What if the red color they added had a taste itself, and happened to make the white wine taste more like red wine? Maybe instead of coloring the wine, they should have taken the word "blind test" literally.
However, if there are things causally connected which wouldn't be with normal expansion, my intuitive reaction would be that the early universe was expanding slower than the normal models predict, so that the distant regions had enough time to interact. Indeed, faster expansion seems quite counterproductive in this regard.
Well, they still have an indeterminacy. However you don't usually care if an object is a millionth of a proton radius more left or more right. Especially given that normal thermodynamics already generates much larger classical uncertainty here.
You can make complete apps in single package files for deployment and redistribution for Flash & Silverlight, unlike with Javascript solutions which needs to load external media assets.
You can do the same in HTML. Ever heard of data URIs?
Flash is ubiquitous. You'd be hard-pressed to find a computer without it.
I didn't know that it's so hard to find iPhones or iPads.
Re:What has this to do with sony yanking linux?
on
PS3 Hacked via USB Dongle
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yeah, and every day many crimes are done with guns, which clearly proves that guns only exist in order to enable crime. Obviously the inventor of the gun was a criminal. Right?
Of course, as soon as the mod chip exists, pirates will use it. And it may well be that they outnumber the other users. But that doesn't tell you the slightest bit about the motivation of the person who originally created the mod chip.
Some examples from the Wikipedia article about autism include toe-walking, refusing to be interrupted, making repetitious sounds, compulsive behavior, problem recognizing faces...
So breathing (which makes repetitious sounds) is a sign of autism?:-)
It's always a question of how you sell the result. If you say "The test said there might be something, we have to make further tests to be sure" then of course people will worry. But what's wrong with "the test failed to give a conclusive result, we try another test instead"?
Headline: "Autism Diagnosed With a Fifteen Minute Brain Scan" = totally inaccurate.
No, the headline is absolutely accurate: It doesn't say "correctly diagnosed." I can diagnose autism within five seconds without even seeing the person; it's just that I've got a 50% false positive and 50% false negative rate. Here's my method: I throw a coin.
It may not be a good replacement for behavioural tests, but it may be a good first filter. I guess behavioural tests are more expensive than brain scans, so one could first do a brain scan, and if that brain scan has a positive result, then do a behavioural test. It would mean that of 10,000 people, 10 more would not get a positive diagnosis despite having autism (well, probably actually lower, because the behavioural test will also produce false negatives), and a few people less would get a false positive diagnosis (namely those who would have been false positives from the behavioural tests, but were sorted out be the previous brain scan), but the difference in diagnosis rate would probably be quite small (assuming behavioural diagnosis works well). However the cost difference might be large, since the behavioural test would only have to be done on 2070 people instead of 10,000.
Don't the extensions (at least the cross-platform ones) implement their functionality mostly in JavaScript? If so, then improving JavaScript speed would do very much to fulfil your wish.
Indeed, I'd expect it to have quite limited precision (which usually is OK in probability calculations; you generally don't really care if the probability is 0.34654323 or 0.34654324).
Why did I have to contradict you? Couldn't I have taken your point and run with it a bit further?
The way you formulated it certainly indicated to me that you considered your text as a contradiction to what I said. No, I can't point at something specific and say "that's it" but generally posts running a point further sound different. Yours just sounded to me like a contradiction, just that the content wasn't contradicting me.
So you're saying that was not your intent. Well, maybe. Miscommunication happens, and it happens most often on "between the lines" information like this.
No, they are pretty much painfully complex.
Is that a better contradiction?;)
Well, then I'd like to see a valid argument for that. As of now, I know only two arguments, which both aren't valid. One is the one I was just refuting, "the brain is complex, therefore the rules governing the brain are complex" and the other one is the fallacy "if the rules were simple we would have found them by now."
And where exactly do you contradict anything I said? I said that the complexity of the rules is independent of the complexity of the number of possible connections, and therefore using the latter for estimating the former doesn't make sense. You respond with an example illustrating exactly that (by using an example where the rules are much more complicated).
To make it painfully clear: We don't know the complexity of the rules. It may turn out that they are dead simple, or that they are painfully complex. We don't know it. We can only make wild guesses.
Oh, and it doesn't matter if the rules are not exactly uniform across individuals. Most people have a fairly well functioning brain, therefore those differences are obviously not important for the basic functionality.
Well, just generate a million lines of code with quantum randomness, and then kill yourself if it doesn't turn out a simulation of the brain. According to quantum suicide theory, if there's a million line program simulating the brain, you'll have it afterwards (if there isn't such a program, or if quantum suicide doesn't work, you'll not get a working program, but then you'll be dead and therefore won't care about it any more anyway.:-))
But there is no higher level with the brain. There is no design.
The second sentence doesn't imply the first. There's also no design in collections of gas molecules. And yet there's a higher level: The level of thermodynamics.
If even such a simple system has a higher level, why should suich a complex system like the brain not have it? Indeed, I'd expect the brain to have many levels. Actually, we already know two levels: The level of the individual neurons, and the level of the mind. We just don't know how those levels are connected (unlike with mechanics and thermodynamics where we know the connection in form of statistical mechanics).
Slashdot Mirror
What if the red color they added had a taste itself, and happened to make the white wine taste more like red wine?
