another important factor to note: they didn't experience actual pain in the control
from TFA:
In the second, the volunteers immersed an arm in a bucket of frigid ice water for a minute, a genuinely painful experience, and were given no instructions on what to do with their facial expressions.
For the first they told the subjects to make a **fake** painful face.
So, a face painful face vs a hand in ice water w/ no instruction...vs an optimized facial recognizer optimized on their expressions.
IMHO the subjects performed better than **the researchers themselves**
In the second, the volunteers immersed an arm in a bucket of frigid ice water for a minute, a genuinely painful experience, and were given no instructions on what to do with their facial expressions.
For the first one, they told them to ***make a fake painful face***
I'd say humans did just fine...better than the researchers who designed the study!
The computer just recognized the patterns it was told...it was optimized on their faces
Most of it is public information, but what is egregious is that some of it, including a name on a police report (when you weren't even charged w/ a crime, let alone convicted) is enough to get a Red Flag.
**that's the problem**
It's not just a database of criminal convictions...it's any name every connected to any crime anywhere that they can scan & put in their database...
Two Rules for understanding INFOSEC news:
1. Expect officials to want to have the ability to access anything.
2. Identify the appropriate supervisory agency. Every part of the US government has a boss...if you want to understand *why* look at who is setting the policy, and under what administration the policy originated.
Rule 1 can help avoid 1,000s of pointless trolling discussions b/c it is logical if you understand networking or telecommunications. Ask yourself, "Is there any data or message that I would *never* want authorities to have access to no matter what, warrants, court orders, nothing?" That can't be.
Which of course logically leads us to Rule 2
Rule 2 answers the question "Who decides what data they have access to and under what circumstances can they access it?"
These two rules cannot **guarantee** constructive discussion...but IMHO it will surely help
GP's solution..."Disable player chat" is a classic example of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"
It's a problem in our industry, thinking this way, b/c it's ridiculous. Turning it off isn't a "fix" and it never will be.
I don't know about TFA...but as you say:
He's talking about the messages baked into the game by the developer, not those from the interactions with other players. He's also not limiting his comments to multi player games.
I'm saying it's all part of the same thing. idk, maybe you and TFA author would agree with me there, but I feel it's important to drive home that compartmentalizing these issues into little sub-domains is not a solution.
We all have to change, and be vocal about it. We have to "show people" by doing the things they would expect ***AND*** we have to actually do it, too...which means going down some hallways that most geeks would rather keep in the dark.
Virtually everything about gaming is designed to appeal to a particular adolescent male sensibility....it's unnecessary (see: NES & Super Nintendo) and it **alienates women**
"gaming" isn't a bunch of guys in a room farting & quoting "Princess Bride" or fatasses in their underwear on the headset...well...it doesn't have to be
I am a professor who mentors PhD students on projects supported by NIH grants. I totally disagree with the assessment of needing to drink the kool-aid to get in on a grant.
Then you proceeded to say how **your** program isn't like the programs in TFA
The point of contention, which you have dropped b/c you're proven wrong, is that
I totally disagree with the assessment of needing to drink the kool-aid to get in on a grant
That's the disagreement.
I showed you to be a typical, self-deluded, narcissistic, ivory tower jerk-off who takes advantage of his student's desperation at getting a career.
YOU are part of the problem and you keep trying to change the subject.
Stop blaming things like the "grant process" for how ***you treat your students and other PhD's***
Either start promoting, encouraging, helping, and including "mavericks" or RETIRE AND GO AWAY
You are not going to bully me into it with school yard tactics dude.
Asking for you to directly engage the topic under discussion is something everyone in the "school yard" would understand, even the Kindergardeners.
You couldn't back up your claims, so you level a few random Ad Homonym attacks & call it done....if that's somehow me "bullying" you then guilty as charged.
Also, I'm done w/ this so I won't be responding to any further posts from you on this topic.
This comment thread is absolutely about **students** because I started it.
Read my response that started this thread....go ahead...I'll wait...
