, and more importantly, any good college chemistry instructor will tell you that the body does not "release energy" from the chemical bonds in food. Chemicals form bonds because the bonded compounds are the lowest-energy state for those particles. In other words, it takes energy to break a chemical bond, not the other way around. Digestion allows us to extract energy from food because we break down certain chemical bonds and cause those chemicals to form other, different bonds -- bonds with an even lower energy state than the original form. Our bodies can then take advantage of the surplus (and exactly how is still another story).
If you understand this, it should be obvious that digestion can be a fairly complex process, not all food is equal, and you can't measure the "calories" in a food as if you had a gas gauge.
So what? SO WHAT? Cookie Monster has an eating disorder. In this age of rampant obesity, I hardly think that is 'modeling the correct behavior.'
Oh wait. You probably thought I was making a joke. Personally, I think the whackjobs who have been running CTW since Jim Henson's death should be hauled out and shot.
It's interesting. Based on your analysis of the Chinese character, it sounds like your average Chinese is willing to step over the bodies of his comrades, so to speak, it will allow him to get ahead. "Competition" that damages the competitors is seen as being just as legitimate as competition that advances one's own position. I wonder -- is this extreme, cutthroat attitude toward personal advancement the result of a society that enforces equality for everyone? Not that this "equality" is really true, mind you -- but if there's a good chance that some government official might come along and take away what you've worked for, the average businessman might start to learn from that example and act accordingly.
This seems to imply that copyright-infringing video is being streamed over the network. Does this ever happen? More likely it is broken up into completely arbitrary chunks, which may or may not contain an entire frame and are unlikely to be delivered in sequential order. Furthermore, any form of network or P2P encryption currently in use ought to be able to defeat this. I wonder how much AT&T will be spending on this plan?
Right, but since we're all writing in English... it's just the Sun. Even if it "doesn't have a name," it's not confusing to most people because we call all the rest of them "stars."
A sun is a type of thing, Sol is the name of the sun that happens to be closes to us.
Got any data to back that up? I know they call it Sol a lot in sci-fi paperbacks and on Star Trek, but do any scientists actually use that designation?
Modern PCs have millions of files in them - some of your own, and some coming from random sources, like the Web, friends, guests - who knows.
Bit of a slippery slope there. If your computer is really full of files from "random sources," then I guess you have no reasonable expectation of privacy for the data on your computer?
I swear, I don't know a single sales stooge or marketing drone who uses a Microsoft smartphone. They all use BlackBerries or Treos. The idea that MS is even seriously competing in Palm/RIM's world comes as sort of a shock.
I can only assume that there must be, somewhere, some gigantic vertical industries that have standardized on Win CE applications down the employee chain or something. Does anyone know of examples?
If you look carefully, you can see vast expanses of flat, gray, featureless land surface. These were the aliens' Wal-Mart parking lots. They are all that remains of the former Lunar society, edifices to what was a noble and advanced race, before it destroyed itself in a conflagration of bargain shopping.
Malaria is a constantly moving target. Much harder to chase a moving target than a still one.
Then again, one of the most effective forms of prevention against ALL forms of malaria -- even the drug-resistant ones -- is a mosquito net over your bed. This is very fortunate, because it allows Big Pharma to take the millions they might have spent solving the malaria problem and devote them to attacking the age-old problem of keeping rich old men's dicks hard.
It isn't surprising that monkeys can understand an abstraction like 'numbers' - a brain is a neural network, and neural nets are 'abstraction engines' by definition.
Wait... a neural network is just a mathematical model of what a real brain is. I doubt any neuroscientist would generalize in this way, or even claim to understand the brain on a deep enough level to make such a blanket statement.
Slashdot Mirror
I challenge you to find an AT&T pay phone in my neck of the woods (San Francisco). Most of the ones I've seen recently have look-alike paint jobs, but upon close examination they're owned by some no-name operator (and priced to match).
And it happened in Europe -- and in particular, mobile phone-happy countries like Sweden and Norway -- even longer ago. Last time I found myself in need of a phone on a street in Oslo in the middle of the night, I was hard pressed to even find the type of coin the phone took. Then, when I plunked them in, it turned out to be broken.
