Is it one? Both? Is the deficit the cause of problems, or the effect? That's just one example
Sounds like any other experimental science that is breaking new ground. Collecting facts and observations. It will take a few decades. (Besides, "the area" used for visual processing? That's quite large, isn't it??)
The point is that these tests DO NOT measure anything other than blood flow and glucose usage.
Your point is that there isn't enough correlated tests to rule out some other mechanism. OK.
But sure, I can see people thinking thermodynamics -- no waste of energy for no reason -- and drawing to large conclusions.:-)
If so, it'll hash out in a few years, I guess. Publish a paper to point at, at that time...:-)
My problem with this study, and many like it, is that they're measuring something indirectly but making it appear to prove something.
My point was that the brain researchers are neither idiots nor in a conspiracy. They are aware of your points.
So if you haven't studied why the researchers have come to their conclusions (and not only the conclusions as printed in a popular journal), I do think that the one jumping to conclusions here is you.
It is of course possible that you are in the very small group that do know about this subject.
But I've seen too many people that have read religious literature (usually creationist or marxist, like Gould) that claim researchers are doing just this kind of errors regarding e.g. brain research.
If you don't know:
Members of those cults have some problem with part of behavior being built in genetically and try to argue the case in the public mind but not the research journals, probably for reasons of getting political influence.
So, statistically, you probably belong there.
No, I'm not saying you're not allowed to have an opinion that go against the "standard model" for any given science -- I'm saying that if you wan't to be taken seriously you need to do at least one of (a) having studied the subject seriously, (b) show evidence of a consiracy -- or (c) prove all the researchers are idiots.
First, why do researchers assume that blood flow and glucose use equals proof of thought patterns?
Why do Americans reading a popular description of research assume that the researchers are idiots &&/|| in a conspiracy??:-)
As another comment said, there are of course lots of other data not mentioned in the popular article -- and a technical motivation (energy use correlates with blood flow).
juice may not get him. but cocaine will.
I don't know much about cocaine, but most drugs stimulate the brain reward mechanism directly. So of course some drugs stimulate the same reward system as sex -- but more.
Thanks for the info, anyway -- I'll try cocaine iff I get terminal cancer!:-)
The old argument is:
This has happened repeatedly. US Steel was gigantic in the beginning of the century, in the seventies/eighties it made much more steel -- with a fraction of the employees. They got other jobs.
It would be interesting if you can make a good argument why this is not going to happen again this time?
Non-windows systems do enjoy a certain degree of protection simply because they are a minority.
Yes, that is probably true. But it is not the whole story.
Because then Microsoft's IIS would get less attacks than Apache with it's 2/3 of the market (according to the last measurements I saw. Shouldn't be less now).
Did they do it like this article -- in the last paragraph, so that only a small minority of those reading the article willl ever see the recommendation?
That is a favorite strategem among non-serious media with an agenda. By pushing the points they don't like to the end, they mention all the facts -- so it's on the score card for an alibi if they are attacked for having an agenda.
(No, I don't really think that about Washington Post; probably just bad luck.)
Now we're getting there.... how can you, given that position, claim the Shuttle fulfilled it's specs?!
The people called in to do a job must be able to say "no" at some point -- and not just promise the rainbow, which NASA did. You can't just blaim all problems on the customers/politicians that ordered the job.
For the last few decades, NASA has been the big stopping block for space research. The Shuttle and the space station eat billions of money -- with little result. You can blame the stupid politicians, but those fools must have someone that tells them what can be done, what it'll cost -- and what's worth doing.
What space research need is lower costs to launch. NASA has had a systematic approach to protect the Shuttle (see DC-X argument), which has killed any good alternative.
As you argue, NASA might be total f.ckwits or they might kill project after project on purpose for decades. But if you haven't read the argument ("DC-X"), how can you have an opinion?
The politicians wanted to stretch the cost of the Shuttle over time, so the Shuttle was designed with a slow turnaround.
