If doctors are upset by this and believe that their medicine works better, then they ought to use the circularity of the concept of "empirically supported treatment" to their benefit.
In other words, if it is in fact the case that some other system of treatment works better than the "empirically supported treatment", then it should be able to be shown-- empirically-- and thus BECOME the empirically supported treatment.
We have too much control over air temperature, and have trained our thermoreceptors to be oversensitive to temperature. Those who spend their childhood outdoors (e.g., indigenous peoples) are not as sensitive to temperature variability as us refrigerated beings.
The anthropic principle helps to explain why this comparison makes no sense. By virtue of the fact that both computers are market-ready and market-tested machines (especially in the highly successful Mac Plus), their usability speeds MUST be under or around market-acceptable levels. Otherwise, they would either not have survived alpha and beta testing or not have survived as a marketable product. What this comparison is really tapping into is the user-acceptable speed level, which has not changed since the 1980s (because humans haven't changed much).
People with autism are unable to discriminate the tiny differences in facial expression that are exaggerated (in an almost cartoon-like manner) in the brains of those without autism. Without a doubt, those with autism are more likely discriminate between the a tactile vibration and the lack of.
One problem I can foresee is that individuals with autistim spectrum disorders, as well as those without, are often in conversations where the other member is not oriented directly to them. For example, imagine a situation where the autistic individual was talking to the side of an uninterested acquaintence (who had turned away... due to uninterest). Also, I can only imagine the further humiliation of a person with autism, uncertain of his or her partner's mood state, and tries to stand directly in front of the person or turn the person towards them in order to "scan them" with a tiny camera attached to their face.
While this question will undoubtedly reveal my limited understanding of computer engineering, I will ask it anyway...
Why is the industry obsessed with getting smaller chips? There's plenty of room on my desktop for a hefty five-inch or even ten-inch diameter chip if it meant greater processing power and/or speed. Is the reason that they shoot for smaller chips that by making the chip smaller and smaller, it can run more calculations per second just in virtue of the speed of the electrons through the circuitry? Even so, I hear about people joining processors together to increase speed/power... so why not shoot for utilizing older technology to create larger yet better chips?
Who were those guys that faked the discovery of a heavy element?
frogs, glucose, and cell lining
on
Reanimated Lobsters?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The main problem with human cryogenics is that the freezing process destroys the cell lining, but certain frogs have enough glucose in their cells to maintain the shape of the cell lining even when frozen. I'm not sure if this is the case with the lobsters.
Check out this article from Ars Technica: http://www.arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/01q2/limits/ limits-1.html
Entitled "The Ultimate Limits of Computers," it deals with issues including not only Moore's law, but quantum mechanics... such as Plank's constant, Boltzmann's constant, the gravitational constang, the application of quantum mechanics to thermodynamics, and other interesting things that I barely (read: don't) understand.
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/lists/TNOs.html Note that you can find the size of the object under the H column... where the lower number is the wider number.
Also note that on 08-25-2003 'they' discovered another large TNO called 2003 QM91. This one had an H value of 4.2 whereas the newest one (2003 VS2) has an H value of 3.9.
This is the largest found since 2002 MS4, which also had an H value of 3.9.
I downloaded Napster 2.0, but before I even think about buying, I want to know how you can tell which tracks are stream-only, which tracks are buy-only, and which are both.
Anyone figured this out?
I, for one, am not a big fan of the delusional camp in transhumanism that believes the humans should try and revolt against any future robotic life that surpassses humanity on the evolutionary scale.
Science fiction writers, and philosophical futurists alike, tend to portray the transhuman robots as lifeless, cultureless, and without morals.
A robotic species that may one day surpass humanity will be orders of magnitude more intelligent than humans. Consider that art, culture, and morality have developed on earth only among homo sapiens sapiens, the animals with the most advanced cephelazation, resulting in the highest brain capacity and mental ability. Assuming that the robotic mind will be even greater in ability, we should only assume that their culture, art, and morality will be that much more advanced, and perhaps that much more beautiful.
The robots who populate the transhuman era will understand their role in the universe much greater than we understand our role, and therefore are much more worthy of propogation and continued survival.
From what I can tell from the terrible secret of this trailor is that OSC is retelling the same paranoid story here once again, without stopping to think about the "reality" of the transhuman situation.
Rabits have no business trying to overthrow humanity in the same way Humans have no business trying to overthrow the upcoming era the Robots.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the broken one: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201308/can-video-games-make-you-smart-or-least-more-flexible
Very cool! Here's that broken link to read more: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201308/can-video-games-make-you-smart-or-least-more-flexible
Heh -- well, it's probably been about a decade since I spent serious time on here. Kinda odd that while in the firehose the url changed 3 or 4 times, at least it ended up with this one, instead of the one instance where it was the url below concatenated 3 times in a row Again: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201308/can-video-games-make-you-smart-or-least-more-flexible
Nice. Broken link: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201308/can-video-games-make-you-smart-or-least-more-flexible
Ha ha -- I'm familiar with the Slashdot comments circus -- all part of the fun! I just hope an editor can fix that first link
Should go to: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201308/can-video-games-make-you-smart-or-least-more-flexible Thanks for the comments!