This is about **me** a former professor and ABD, telling **you** a current professor who supervises PhD's to **stop holding back people who are "mavericks" in your work, in all ways**
Stop alienating and marginalizing people with challenging ideas.
Stop forcing your students to "drink the kool-aid"
You're projecting your ideas onto what's happening. Full disclosure, I'm a FON (fan of Nate).
This article is about **launching a site**...it's about being "controversial" to get clicks.
Nate Silver doesn't agree with you. He isn't fighting against some imagined climate change fanaticism or intolerance, b/c **none exists**
Pollution hurts the environment. End of story.
This article was about getting "clicks"...it's not trying to overturn decades of science...at best it's a "opposing viewpoint" kind of thing that is attempting to do for climate change deniers what you're attempting to do with TFA...
That implies at least some modicum of room for improvement.
um...HELL YES...WTF have I been saying this whole time???
I judge the US system the best ***precisely because*** from a systemic perspective it has the most feedback channels.
You litterally spat my own argument back at me.
As for Australia's preferential voting system, it's a distinction without a difference in practice at the Federal level. Preferential voting is an *option* I'll allow, but it in no way is the **blatantly obvious** thing that is so clearly better than the US system like you made it out to be.
Fact is, you can't actually provide a counter-example. You can make a few case studies of options but that's not the evidence you claimed you had.
But that said, I *****definitely***** agree that the US has alot of improvement to be done!
I checked out that link, and about lost my mind for a second when I read this:
...if low-dose lithium proves as good as its promise, we should not allow abstract arguments about our "freedom" to drink unadulterated water to prevent us from undertaking a mass fortification effort. If we are willing to ingest fluoride to prevent tooth decay, surely we can tolerate a trace of lithium to prevent suicides.
Lithium may actually be the tip of the fortification iceberg.....
Damn! You're totally right man...
They *absolutely* are using flouride as a "gateway drug"...this is Big Pharma's new revenue stream...can't make Heroin pills anymore (Oxycontin) so we'll just dose everyone.
This whole comment thread is about **students**...the future "mavericks" that people like you purposefully alienate.
You are a PhD supervising professor...you're **exactly** the person who needs to **change** and be more open to promoting "mavericks"
Promoting & encouraging "mavericks" has **absolutely notion to do** with you getting NiH grants.
Nothing.
You tried to make some kind of point about how if you took TFA & my advice and actually, **proactively** advocated for "mavericks" that it would affect your NiH grants somehow...which is a total lie.
You're guilty of doing what TFA points out & you're trying to justify your behavior.
Just *stop it*...accept that you're part of the problem and **change**
Start helping "mavericks" get their ideas into the research or just **go away**
The problem with lack of support for Maverick-type people is that the granting agencies have become quite risk averse
no...the problem is that people like YOU are **risk averse**
you can't blame the granting agencies for decisions you make...I get your point RE: translational vs theory is off-kilter, but that's not b/c of "mavericks" it's b/c corporations fund research at universities that is intended to increase their profits + build equity.
Stop blame-shifting and start practicing what you preach! If you get NIH grants then people *will listen to you*
START TODAY....DO IT NOW...
yes...I mean it...start today Mr. PhD mentor!!!!
today your task is to find an opportunity to encourage, promote, edify a "maverick" student that will change this cycle...then continue every day...write papers, publish and make an affirmative effort to include "mavericks"....
***tell your professor friends at your little dinner parties about your change in attitude***
Does fluoride cause cause the calcification of the pineal gland?
maybe!
I don't think there's anything to it, but it's one of those "I wouldn't be surprised" kind of things. I'm a 9/11 truther, so that's some context for you.
I live in Portland and we just rejected flouride recently. I used to be an activist & I noticed through social media that there was indeed such a thing as "big flouride" and they were not above hiring local agent provaceteaurs to disrupt hearings and put out disinformation.
I saw "tradecraft" which doesn't mean it calcifies the Pineal Gland but it shows that there's money behind it.
