If the Ginko was doing anything, it should have shown a slight improvement over the placebo even at 120mg. If the results come back essentially the same, then it is obviously not the Ginko improving memory.
Why? What is the rational for that? That makes certain assumptions about the mechanism of action. Perhaps you could tell us what these are, then?
So you're saying that there is no difference between these low-tech methods used for centuries and the new, direct gene manipulation we have today?
And given our incomplete understanding of nutrition and our increasing bad dietary habits, why do you think changing our food so quickly is necessarily a good thing?
I'm all for GMO research, but it needs to be done properly, for many reasons.
Seems like a pretty unreliable way to gauge interest to me. Apple knows that people often don't know what they want. They have a bunch of smart people working there. Between their own observation skills about things already in the marketplace and proper market research, I doubt Apple leaks these things to gauge their interest. Yes, the buzz generated by leaking stuff, on the other hand...
There was a more recent DVD about our solar system that I watched a few months ago. The updated graphics and facts were amazing. But I'd never buy it or watch it again because someone (at ABC, IIRC) decided that it had to be more "lively" and dumbed-down. Such a shame. Such a waste of potential -- wasted to make it more appealing to people who aren't that interested in the subject to begin with. It seems to be a problem with most of the American science docos at my (non-US) library. Thankfully there is still the BBC.
That's BS. There are plenty of decent looking phones out there. The iPhone is nothing special in that area, except perhaps that Apple made sure it has mainstream appeal.
As for the onscreen keyboard, I get better results from that than any hardware keyboard on a similar sized phone. The only way to make a physical keyboard more ergonomic is to make it bigger. And I don't want a slider phone, it would be uncomfortable in my jean's pocket -- that's better ergonomics right there.
Well, the thing about adding hardware buttons to such a small device with such a varying amount of UI is which buttons are important enough to be there all the time? The iPhone already has 4 buttons, not one.
I guess you could argue that there was at least room for a play/stop, next, and previous buttons. But then what about a call/hang-up button, too? Now you're starting to clutter the device with buttons that may have no use at all most of the time, depending on how the user uses their device. Unless you want to go down the road of confusing function keys that do different things.
The other thing about just having the one button on the front of the iPhone is that it allows the device to stay reasonably small while still giving you a place to grip it without pressing anything, as all four corners are free.
As for the battery thing, that's been done to death already. If it's so important to you, get a Juice Pack.
I doubt it. I think it's because the competition has no talent of their own and think that making something that looks like a good competitor's product is as good as making something that functions like a good competitor's product.
I'm not sure Apple would bother with that functionality until it can do it reliably for most people. Is bandwidth and coverage good enough to support such video streams at the moment? I'm guessing it's also taxing on the hardware and battery.
Would be nice, but I wouldn't expect to see it just yet.
Well, the longer you spend there, the closer you must eventually get to finishing it, right? And the closer you get, the more you might as well stick it out just a little longer, since you've spent so much time on it already.
That may be faulty logic, but it's easy to see how someone could end up staying there so long.
Plus it would have been a bummer to quit after all that time, only to see the game finally ship and you weren't part of it.
As much as I like the Segway, I do think it was way over-hyped. Sure, it has its uses. But not enough to push the bike out of its place. And once you have the infrastructure in place to make Segways more viable, you've pretty much improved the bike's already dominant place, too.
Anti-vaccination and homeopathy are in quite different fields from mental health, and I think (hope) are also a minority, even if they're vocal and well covered in the media.
The previous poster's point is that that subtext is wrong: medication is frequently superior to other forms of therapy.
Where is the evidence for this? For all cases, or for certain problems more than others? How do you even compare, considering how much harder and subjective testing non-medical therapies can be. And do you think that non-medical therapy is inherently inferior, or just that it isn't practiced well?
I have yet to see conclusive evidence that either way is better than the other. I have read studies that say that combined therapies (drugs and CBT, etc.) are more successful than either one alone. As for psychoanalysis, I'm afraid your a bit behind with the times.
Possibly. After all, they are more likely to be able to afford proper treatment. Good psychologists etc. are expensive. Then there's the time required. We have public psychologists in New Zealand, but there is still a waiting list.
