Here's a different way to analyse it: contingencies. Contingency A: get a correct answer. Contingency B: get a correct answer or get help. Turns out you get faster acquisition on A than B. There's actually a family of B, however: time between question and hint, payoff for a correct response with hint versus without. Further analysis along these parameters would reveal if hints are uniformly toxic to learning. My guess: the value of hints is vastly overestimated by most teachers and learners. So indeed, don't look at the other side of the flash card too quickly. And terms like "learning event" are not needed to conclude that, nor assumptions about what is happening inside the skin.
Wrong. A within subject design can generate reliable results with just a few subjects. You're thinking of a between subject design, one of whose drawbacks is the requirement for more subjects.
Sure: a century or so of results, starting with Thorndike, that suggest exactly the result obtained. Task analysis, contingency analysis, what pays off, what was learned.
"Observation" is poorly defined here which may confuse things. It is possible for what gets called observation to pay off in some situations, e.g. transfer of stimulus control. That doesn't change the general phenomenon: active involvement increases learning, which is well known.
If the result here had been that mere presentation of hints decreases time to acquisition, now THAT would have been an interesting result.
And in the irony or regression department, active involvement in learning research increases learning that active involvement increases learning.
This has been well established for decades across a wide variety of species. The result is entirely unsurprising. The only way this would have been newsworthy would be if the result had been the exact opposite.
What was measured? Freezing: not moving. Or not freezing: moving, continuing to move.
Everything else is inferred.
Likewise, fear doesn't extinguish. Freezing could be said to extinguish. Fear could be said to be lowered, or reduced; however, again, that's an inference. One could also infer that caution was reduced. MIT Finds Cure for Caution. Is that a breakthrough?
The song doesn't expire in three days. You mean "recording". The song remains. You're free to sing it whenever you like. Your right to play a particular recording expires.
What Micro$oft paid for was games, or game updates, or game episodes. The content, if any, of the games remains in the public domain, as does almost all content. The expression (the specific game) is what is owned, and what Micro$oft purchased the rights to.
10 subects is plenty if you do the right experiment. They did the wrong one.
So you want to do some psychophysics, son? Just set up a tracking rule that adjusts bit rate as a function of recent detection performance. E.g. increase the bit rate by 4kbps for each incorrect answer, decrease it by 4kbps for two correct answers in a row. Crank off trials. You will shortly find each subject's threshold under the testing circumstances (codec, audio material, headphones, background noise, etc.) Some subjects' thresholds, perhaps most, will fall north of 128kbps. That doesn't mean those same subjects won't enjoy music compressed at lower bit rates, or won't find it acceptable; it means they can tell the difference. The test delivers the bit rate at which each subject can tell the difference, with rigor, repeatability, and precision. It's reliable with ONE subject in less than an hour. You can re-run it with different headphones, audio material, etc. And you can make strong inferences about what bit rates are necessary, desirable, optimal, for real world audio.
There's no shortage of evidence that Holmes is correlated with Doyle. That doesn't make the discourse of writers the same as the discourse of fictional characters. There are no walls between the categories: they are simply different categories. If you believe you can learn more about Doyle by interviewing Holmes you are welcome to try. Likewise if you want to investigate mystery plotting by increasing the font size of the text, be my guest. They remain category mistakes.
What has been measured inside the skin is not intention, but CNS events. CNS events are in a different discourse from states like "intention". Holmes exists, and Doyle exists, but not in the same sense, and discourse about the one cannot mix freely with discourse about the other.
The CNS events in question may predict later behavior, or assist in doing so. What they will not do is deliver "intention" as the thing being measured. They are not that, and they are not even the same sort of thing as that.
"make it easier for digital media consumers to use the content they buy."
In fact what's owned, bought, and protected (or not) here is expression, not content.
If you learn that the Earth is round from watching that digital video, you're free to share that fact with anyone you like. The copyright holders can't do a thing about it.
Let's also get excited about a high tech paper scanner that can read Doyle's books and tell us what Holmes was thinking. Obviously the scanner must have incredible resolution to get every detail of the font and paper. Then we can know things about Holmes's thoughts that weren't mentioned in the text.
What? Holmes's thoughts are not divined by scanning the media that Doyle's stories are displayed on? This is in fact a category mistake? Oh. Right. Sorry. Never mind.
I've now owned three cell phones using three
different cell standards serviced by five
different vendors. Not one of them delivered
decent voice quality with any reliability.