You argued that the Shuttle met it's specs.
I commented that the promised spec $/lbs payload (the important factor for any transport system, after security) was blown by a factor of close to a hundred(!!). NASA knew their launch assumptions where totally unrealistic, which the promised launch costs where based on.
You answered "Is it the engineers' fault that the cargo for a shuttle flight per week just didn't exist?"
I pointed out that the Shuttle just wasn't designed for doing that number of launches -- which the cost estimates needed. So any which way, the Shuttle as designed didn't live up to the spec. (Maybe it lives up to some revised spec from the middle of the project, but that wasn't your point.)
Your answer still isn't relevant to my point. I don't think you can answer.
You are, more or less, arguing a "dagger in the back" theory -- where NASA got it from the politicians. (-: Like the German politicians lost WW1 for their army!:-)
I'm not going to discuss the horrendous costs of the Space Station, etc. You lost your credibility in the DC-X thread, too. I have better things to do.
As I said before, never attribute to malice when stupidity will do.
Well, then, how much "stupidity" do you believe is credible? Especially since you didn't comment on the motivation for the malice:
Then, it flew nicely and NASA had to adjust the PR and change their tune so the teams running the Space Shuttle, the Delta rocket programs, Boeing/Lockheed ("United Space Alliance") no-bid monopoly didn't have to compete with a design that worked that they didn't control.
You either have your position without knowing the facts for the counterargument -- or you are actively dishonest. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt -- which you think is important -- and assume you're stupid.
Is it the engineers' fault that the cargo for a shuttle flight per week just didn't exist?
Uhm, no. The Shuttle as designed didn't have the turnaround for that. By a very large margin. It wasn't designed after those specs -- NASA knew they were unrealistic. My original point stands.
But you do have a point. I stand corrected on cost overruns -- the Shuttle was nothing compared to the space Station...:-(
DC-X did have an accident -- after NASA forced a takeover. Besides, what was the total cost of that project as counted in Shuttle launches? (And yes, DC-Y's use of totally new technologies might have been stupidity and not a way to kill the project. Are you arguing that is better?)
Now the Space Station is as useless as the Space Shuttle. How is anything supposed to get done if all the projects keep getting killed?
You complain about killing useless, totally overexpensive, systems after decades? I agree, it should have been done earlier. It's sad for humanity when the US' space program is mismanaged.
They were given a set of impossible requirements that were all at odds with one another, and the engineers still managed to develop a craft that met the specs.
Didn't the Shuttle miss the price target in a way that hopefully is unique? NASA promised to launch material for somewhere around a hundred to a few hundreds of dollar/lbs to orbit. The end result was, what? 10,000?
Are you seriously arguing that the Shuttle "met the specs"??:-)
OK, NASA never expected to really launch things for that price. They lied. So you might argue it wasn't really a spec...
Then we have the way that NASA threw their weight around (DC-X, etc) to kill potential competition to the Shuttle. It has maimed the US space program for decades, but lots of jobs depends upon the shuttle...
I'm discusing whether C is a high level language or not.
Oh, that answer is obvious:
It depends.:-)
You can do a very simple translation to any assembly language (with a subroutine library) for most of early C. Some stuff like expressions (a+b/c) aren't usually supported in assemblers and register allocation needs to be worked at, too. (To make it effective and fast is another thing, of course.)
C can be seen as a good macro assembler that is machine independent -- it has no concepts that aren't easily translated into assembler. Which makes it quite a neat creature.
A high level language is something that implements abstract models, usually from mathematics, but I don't really see any reason to exclude low level stuff because of that (car and cdr in lisp, for instance). It's usually not a good idea.
I think you overrate access to machine instructions as a definition of high/low level. I've seen parsing and graphics algorithms that generate code for a simple processor that is then emulated. All that could easily be implemented in a high level language.
I usually describe Meshuggah as modern jazz played by really fast and brutal death metal musicians... (Their last cd was a bit slow, it could be a good place to start.)