It makes sense, if you think about it. Who wants to be in that business? People used to gripe at how expensive pinball games had become compared to video games, but if you consider how much wear and tear all the moving parts in a pinball machine get -- not to mention the abuse from being pushed, pulled, shoved, kicked, and dropped on the ground -- the maintenance far outweighs the profits that a few quarters would bring in. Same with pay phones. How many laundromats in major metropolitan areas have pay phones that are occupied by hookers or drug dealers, 24/7? How many screaming mad arguments over money, or drugs, or "relationship issues," happen over pay phones that then end up getting smashed a few times in frustration? Those things have to be built like tanks, and they're just not paying for themselves anymore.
SECRET MAILING LIST ROCKS!!
You've hit it right there. All over this story I see people applying terms like "corruption" to a branch of journalism that's essentially all about buying products or services. They are only there to answer the question "where should I spend my money today?" Are we meant to be shocked when it turns out that the movement of money influences what they say? The shame of it is that this form of journalism is so prevalent in the current media environment that it's easy to forget that there is way more stuff to talk about than that.
... god forbid ... news. Technology stories for the business section did not mean covering the strategies of Silicon Valley tech companies, or the SCO lawsuit, or data leak scandals, or what-have-you. What they were looking for, pretty much, was stories about the iPhone, reviews of Halo 3, stories about "technology art" at Burning Man, and holiday gift guides.
Not long ago I interviewed for a position at the business desk of a major daily newspaper, where I would be writing about technology. "Sounds right up my alley," I thought. But when I went in and spoke to the people there, it became clear that management at the newspaper wasn't really interested in business, or technology, or
Do you see the difference? What was once ostensibly the business section of a major newspaper is now devoted to pretty much two types of stories: 1. "What should I do this weekend?" and 2. "What should I spend my disposable income on?"
This is actually pretty scary to me. OK, so the trade press allows their advertisers to color the review content that they publish -- deplorable, sure, but it's not like anybody's shocked. What IS shocking, and reprehensible, is that the major media outlets, the ones that SHOULD be publishing serious stories about all the thousands of topics that aren't about 20-30 year olds flinging their cash around on pointless consumer products, are instead allowing themselves to be turned into trade rags.
When the real news can be bought just as easily as a videogame review can, we're all in trouble.
Part of the problem, I think, is that you're applying terms like "corruption" to a branch of journalism that's essentially all about buying products or services. They are only there to answer the question "where should I spend my money today?" The shame of it is that this form of journalism is so prevalent in the current media environment that it's easy to forget that there is way more stuff to talk about than that.
Not long ago I interviewed for a position at the business desk of a major daily newspaper, where I would be writing about technology. "Sounds right up my alley," I thought. But when I went in and spoke to the people there, it became clear that management at the newspaper wasn't really interested in business, or technology, or ... god forbid ... news. Technology stories for the business section did not mean covering the strategies of Silicon Valley tech companies, or the SCO lawsuit, or data leak scandals, or what-have-you. What they were looking for, pretty much, was stories about the iPhone, reviews of Halo 3, stories about "technology art" at Burning Man, and holiday gift guides.
Do you see the difference? What was once ostensibly the business section of a major newspaper is now devoted to pretty much two types of stories: 1. "What should I do this weekend?" and 2. "What should I spend my disposable income on?"
This is actually pretty scary to me. OK, so the trade press allows their advertisers to color the review content that they publish -- deplorable, sure, but it's not like anybody's shocked. What IS shocking, and reprehensible, is that the major media outlets, the ones that SHOULD be publishing serious stories about all the thousands of topics that aren't about 20-30 year olds flinging their cash around on pointless consumer products, are instead allowing themselves to be turned into trade rags.
When the real news can be bought just as easily as a videogame review can, we're all in trouble.
On my Ubuntu system, not only does it not automatically check for updates, but "Check for Updates" is grayed out in the Help menu. Way to go, Ubuntu.
From who? Most of the people I know who have used both say that Mac Office 2004 is better than Office 2003 for Windows (and they think that makes no sense and they don't get what the hell is wrong with Microsoft).