If you're flying too slow and low to the ground, there is less time to recover and perform an autorotation. In a heli's flight envelope, this is often referred to as the dead man's curve.
That depends on if you screw up the landing during an auto-rotation. Which may be beyond your control if you have limited landing sites. No point in keeping enough energy for a smooth landing if doing so will set you down on a forest canopy.
I think you're short-sighted. Many people use a computer for hours and only need to type in the odd word, URL, or send a short message. Most people don't need a hardware keyboard for that. Surely the iPhone has proven this?
I'm trying to say that stats don't tell you everything. Cheap apps are obviously going to be more popular because people feel there is less risk in buying them. But that doesn't mean they never buy more expensive apps, or that there isn't a market for them, or that the expensive apps aren't selling, or say much about customer satisfaction. And I'm not sure the comparison to other platform is that useful considering their different success rates and different retail experiences.
You really think that in the real world, where generalisations don't work as well, and averages are just statistics, that somehow, one particular sex is responsible for stopping a cycle that is a complicated part of all of society?
As for million year old gender roles, I don't see how you can take them seriously considering how much life has changed in so many other ways over the last few hundred years.
Emotional intelligence will not put food on the table, cure cancer, build bridges, etc. Clearly it's a lot less valuable.
Many high-paid psychologists would disagree with you there.
I'm not sure you actually understand the concept. In practice, building a bridge and curing cancer require a lot of drive and self-discipline, etc. That requires emotional intelligence. It doesn't matter what your IQ is or how creative and innovative you are if you fail to apply yourself due to emotional problems.
It may do a reasonable job at correlating the sort of things analytical people normally associate with intelligence. Is there interpretation of intelligence more correct than someone who thinks that creativity is as just a valid form of intelligence?
Slashdot Mirror
If the Ginko was doing anything, it should have shown a slight improvement over the placebo even at 120mg. If the results come back essentially the same, then it is obviously not the Ginko improving memory.
Why? What is the rational for that? That makes certain assumptions about the mechanism of action. Perhaps you could tell us what these are, then?
So you're saying that there is no difference between these low-tech methods used for centuries and the new, direct gene manipulation we have today?
And given our incomplete understanding of nutrition and our increasing bad dietary habits, why do you think changing our food so quickly is necessarily a good thing?
I'm all for GMO research, but it needs to be done properly, for many reasons.
Seems like a pretty unreliable way to gauge interest to me. Apple knows that people often don't know what they want. They have a bunch of smart people working there. Between their own observation skills about things already in the marketplace and proper market research, I doubt Apple leaks these things to gauge their interest. Yes, the buzz generated by leaking stuff, on the other hand...
There was a more recent DVD about our solar system that I watched a few months ago. The updated graphics and facts were amazing. But I'd never buy it or watch it again because someone (at ABC, IIRC) decided that it had to be more "lively" and dumbed-down. Such a shame. Such a waste of potential -- wasted to make it more appealing to people who aren't that interested in the subject to begin with. It seems to be a problem with most of the American science docos at my (non-US) library. Thankfully there is still the BBC.
That's BS. There are plenty of decent looking phones out there. The iPhone is nothing special in that area, except perhaps that Apple made sure it has mainstream appeal.
As for the onscreen keyboard, I get better results from that than any hardware keyboard on a similar sized phone. The only way to make a physical keyboard more ergonomic is to make it bigger. And I don't want a slider phone, it would be uncomfortable in my jean's pocket -- that's better ergonomics right there.
Well, the thing about adding hardware buttons to such a small device with such a varying amount of UI is which buttons are important enough to be there all the time? The iPhone already has 4 buttons, not one.
I guess you could argue that there was at least room for a play/stop, next, and previous buttons. But then what about a call/hang-up button, too? Now you're starting to clutter the device with buttons that may have no use at all most of the time, depending on how the user uses their device. Unless you want to go down the road of confusing function keys that do different things.
The other thing about just having the one button on the front of the iPhone is that it allows the device to stay reasonably small while still giving you a place to grip it without pressing anything, as all four corners are free.