"rather than instructions" was a requirement as well.
And I explained (again) that the connection between assemblers macros and their instructions aren't necessarily direct; some truly weird && / || wonderful things can be done. Which are far removed from simple "one line -- one instruction".
Now you wrote:
What does that have to do with high level languages not using cpu instructions directly?
what is the point?
Do you only know about the disgusting x86 architecture and can't understand how neat it can be done if you have lots of registers?
Next time one of your euroneighbors decides that your land would make a nice annexation, we'll hang back until we get this "English" problem straightened out.
Anon Cowards seldom surprise:
That was written when the main problem Britain seems to have with the rest of Europe, is it's friendly attitude to the US...:-)
(For the record -- as an outsider, I must say that the Queen's English is simply beautiful, but some of the really odd southern US dialects sound as funny as the Irish or London dialects.)
Slashdot Mirror
The sad thing is that SciAm was incredible a couple of decades ago -- and now it's glossy garbage now. Pity.
Personally, I read a local newspaper -- and nytimes.com/news.google.com for news to double check the local news source.
Web sites (check /. extra boxes) and books for technical/science info.
I don't really have time for more.
But sure, I can see people thinking thermodynamics -- no waste of energy for no reason -- and drawing to large conclusions. :-)
If so, it'll hash out in a few years, I guess. Publish a paper to point at, at that time... :-)
Could you give exact references and explain why all the researchers with fMRI are(/might be) barking up the wrong tree?
As far as I've read (and others have commented here), there are quite a good correlation between energy use in the brain and behaviour.
So if you haven't studied why the researchers have come to their conclusions (and not only the conclusions as printed in a popular journal), I do think that the one jumping to conclusions here is you.
It is of course possible that you are in the very small group that do know about this subject.
But I've seen too many people that have read religious literature (usually creationist or marxist, like Gould) that claim researchers are doing just this kind of errors regarding e.g. brain research.
If you don't know:
Members of those cults have some problem with part of behavior being built in genetically and try to argue the case in the public mind but not the research journals, probably for reasons of getting political influence.
So, statistically, you probably belong there.
No, I'm not saying you're not allowed to have an opinion that go against the "standard model" for any given science -- I'm saying that if you wan't to be taken seriously you need to do at least one of (a) having studied the subject seriously, (b) show evidence of a consiracy -- or (c) prove all the researchers are idiots.
As another comment said, there are of course lots of other data not mentioned in the popular article -- and a technical motivation (energy use correlates with blood flow).
I don't know much about cocaine, but most drugs stimulate the brain reward mechanism directly. So of course some drugs stimulate the same reward system as sex -- but more.Thanks for the info, anyway -- I'll try cocaine iff I get terminal cancer! :-)
This has happened repeatedly. US Steel was gigantic in the beginning of the century, in the seventies/eighties it made much more steel -- with a fraction of the employees. They got other jobs.
It would be interesting if you can make a good argument why this is not going to happen again this time?
Because then Microsoft's IIS would get less attacks than Apache with it's 2/3 of the market (according to the last measurements I saw. Shouldn't be less now).
That is a favorite strategem among non-serious media with an agenda. By pushing the points they don't like to the end, they mention all the facts -- so it's on the score card for an alibi if they are attacked for having an agenda.
(No, I don't really think that about Washington Post; probably just bad luck.)
So build your up+down elevator as a second one -- and use the first elevator for making new elevators/satellite launching.
And, yes, I've lost quite a few months myself... :-(
On the other hand, real life is for users that can't handle nethack. If it wasn't for another console application that has hooked me, I'd reinstall!
My real favorite console application is Perl.
Both incredible power/expresiveness -- and with the syntax, crazy extensions and humour in the Perl tradition, it's like playing a game! :-)
Yes, yes, Python fans -- my adventure is someone elses horror game. :-)
The people called in to do a job must be able to say "no" at some point -- and not just promise the rainbow, which NASA did. You can't just blaim all problems on the customers/politicians that ordered the job.