Most of them most of the time delivered lower
quality sound than long distance phone service
had 40 years ago. All of them sported far more
gimmicky features (that contributed nothing to
phone calls) than I ever wanted, needed, or used.
It's time to name the device for what it is:
a toy that can sometimes make crappy phone calls.
If you want a toy that can sometimes make crappy
phone calls, you should definitely get what is
commonly called a "cell phone". You will be satisfied.
I assume Oracle will be releasing its source on the same terms. So that other firms can likewise offer competing support services for Oracle products. This is capitalism. Right?
The strangely unfamous cancer is lung cancer. It has been called the invisible disease.
Lung cancer kills more women than breast cancer. Lung cancer has killed more women than breast cancer every year since 1987. And the gap is widening: lung cancer deaths in women are increasing.
CDC
TFK
Lung Cancer kills more women every year than breast, uterine, and ovarian cancers combined.
Joan's Legacy
"There are four major cancers that account for over 50 percent of cancer deaths. Far and away, the most important in both men and women is lung cancer."
PBS online focus
Yet women's magazines and other media pass out gobs and slathers of information on breast cancer. They hardly ever even mention lung cancer. By an amazing coincidence, they run a lot of tobacco product advertising.
ACSH
Vanity Fair article, May 2006,
Climate skeptic also aided Big Tobacco, relates the curious case of Dr. Seitz, "a former president of the National Academy of Sciences and one of the most often-quoted skeptics on global warming, was paid over half a million dollars by the tobacco industry to obfuscate the connection between smoking and cancer. Seitz went on to spearhead a campaign to cast scientific doubt about global warming."
Oh I don't know, use well understood security technology to create an interface that can't be spoofed by criminals. Establish that as the one and only way for customers to communicate online with the bank. Design visual cues that plainly flag when the line has been secured.
Of course, all this costs money. And if we make the customer pay for security failure, we take away the incentive for the bank to spend that money. And none of it is something a customer can do.
So if you want get the problem solved, don't take away the bank's incentive to spend the money to solve the problem.
I wonder how long you'll be there before you appreciate the planet we have, how green it is, how fertile, how life-sustaining, and how very few other planets come even close to it.
"The planet is amazingly Earth-like, Captain" is science fiction.
HD content shall only be played at the full resolution...any next-generation high definition content will not play in x32 at all...just too many ways right now for unsigned kernel mode code [to compromise content protection]. The media companies asked us to do this and said they don't want any of their high definition content to...
Content is not protected; expression is. HD refers to a format, not content.
Here it is correctly:
HD video shall only be played at the full resolution...any next-generation high definition video will not play in x32 at all...just too many ways right now for unsigned kernel mode code [to compromise copyright protection]. The media companies asked us to do this and said they don't want any of their high definition video to...
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a different way to analyse it: contingencies. Contingency A: get a correct answer. Contingency B: get a correct answer or get help. Turns out you get faster acquisition on A than B. There's actually a family of B, however: time between question and hint, payoff for a correct response with hint versus without. Further analysis along these parameters would reveal if hints are uniformly toxic to learning. My guess: the value of hints is vastly overestimated by most teachers and learners. So indeed, don't look at the other side of the flash card too quickly. And terms like "learning event" are not needed to conclude that, nor assumptions about what is happening inside the skin.
Wrong. A within subject design can generate reliable results with just a few subjects. You're thinking of a between subject design, one of whose drawbacks is the requirement for more subjects.
"Observation" is poorly defined here which may confuse things. It is possible for what gets called observation to pay off in some situations, e.g. transfer of stimulus control. That doesn't change the general phenomenon: active involvement increases learning, which is well known.
If the result here had been that mere presentation of hints decreases time to acquisition, now THAT would have been an interesting result.
And in the irony or regression department, active involvement in learning research increases learning that active involvement increases learning.
This has been well established for decades across a wide variety of species. The result is entirely unsurprising. The only way this would have been newsworthy would be if the result had been the exact opposite.
Music is not destroyed. We have several centuries of music and not one note of it is at issue here.
Media and money are at issue here. Not music.
Extinction of fear wasn't measured.
Memory wasn't measured.
What was measured? Freezing: not moving. Or not freezing: moving, continuing to move.
Everything else is inferred.
Likewise, fear doesn't extinguish. Freezing could be said to extinguish. Fear could be said to be lowered, or reduced; however, again, that's an inference. One could also infer that caution was reduced. MIT Finds Cure for Caution. Is that a breakthrough?
The song doesn't expire in three days. You mean "recording". The song remains. You're free to sing it whenever you like. Your right to play a particular recording expires.