I'm much more apt to believe that part of marijuana prohibition was that it disrupts MKULTRA-style conditioning b/c of the short-term memory loss;)
I think we're talking past each other...I'm responding to TFA's contextualization of the problem and their idea of how to "fix" it...the problem of a lack of "mavericks"
about how we have "too many PhD's"...to me that just sounds ridiculous, but I know what you mean at the same time.
the work exists...all of academia gets twisted b/c of how it interacts with the private sector which has caused a systemic problem that **keeps research from getting funded**
right on...good for you w/ your PhD program...I wish you all the best!
I understand that, say, in a happy hour gathering of grad students + recent PhD's you could fire off the comment, 'The only institutional line that matters is, "Bring in grant money!".' and the whole group would bellow in agreement.
I also agree...however if we're talking about a *fix* for this problem, you have to stop thinking like a student.
That "grant money"...it doesn't go to you...it goes to **your program** or **a specific professor** who has to do reems of paperwork to justify the grant...then of course after a fixed ammount of time, the grant needs to be renewed.
That means that if you want in on that grant, you have to "drink the kool-aide"
Now, **your** program may not operate like that, but that's this is the status quo. I got my MS in Information & Communication Science at a state school, did paid research work for a prof not in my department while there (i'm an SPSS jedi), and have worked as an adjunct at Washington State University in the CS program. I am starting my own biz now. I'm ABD so my goal is to launch this biz then go finish mine.
Slashdot Mirror
another important factor to note: they didn't experience actual pain in the control
from TFA:
For the first they told the subjects to make a **fake** painful face.
So, a face painful face vs a hand in ice water w/ no instruction...vs an optimized facial recognizer optimized on their expressions.
IMHO the subjects performed better than **the researchers themselves**
This is atrocious experimental design.
It was ***ice water*** not actual pain.
from TFA:
For the first one, they told them to ***make a fake painful face***
I'd say humans did just fine...better than the researchers who designed the study!
The computer just recognized the patterns it was told...it was optimized on their faces
another AI hype/fail
Most of it is public information, but what is egregious is that some of it, including a name on a police report (when you weren't even charged w/ a crime, let alone convicted) is enough to get a Red Flag.
**that's the problem**
It's not just a database of criminal convictions...it's any name every connected to any crime anywhere that they can scan & put in their database...
Two Rules for understanding INFOSEC news:
1. Expect officials to want to have the ability to access anything.
2. Identify the appropriate supervisory agency. Every part of the US government has a boss...if you want to understand *why* look at who is setting the policy, and under what administration the policy originated.
Rule 1 can help avoid 1,000s of pointless trolling discussions b/c it is logical if you understand networking or telecommunications. Ask yourself, "Is there any data or message that I would *never* want authorities to have access to no matter what, warrants, court orders, nothing?" That can't be.
Which of course logically leads us to Rule 2
Rule 2 answers the question "Who decides what data they have access to and under what circumstances can they access it?"
These two rules cannot **guarantee** constructive discussion...but IMHO it will surely help
hey just wanted to add that I've been aware of my doppleganger for about 2 months now
it's weird...
I haven't changed my sig b/c i'm almost afraid that the dupe "globaljustin" will change theirs...
one of mine makes quasi-constructive comments and gets upmodded
i recently addressed one who **replied to one of my comments** and this is what happened: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
he says, "please ignore the troll pretending to be me"
which i didn't reply to
GP's solution..."Disable player chat" is a classic example of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"
It's a problem in our industry, thinking this way, b/c it's ridiculous. Turning it off isn't a "fix" and it never will be.
I don't know about TFA...but as you say:
I'm saying it's all part of the same thing. idk, maybe you and TFA author would agree with me there, but I feel it's important to drive home that compartmentalizing these issues into little sub-domains is not a solution.
We all have to change, and be vocal about it. We have to "show people" by doing the things they would expect ***AND*** we have to actually do it, too...which means going down some hallways that most geeks would rather keep in the dark.