Maybe instead of coloring the wine, they should have taken the word "blind test" literally.
However, if there are things causally connected which wouldn't be with normal expansion, my intuitive reaction would be that the early universe was expanding slower than the normal models predict, so that the distant regions had enough time to interact. Indeed, faster expansion seems quite counterproductive in this regard.
Yes: We have conclusive proof that string theory leads to publications. :-)
Actually, according to current observations, the expansion of the universe currently is accelerating. So no steady state, sorry.
Well, they still have an indeterminacy. However you don't usually care if an object is a millionth of a proton radius more left or more right. Especially given that normal thermodynamics already generates much larger classical uncertainty here.
You can make complete apps in single package files for deployment and redistribution for Flash & Silverlight, unlike with Javascript solutions which needs to load external media assets.
You can do the same in HTML. Ever heard of data URIs?
I didn't know that it's so hard to find iPhones or iPads.
Yeah, and every day many crimes are done with guns, which clearly proves that guns only exist in order to enable crime. Obviously the inventor of the gun was a criminal. Right?
Of course, as soon as the mod chip exists, pirates will use it. And it may well be that they outnumber the other users. But that doesn't tell you the slightest bit about the motivation of the person who originally created the mod chip.
So breathing (which makes repetitious sounds) is a sign of autism? :-)
It's always a question of how you sell the result. If you say "The test said there might be something, we have to make further tests to be sure" then of course people will worry. But what's wrong with "the test failed to give a conclusive result, we try another test instead"?
Since the main article says exactly that, how can it be inaccurate?
No, the headline is absolutely accurate: It doesn't say "correctly diagnosed." I can diagnose autism within five seconds without even seeing the person; it's just that I've got a 50% false positive and 50% false negative rate. Here's my method: I throw a coin.
It may not be a good replacement for behavioural tests, but it may be a good first filter. I guess behavioural tests are more expensive than brain scans, so one could first do a brain scan, and if that brain scan has a positive result, then do a behavioural test. It would mean that of 10,000 people, 10 more would not get a positive diagnosis despite having autism (well, probably actually lower, because the behavioural test will also produce false negatives), and a few people less would get a false positive diagnosis (namely those who would have been false positives from the behavioural tests, but were sorted out be the previous brain scan), but the difference in diagnosis rate would probably be quite small (assuming behavioural diagnosis works well). However the cost difference might be large, since the behavioural test would only have to be done on 2070 people instead of 10,000.
Why not just drink non-Java coffee?
Don't the extensions (at least the cross-platform ones) implement their functionality mostly in JavaScript? If so, then improving JavaScript speed would do very much to fulfil your wish.
Speed. And die size, i.e. cost.
Indeed, I'd expect it to have quite limited precision (which usually is OK in probability calculations; you generally don't really care if the probability is 0.34654323 or 0.34654324).
So maybe the solution is a certain mix of ethanol and butanol?
The way you formulated it certainly indicated to me that you considered your text as a contradiction to what I said. No, I can't point at something specific and say "that's it" but generally posts running a point further sound different. Yours just sounded to me like a contradiction, just that the content wasn't contradicting me.
So you're saying that was not your intent. Well, maybe. Miscommunication happens, and it happens most often on "between the lines" information like this.
Well, then I'd like to see a valid argument for that. As of now, I know only two arguments, which both aren't valid. One is the one I was just refuting, "the brain is complex, therefore the rules governing the brain are complex" and the other one is the fallacy "if the rules were simple we would have found them by now."
Well, maybe you look at this page especially at the second download link. But maybe you are just trolling, after all.
And where exactly do you contradict anything I said? I said that the complexity of the rules is independent of the complexity of the number of possible connections, and therefore using the latter for estimating the former doesn't make sense. You respond with an example illustrating exactly that (by using an example where the rules are much more complicated).
To make it painfully clear: We don't know the complexity of the rules. It may turn out that they are dead simple, or that they are painfully complex. We don't know it. We can only make wild guesses.
Oh, and it doesn't matter if the rules are not exactly uniform across individuals. Most people have a fairly well functioning brain, therefore those differences are obviously not important for the basic functionality.
I'm not running Firefox in Wine. I'm running the native Linux version.
Well, just generate a million lines of code with quantum randomness, and then kill yourself if it doesn't turn out a simulation of the brain. According to quantum suicide theory, if there's a million line program simulating the brain, you'll have it afterwards (if there isn't such a program, or if quantum suicide doesn't work, you'll not get a working program, but then you'll be dead and therefore won't care about it any more anyway. :-))
Well, actually hacked together in Perl. Didn't you notice that the genome looks almost like line noise?
The second sentence doesn't imply the first. There's also no design in collections of gas molecules. And yet there's a higher level: The level of thermodynamics.
If even such a simple system has a higher level, why should suich a complex system like the brain not have it? Indeed, I'd expect the brain to have many levels. Actually, we already know two levels: The level of the individual neurons, and the level of the mind. We just don't know how those levels are connected (unlike with mechanics and thermodynamics where we know the connection in form of statistical mechanics).
Well, in my newly designed brain programming language, simulating a brain can be done in few lines:
Unfortunately I don't know yet how to write a compiler for it.