What Micro$oft paid for was games, or game updates, or game episodes. The content, if any, of the games remains in the public domain, as does almost all content. The expression (the specific game) is what is owned, and what Micro$oft purchased the rights to.
So you want to do some psychophysics, son? Just set up a tracking rule that adjusts bit rate as a function of recent detection performance. E.g. increase the bit rate by 4kbps for each incorrect answer, decrease it by 4kbps for two correct answers in a row. Crank off trials. You will shortly find each subject's threshold under the testing circumstances (codec, audio material, headphones, background noise, etc.) Some subjects' thresholds, perhaps most, will fall north of 128kbps. That doesn't mean those same subjects won't enjoy music compressed at lower bit rates, or won't find it acceptable; it means they can tell the difference. The test delivers the bit rate at which each subject can tell the difference, with rigor, repeatability, and precision. It's reliable with ONE subject in less than an hour. You can re-run it with different headphones, audio material, etc. And you can make strong inferences about what bit rates are necessary, desirable, optimal, for real world audio.
This is the experiment they didn't do.
There's no shortage of evidence that Holmes is correlated with Doyle. That doesn't make the discourse of writers the same as the discourse of fictional characters. There are no walls between the categories: they are simply different categories. If you believe you can learn more about Doyle by interviewing Holmes you are welcome to try. Likewise if you want to investigate mystery plotting by increasing the font size of the text, be my guest. They remain category mistakes.
The CNS events in question may predict later behavior, or assist in doing so. What they will not do is deliver "intention" as the thing being measured. They are not that, and they are not even the same sort of thing as that.
In fact what's owned, bought, and protected (or not) here is expression, not content.
If you learn that the Earth is round from watching that digital video, you're free to share that fact with anyone you like. The copyright holders can't do a thing about it.
What? Holmes's thoughts are not divined by scanning the media that Doyle's stories are displayed on? This is in fact a category mistake? Oh. Right. Sorry. Never mind.
Yes, thanks to genetic engineering, now we can have our cannibal cows, and eat them, too!
It's time to name the device for what it is: a toy that can sometimes make crappy phone calls.
If you want a toy that can sometimes make crappy phone calls, you should definitely get what is commonly called a "cell phone". You will be satisfied.
I assume Oracle will be releasing its source on the same terms. So that other firms can likewise offer competing support services for Oracle products. This is capitalism. Right?
Lung cancer kills more women than breast cancer. Lung cancer has killed more women than breast cancer every year since 1987. And the gap is widening: lung cancer deaths in women are increasing. CDC TFK
Lung Cancer kills more women every year than breast, uterine, and ovarian cancers combined. Joan's Legacy
"There are four major cancers that account for over 50 percent of cancer deaths. Far and away, the most important in both men and women is lung cancer." PBS online focus
Yet women's magazines and other media pass out gobs and slathers of information on breast cancer. They hardly ever even mention lung cancer. By an amazing coincidence, they run a lot of tobacco product advertising. ACSH
Oh wait, it's not a coincidence: NIH
No, zero percent of the content violates copyright laws.
Copyright protects expression, not content.
Perhaps 90 percent of the expression, the video, is someone's copyrighted work.
Oh I don't know, use well understood security technology to create an interface that can't be spoofed by criminals. Establish that as the one and only way for customers to communicate online with the bank. Design visual cues that plainly flag when the line has been secured.
Of course, all this costs money. And if we make the customer pay for security failure, we take away the incentive for the bank to spend that money. And none of it is something a customer can do.
So if you want get the problem solved, don't take away the bank's incentive to spend the money to solve the problem.
If you want to take away the incentive to fix the problem from the party that has the most control of the security system, the customer should pay.
Do it, dude! I'll see you off.
I wonder how long you'll be there before you appreciate the planet we have, how green it is, how fertile, how life-sustaining, and how very few other planets come even close to it.
"The planet is amazingly Earth-like, Captain" is science fiction.
Content is not protected; expression is. HD refers to a format, not content. Here it is correctly:
HD video shall only be played at the full resolution...any next-generation high definition video will not play in x32 at all...just too many ways right now for unsigned kernel mode code [to compromise copyright protection]. The media companies asked us to do this and said they don't want any of their high definition video to...
"Adding security to an existing, large insecure system will, in my judgment, prove an impossible task" Bill Joy, 2002
The issue is filtering by source, not content.
You mean limit or block by source or site or site affilation, not content.
Or you mean content in web format.