Virtually everything about gaming is designed to appeal to a particular adolescent male sensibility....it's unnecessary (see: NES & Super Nintendo) and it **alienates women**
"gaming" isn't a bunch of guys in a room farting & quoting "Princess Bride" or fatasses in their underwear on the headset...well...it doesn't have to be
thnx AlphaWolf_HK
I wonder who's up to this? And does /. know/care?
could this be APK in Beta???
word I was being serious about the "non-natural" thing...it's a whole other discussion, but it relates to cybernetics
if the act of "abstraction" really is a human-only trait of all life we observe in the universe that could mean something
i think it's probably just a big conversation leading to nowhere but maybe there will be a chance to discuss it in the future
Here's when you entered the discussion,
Then you proceeded to say how **your** program isn't like the programs in TFA
The point of contention, which you have dropped b/c you're proven wrong, is that
That's the disagreement.
I showed you to be a typical, self-deluded, narcissistic, ivory tower jerk-off who takes advantage of his student's desperation at getting a career.
YOU are part of the problem and you keep trying to change the subject.
Stop blaming things like the "grant process" for how ***you treat your students and other PhD's***
Either start promoting, encouraging, helping, and including "mavericks" or RETIRE AND GO AWAY
yo hawkinspeter, can you or StripedCow explain why someone would mod my "on a different note..." post as "Troll"?
i genuinely don't understand the mod, and am honestly a bit more confused about Calculus than when I started
aren't we part of nature?
so Calculus is "not a way for nature to implement mathematics" but humans use it to communicate nature
does that mean you consider the act of abstraction "non-natural"?
Can you or anyone explain how what the neurons are doing is "calculus"?
Do they mean that were humans to mimic the neurons in a simulation, we'd have to do calculus in an algorythm to achieve the desired result?
Asking for you to directly engage the topic under discussion is something everyone in the "school yard" would understand, even the Kindergardeners.
You couldn't back up your claims, so you level a few random Ad Homonym attacks & call it done....if that's somehow me "bullying" you then guilty as charged.
Also, I'm done w/ this so I won't be responding to any further posts from you on this topic.
This comment thread is absolutely about **students** because I started it.
Read my response that started this thread....go ahead...I'll wait...
This is about **me** a former professor and ABD, telling **you** a current professor who supervises PhD's to **stop holding back people who are "mavericks" in your work, in all ways**
Stop alienating and marginalizing people with challenging ideas.
Stop forcing your students to "drink the kool-aid"
Stop making excuses and change NOW
You're projecting your ideas onto what's happening. Full disclosure, I'm a FON (fan of Nate).
This article is about **launching a site**...it's about being "controversial" to get clicks.
Nate Silver doesn't agree with you. He isn't fighting against some imagined climate change fanaticism or intolerance, b/c **none exists**
Pollution hurts the environment. End of story.
This article was about getting "clicks"...it's not trying to overturn decades of science...at best it's a "opposing viewpoint" kind of thing that is attempting to do for climate change deniers what you're attempting to do with TFA...
um...HELL YES...WTF have I been saying this whole time???
I judge the US system the best ***precisely because*** from a systemic perspective it has the most feedback channels.
You litterally spat my own argument back at me.
As for Australia's preferential voting system, it's a distinction without a difference in practice at the Federal level. Preferential voting is an *option* I'll allow, but it in no way is the **blatantly obvious** thing that is so clearly better than the US system like you made it out to be.
Fact is, you can't actually provide a counter-example. You can make a few case studies of options but that's not the evidence you claimed you had.
But that said, I *****definitely***** agree that the US has alot of improvement to be done!
I checked out that link, and about lost my mind for a second when I read this:
Damn! You're totally right man...
They *absolutely* are using flouride as a "gateway drug"...this is Big Pharma's new revenue stream...can't make Heroin pills anymore (Oxycontin) so we'll just dose everyone.
This whole comment thread is about **students**...the future "mavericks" that people like you purposefully alienate.