For the last few decades, NASA has been the big stopping block for space research. The Shuttle and the space station eat billions of money -- with little result. You can blame the stupid politicians, but those fools must have someone that tells them what can be done, what it'll cost -- and what's worth doing.
What space research need is lower costs to launch. NASA has had a systematic approach to protect the Shuttle (see DC-X argument), which has killed any good alternative. As you argue, NASA might be total f.ckwits or they might kill project after project on purpose for decades. But if you haven't read the argument ("DC-X"), how can you have an opinion?
I commented that the promised spec $/lbs payload (the important factor for any transport system, after security) was blown by a factor of close to a hundred(!!). NASA knew their launch assumptions where totally unrealistic, which the promised launch costs where based on.
You answered "Is it the engineers' fault that the cargo for a shuttle flight per week just didn't exist?"
I pointed out that the Shuttle just wasn't designed for doing that number of launches -- which the cost estimates needed. So any which way, the Shuttle as designed didn't live up to the spec. (Maybe it lives up to some revised spec from the middle of the project, but that wasn't your point.)
Your answer still isn't relevant to my point. I don't think you can answer.
You are, more or less, arguing a "dagger in the back" theory -- where NASA got it from the politicians. (-: Like the German politicians lost WW1 for their army! :-)
I'm not going to discuss the horrendous costs of the Space Station, etc. You lost your credibility in the DC-X thread, too. I have better things to do.
(OK, whiskey isn't stored in acetone -- but it smells and taste like it.)
But you do have a point. I stand corrected on cost overruns -- the Shuttle was nothing compared to the space Station... :-(
DC-X did have an accident -- after NASA forced a takeover. Besides, what was the total cost of that project as counted in Shuttle launches? (And yes, DC-Y's use of totally new technologies might have been stupidity and not a way to kill the project. Are you arguing that is better?)
You complain about killing useless, totally overexpensive, systems after decades? I agree, it should have been done earlier. It's sad for humanity when the US' space program is mismanaged.Are you seriously arguing that the Shuttle "met the specs"?? :-)
OK, NASA never expected to really launch things for that price. They lied. So you might argue it wasn't really a spec...
Then we have the way that NASA threw their weight around (DC-X, etc) to kill potential competition to the Shuttle. It has maimed the US space program for decades, but lots of jobs depends upon the shuttle...
It depends.
You can do a very simple translation to any assembly language (with a subroutine library) for most of early C. Some stuff like expressions (a+b/c) aren't usually supported in assemblers and register allocation needs to be worked at, too. (To make it effective and fast is another thing, of course.)
C can be seen as a good macro assembler that is machine independent -- it has no concepts that aren't easily translated into assembler. Which makes it quite a neat creature.
A high level language is something that implements abstract models, usually from mathematics, but I don't really see any reason to exclude low level stuff because of that (car and cdr in lisp, for instance). It's usually not a good idea.
I think you overrate access to machine instructions as a definition of high/low level. I've seen parsing and graphics algorithms that generate code for a simple processor that is then emulated. All that could easily be implemented in a high level language.
Meshuggah
Arch Enemy
etc
I usually describe Meshuggah as modern jazz played by really fast and brutal death metal musicians... (Their last cd was a bit slow, it could be a good place to start.)
Usually it's "less is more" for music. Personally, I think quality is measured in speed and brutality -- but I don't even play an instrument. :-)
Now you wrote:
what is the point?Do you only know about the disgusting x86 architecture and can't understand how neat it can be done if you have lots of registers?
For fun, Google for PDP-10 assembly language and compare it with that era's C (pre-'void'!).
I'm not at all certain which was the easiest and neatest of those two.
Wow, you're really into personal attacks.
That was written when the main problem Britain seems to have with the rest of Europe, is it's friendly attitude to the US...
(For the record -- as an outsider, I must say that the Queen's English is simply beautiful, but some of the really odd southern US dialects sound as funny as the Irish or London dialects.)