I doubt that. They don't measure pressure in pounds, but in pounds of force distributed over a specific area, e.g. pounds per square inch (PSI).
Hypodermic needle. Hypo ("under") dermic ("the skin"). Pretty commonplace tool, actually. Cannulae, on the other hand, are used for IVs.
I dunno...odd goofs are not uncommon, and they're often the type of basic stuff that you'd think even a cursory review by a medical adviser would pick up. I seem to remember one episode where they repeatedly referred to toxoplasmosis as a fungal infection, for example (it's not, it's a blood parasite -- kind of a big difference). And that was in the first two seasons (agreed with another poster that 3 & 4 have let the medicine slip pretty far).
The phrase "jury of your peers" comes to mind...
Haha, no. And, given that this was probably around 1997, I doubt that the code would be of much use to you anyway. If I remember right, what I got was neatly organized into CodeWarrior projects, but it wasn't complete, i.e. it wouldn't actually build a binary.
A company I worked for once participated in the beta test program for Adobe Illustrator ... I think it was version 7. We were primarily a Mac shop, so we were using the Mac versions of the CD-ROMs they sent us. One build they sent us had a funny property... when you put the CD-ROM in the drive, the Trash can would turn full. Oh but wait -- before you old Mac people start going "ho ho ho," there wasn't actually anything important in the Trash can. But that's when I noticed that a couple of extra folders would appear on the desktop, too. ;-) In one of those was about 340MB of source code for Adobe Illustrator, Dimensions, Streamline and some other stuff.
... sounds bad. Problems?
... can you tell me what the problem is? It's not a virus, is it?
... it wouldn't damage any of our systems, would it?
About four days after we received this particular build (and I had noticed its interesting attributes) I got a call from Adobe:
Adobe: There are problems with the latest build of Illustrator. We need to recall those CD-ROMs immediately.
Me: Gosh
Adobe: Yes. We will be sending you a prepaid FedEx return envelope. It's extremely important that you return those discs to us right away.
Me: I see. Oh, my. Look
Adobe: I can't really say. It's a technical issue. But if you've installed Build 378468434 on any of your equipment, you should un-install it right away.
Me: Oh, dear. Oh, dear oh dear. I will do so, ma'am, immediately. It
Adobe: Um... you should be OK. But, just to be on the safe side you should be sure to uninstall it from any of your machines and make sure you send those CDs back to us right away.
Me: Yes ma'am, will do.
Adobe: Thanks, have a nice day.
Me: (pushes eject button on CD-R burner, grabs a Sharpie)
An endothermic reaction, naturally, is one where you apply energy to break chemical bonds. The pieces of the original reactant(s) (left side of the chemical equation) then bond in new ways to form the product(s) (right side). A first-year chemistry example is the Haber process, which forms ammonia from hydrogen and nitrogen. It's pretty hard to do, and is endothermic -- but not because you need a lot of heat to glue the NH3 together, but because you need a lot of heat to break the triple bond on the N2 molecule to get the process going.
In an exothermic reaction, the bonds formed are a lower-energy state than the bonds broken, and so energy is released. But note that this is dependent on a chemical reaction that forms some kind of chemical bonds -- if all you wanted to do was break a bunch of bonds, you would need to add a lot of energy to the system.
Obviously your body derives energy from food or you would fall over. But however counterintuitive it may be, energy is released when compounds form chemical bonds, not when bonds are broken -- that's scientific fact. Usually, however, when we talk about food we explain it the opposite way, because it's simpler. If you think about it the real way, though, you just can't say "one sugar has energy = 4 so if I eat 4 sugars I am +16 energy." It's far more complicated than that, but it's sometimes useful to use simplistic models to get across basic ideas.
And that gets to my real point, which had more to do with the nature of blanket statements. You can quote the first law of thermodynamics and claim that it explains everything you need to know about nutrition, and it might sound really important and official, but party facts plus science is still party facts. You're really not saying anything more than the guy who says he eats a Big Mac three meals a day and never gains weight. If the laws of thermodynamics really explain everything you need to know about the optimum diet for a human being, then a whole lot of scientists have been wasting their lives for years.