Clearly false... lurking since 1998
If doctors are upset by this and believe that their medicine works better, then they ought to use the circularity of the concept of "empirically supported treatment" to their benefit. In other words, if it is in fact the case that some other system of treatment works better than the "empirically supported treatment", then it should be able to be shown-- empirically-- and thus BECOME the empirically supported treatment.
We have too much control over air temperature, and have trained our thermoreceptors to be oversensitive to temperature. Those who spend their childhood outdoors (e.g., indigenous peoples) are not as sensitive to temperature variability as us refrigerated beings.
i wonder if you can habituate to this device. if so, you could slowly build up an immunity.
The anthropic principle helps to explain why this comparison makes no sense. By virtue of the fact that both computers are market-ready and market-tested machines (especially in the highly successful Mac Plus), their usability speeds MUST be under or around market-acceptable levels. Otherwise, they would either not have survived alpha and beta testing or not have survived as a marketable product. What this comparison is really tapping into is the user-acceptable speed level, which has not changed since the 1980s (because humans haven't changed much).
6 words
Aren't these devices wont to begin aflame? I'm sure the added kindling won't help!
People with autism are unable to discriminate the tiny differences in facial expression that are exaggerated (in an almost cartoon-like manner) in the brains of those without autism. Without a doubt, those with autism are more likely discriminate between the a tactile vibration and the lack of.
One problem I can foresee is that individuals with autistim spectrum disorders, as well as those without, are often in conversations where the other member is not oriented directly to them. For example, imagine a situation where the autistic individual was talking to the side of an uninterested acquaintence (who had turned away... due to uninterest). Also, I can only imagine the further humiliation of a person with autism, uncertain of his or her partner's mood state, and tries to stand directly in front of the person or turn the person towards them in order to "scan them" with a tiny camera attached to their face.
cool the bacteria!
While this question will undoubtedly reveal my limited understanding of computer engineering, I will ask it anyway... Why is the industry obsessed with getting smaller chips? There's plenty of room on my desktop for a hefty five-inch or even ten-inch diameter chip if it meant greater processing power and/or speed. Is the reason that they shoot for smaller chips that by making the chip smaller and smaller, it can run more calculations per second just in virtue of the speed of the electrons through the circuitry? Even so, I hear about people joining processors together to increase speed/power... so why not shoot for utilizing older technology to create larger yet better chips?
I am privy to inside information that the new XBox is going to be called the XYZZY-Enter-Shift-Box
Who were those guys that faked the discovery of a heavy element?
The main problem with human cryogenics is that the freezing process destroys the cell lining, but certain frogs have enough glucose in their cells to maintain the shape of the cell lining even when frozen. I'm not sure if this is the case with the lobsters.
Check out this article from Ars Technica: http://www.arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/01q2/limits/ limits-1.html
Entitled "The Ultimate Limits of Computers," it deals with issues including not only Moore's law, but quantum mechanics... such as Plank's constant, Boltzmann's constant, the gravitational constang, the application of quantum mechanics to thermodynamics, and other interesting things that I barely (read: don't) understand.
Here is a comprehensive list of TNO's:
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/lists/TNOs.html
Note that you can find the size of the object under the H column... where the lower number is the wider number.
Also note that on 08-25-2003 'they' discovered another large TNO called 2003 QM91. This one had an H value of 4.2 whereas the newest one (2003 VS2) has an H value of 3.9.
This is the largest found since 2002 MS4, which also had an H value of 3.9.
I downloaded Napster 2.0, but before I even think about buying, I want to know how you can tell which tracks are stream-only, which tracks are buy-only, and which are both. Anyone figured this out?
I, for one, am not a big fan of the delusional camp in transhumanism that believes the humans should try and revolt against any future robotic life that surpassses humanity on the evolutionary scale.
Science fiction writers, and philosophical futurists alike, tend to portray the transhuman robots as lifeless, cultureless, and without morals.
A robotic species that may one day surpass humanity will be orders of magnitude more intelligent than humans. Consider that art, culture, and morality have developed on earth only among homo sapiens sapiens, the animals with the most advanced cephelazation, resulting in the highest brain capacity and mental ability. Assuming that the robotic mind will be even greater in ability, we should only assume that their culture, art, and morality will be that much more advanced, and perhaps that much more beautiful.
The robots who populate the transhuman era will understand their role in the universe much greater than we understand our role, and therefore are much more worthy of propogation and continued survival.
From what I can tell from the terrible secret of this trailor is that OSC is retelling the same paranoid story here once again, without stopping to think about the "reality" of the transhuman situation.
Rabits have no business trying to overthrow humanity in the same way Humans have no business trying to overthrow the upcoming era the Robots.
Ok, the file you download from the website is in a.01[1] format! How do you run the darn thing? Help?