You are a PhD supervising professor...you're **exactly** the person who needs to **change** and be more open to promoting "mavericks"
Promoting & encouraging "mavericks" has **absolutely notion to do** with you getting NiH grants.
Nothing.
You tried to make some kind of point about how if you took TFA & my advice and actually, **proactively** advocated for "mavericks" that it would affect your NiH grants somehow...which is a total lie.
You're guilty of doing what TFA points out & you're trying to justify your behavior.
Just *stop it*...accept that you're part of the problem and **change**
Start helping "mavericks" get their ideas into the research or just **go away**
this is my maxim: Geeks should not be allowed to name the things they create.
"Hack" as a name for a programming language is egregious. It's like naming your newborn baby "Wipe"
I wish my maxim weren't true, but it is.
So your example is "Australia has paper/pencil voting"
that's not a counter to my point about "self correcting systems" at all
it's a random factoid that is irrelevant to the discussion (voter fraud is virtually non-existent in the US as well)
No. I'm asking for you to *make a direct clash* so I can continue the discussion.
You're dodging, tolling, and avoiding. I want that to stop.
if there are "a bunch" then why couldn't you link to one???
you read them at least once, why didn't you just copy/paste the most relevant parts?
b/c you can't
b/c you're wrong, and you know it
this is Nazi science...England & associated Academic Institutions (Oxford, Cambridge, etc) love this stuff.
they want to do this, "tinker with their brains" because of their own curiosities & fascinations...not for science or to help make a more just society
no...the problem is that people like YOU are **risk averse**
you can't blame the granting agencies for decisions you make...I get your point RE: translational vs theory is off-kilter, but that's not b/c of "mavericks" it's b/c corporations fund research at universities that is intended to increase their profits + build equity.
Stop blame-shifting and start practicing what you preach! If you get NIH grants then people *will listen to you*
START TODAY....DO IT NOW...
yes...I mean it...start today Mr. PhD mentor!!!!
today your task is to find an opportunity to encourage, promote, edify a "maverick" student that will change this cycle...then continue every day...write papers, publish and make an affirmative effort to include "mavericks"....
***tell your professor friends at your little dinner parties about your change in attitude***
maybe!
I don't think there's anything to it, but it's one of those "I wouldn't be surprised" kind of things. I'm a 9/11 truther, so that's some context for you.
I live in Portland and we just rejected flouride recently. I used to be an activist & I noticed through social media that there was indeed such a thing as "big flouride" and they were not above hiring local agent provaceteaurs to disrupt hearings and put out disinformation.
I saw "tradecraft" which doesn't mean it calcifies the Pineal Gland but it shows that there's money behind it.
I'm much more apt to believe that part of marijuana prohibition was that it disrupts MKULTRA-style conditioning b/c of the short-term memory loss ;)
surely not.
I think we're talking past each other...I'm responding to TFA's contextualization of the problem and their idea of how to "fix" it...the problem of a lack of "mavericks"
about how we have "too many PhD's"...to me that just sounds ridiculous, but I know what you mean at the same time.
the work exists...all of academia gets twisted b/c of how it interacts with the private sector which has caused a systemic problem that **keeps research from getting funded**
right on...good for you w/ your PhD program...I wish you all the best!
I understand that, say, in a happy hour gathering of grad students + recent PhD's you could fire off the comment, 'The only institutional line that matters is, "Bring in grant money!".' and the whole group would bellow in agreement.
I also agree...however if we're talking about a *fix* for this problem, you have to stop thinking like a student.
That "grant money"...it doesn't go to you...it goes to **your program** or **a specific professor** who has to do reems of paperwork to justify the grant...then of course after a fixed ammount of time, the grant needs to be renewed.
That means that if you want in on that grant, you have to "drink the kool-aide"
Now, **your** program may not operate like that, but that's this is the status quo. I got my MS in Information & Communication Science at a state school, did paid research work for a prof not in my department while there (i'm an SPSS jedi), and have worked as an adjunct at Washington State University in the CS program. I am starting my own biz now. I'm ABD so my goal is to launch this biz then go finish mine.