Your own last paragraph pretty much sums it up -- yup, there's chemical energy in there, all right. But where it goes in any given moment might be anybody's guess, which is why everybody's got a theory but everybody keeps getting fat.
Sure... provided you have no real understanding of the processes involved.
The common, simplistic explanation of nutrition is that you consume food, which your body then breaks down, releasing the energy of chemical bonds, which your body then uses as fuel. We measure the energy released in a unit called calories.
This description is fine, and it suffices for most day-to-day discussions of food, with one caveat: It's fiction, almost from top to bottom.
Just for starters, when nutritionists talk about calories, they're not really talking about calories like a physicist would. They're really talking about "food calories," which I believe are equivalent to kilocalories. This may be a minor point, but it serves to illustrate that if you think nutrition science maps directly onto physics, you are wrong.
Second, and more importantly, any good college chemistry instructor will tell you that the body does not "release energy" from the chemical bonds in food. Chemicals form bonds because the bonded compounds are the lowest-energy state for those particles. In other words, it takes energy to break a chemical bond, not the other way around. Digestion allows us to extract energy from food because we break down certain chemical bonds and cause those chemicals to form other, different bonds -- bonds with an even lower energy state than the original form. Our bodies can then take advantage of the surplus (and exactly how is still another story).
If you understand this, it should be obvious that digestion can be a fairly complex process, not all food is equal, and you can't measure the "calories" in a food as if you had a gas gauge.
So what? SO WHAT? Cookie Monster has an eating disorder. In this age of rampant obesity, I hardly think that is 'modeling the correct behavior.'
Oh wait. You probably thought I was making a joke. Personally, I think the whackjobs who have been running CTW since Jim Henson's death should be hauled out and shot.
It's interesting. Based on your analysis of the Chinese character, it sounds like your average Chinese is willing to step over the bodies of his comrades, so to speak, it will allow him to get ahead. "Competition" that damages the competitors is seen as being just as legitimate as competition that advances one's own position. I wonder -- is this extreme, cutthroat attitude toward personal advancement the result of a society that enforces equality for everyone? Not that this "equality" is really true, mind you -- but if there's a good chance that some government official might come along and take away what you've worked for, the average businessman might start to learn from that example and act accordingly.
This seems to imply that copyright-infringing video is being streamed over the network. Does this ever happen? More likely it is broken up into completely arbitrary chunks, which may or may not contain an entire frame and are unlikely to be delivered in sequential order. Furthermore, any form of network or P2P encryption currently in use ought to be able to defeat this. I wonder how much AT&T will be spending on this plan?
Right, but since we're all writing in English... it's just the Sun. Even if it "doesn't have a name," it's not confusing to most people because we call all the rest of them "stars."
Got any data to back that up? I know they call it Sol a lot in sci-fi paperbacks and on Star Trek, but do any scientists actually use that designation?
Bit of a slippery slope there. If your computer is really full of files from "random sources," then I guess you have no reasonable expectation of privacy for the data on your computer?
I swear, I don't know a single sales stooge or marketing drone who uses a Microsoft smartphone. They all use BlackBerries or Treos. The idea that MS is even seriously competing in Palm/RIM's world comes as sort of a shock.
I can only assume that there must be, somewhere, some gigantic vertical industries that have standardized on Win CE applications down the employee chain or something. Does anyone know of examples?
If you look carefully, you can see vast expanses of flat, gray, featureless land surface. These were the aliens' Wal-Mart parking lots. They are all that remains of the former Lunar society, edifices to what was a noble and advanced race, before it destroyed itself in a conflagration of bargain shopping.
Then again, one of the most effective forms of prevention against ALL forms of malaria -- even the drug-resistant ones -- is a mosquito net over your bed. This is very fortunate, because it allows Big Pharma to take the millions they might have spent solving the malaria problem and devote them to attacking the age-old problem of keeping rich old men's dicks hard.
Wait ... a neural network is just a mathematical model of what a real brain is. I doubt any neuroscientist would generalize in this way, or even claim to understand the brain on a deep enough level to make such a blanket statement.