As for the battery thing, that's been done to death already. If it's so important to you, get a Juice Pack.
I doubt it. I think it's because the competition has no talent of their own and think that making something that looks like a good competitor's product is as good as making something that functions like a good competitor's product.
Why? Is there some reason that they both require the same interface? Do people really use them in exactly the same way?
I'm not sure Apple would bother with that functionality until it can do it reliably for most people. Is bandwidth and coverage good enough to support such video streams at the moment? I'm guessing it's also taxing on the hardware and battery.
Would be nice, but I wouldn't expect to see it just yet.
Well, the longer you spend there, the closer you must eventually get to finishing it, right? And the closer you get, the more you might as well stick it out just a little longer, since you've spent so much time on it already.
That may be faulty logic, but it's easy to see how someone could end up staying there so long.
Plus it would have been a bummer to quit after all that time, only to see the game finally ship and you weren't part of it.
As much as I like the Segway, I do think it was way over-hyped. Sure, it has its uses. But not enough to push the bike out of its place. And once you have the infrastructure in place to make Segways more viable, you've pretty much improved the bike's already dominant place, too.
Anti-vaccination and homeopathy are in quite different fields from mental health, and I think (hope) are also a minority, even if they're vocal and well covered in the media.
The previous poster's point is that that subtext is wrong: medication is frequently superior to other forms of therapy.
Where is the evidence for this? For all cases, or for certain problems more than others? How do you even compare, considering how much harder and subjective testing non-medical therapies can be. And do you think that non-medical therapy is inherently inferior, or just that it isn't practiced well?
Under medicated? In the US? I'll eat my hat if that is the case.
No. The subtext of this story is that medication is not a replacement for other forms of therapy.
I have yet to see conclusive evidence that either way is better than the other. I have read studies that say that combined therapies (drugs and CBT, etc.) are more successful than either one alone. As for psychoanalysis, I'm afraid your a bit behind with the times.
Possibly. After all, they are more likely to be able to afford proper treatment. Good psychologists etc. are expensive. Then there's the time required. We have public psychologists in New Zealand, but there is still a waiting list.
If you're flying too slow and low to the ground, there is less time to recover and perform an autorotation. In a heli's flight envelope, this is often referred to as the dead man's curve.
That depends on if you screw up the landing during an auto-rotation. Which may be beyond your control if you have limited landing sites. No point in keeping enough energy for a smooth landing if doing so will set you down on a forest canopy.
Auto-rotation may not help if you are flying too low and slow. Or if you don't have a good place to land.
I think you're short-sighted. Many people use a computer for hours and only need to type in the odd word, URL, or send a short message. Most people don't need a hardware keyboard for that. Surely the iPhone has proven this?
I'm trying to say that stats don't tell you everything. Cheap apps are obviously going to be more popular because people feel there is less risk in buying them. But that doesn't mean they never buy more expensive apps, or that there isn't a market for them, or that the expensive apps aren't selling, or say much about customer satisfaction. And I'm not sure the comparison to other platform is that useful considering their different success rates and different retail experiences.
You really think that in the real world, where generalisations don't work as well, and averages are just statistics, that somehow, one particular sex is responsible for stopping a cycle that is a complicated part of all of society?
But culture effects evolution, doesn't it?
As for million year old gender roles, I don't see how you can take them seriously considering how much life has changed in so many other ways over the last few hundred years.
Doesn't culture effect biology?
Emotional intelligence will not put food on the table, cure cancer, build bridges, etc. Clearly it's a lot less valuable.
Many high-paid psychologists would disagree with you there.
I'm not sure you actually understand the concept. In practice, building a bridge and curing cancer require a lot of drive and self-discipline, etc. That requires emotional intelligence. It doesn't matter what your IQ is or how creative and innovative you are if you fail to apply yourself due to emotional problems.
It's not only valuable, it's quite vital.
It may do a reasonable job at correlating the sort of things analytical people normally associate with intelligence. Is there interpretation of intelligence more correct than someone who thinks that creativity is as just a valid form of intelligence?