Baby means under 12 months in this case, by the time they are three they have lost billions of brain circuits they built up in the first year of life (meercats all look the same to a 3yo).
It's not that people from a mono-lingual enviroment can't lean to speak a another language, it's that it's much more difficult for them. The further apart the languages the harder it becomes, this is why people from SE Asia, China, Japan, ect have a great deal of dificulty when speaking engrish. They filter out sounds such as 'll', 'urr' because they don't exist in their native tounge.
I can't recall the exact numbers but ALL human speach is composed of 50-60 distinct sounds, any one language uses a bit over half of them. The babies brain is trained to ignore the rest as rubbish. To keep the computer analogy going, learning an exotic language in adulthood is akin to defeating a spam filter you spent years perfecting.
This stuff has been known for a couple of decades now and it does not 'depend on the baby' unless you are counting disabilities. Some of the experiments on babies and toddlers (such as the meercat thing) are IMHO ingenious.
"what seemed far more interesting to me is why when we reach a certain age it becomes significantly harder to acquire languages"
Someone who is raised with a single language does not even hear certain sounds in other languages because their brain has long since rejected those sounds as irrelevant 'noise'. The same thing applies to vision, a baby sees every meercat face as different but adults don't (without a lot of practice).
A babies brain actually loses a lot of connectivity between neurons in the first year of life (not so much data minning as connection breaking/forming). In other words we are all programmed by our early environment to exclude irrelevant stimuli, hacking into that 'code' later in life can be extremely difficult.
No that's the other poster, I was thinking of Bohr's atomic model, apprently his dream was about a solidified sun surrounded by planets. Note that before Bohr's model the leading model was that atoms were like a round pudding with razor blades sticking out of it.
Inspirational dreams are more common than one might think, Pauli's periodic table is yet another example, but in all cases I have heard of the dream has come after a long period of consious thought.
On the artistic side Paul McCartney has stated that he would often wake up with a full blown tune playing inside his head and would not bother to write it down unless it stuck with him for a few days. His first attempt to put words to 'yesterday' was at the breakfast table and went something like, "scrambled eggs, how I love to eat my scrambled eggs...".
According to a study done at my HS in 1971 I had the drinking habits of a middle aged alcoholic. Most of my friends claimed similarly fancifull drinking habits simply because the study was annonomous and..well.. we were 12. Also some of my friends claimed to have read Mao's "little red book" which was banned at the time, funny thing was they all claimed it was some sort of sex manual!
As for peodophiles, it's the same now as it ever was. The overwhelming majority are known and trusted by the family and are often only discovered after one or more of their victims has reached adulthood.
Not counting private cover, the US already spends 1.5 times what Australia pays per head for "free cover". The difference is that over here everyone is covered. You can buy private cover in Australia if a private room or silicone tits are important to you, but you get the same dotors using the same equipment.
The reason the US spends so much of the tax dollar on health yet still doesn't have UHC is that you guys strangle both the taxpayer and the patient with red tape. Not to mention half the country thinks UHC is a socialist plot of some sort.
Oh and to answer your question - it doesn't, but since old wells magically refill when left fallow it moves the peak far enough into the future that it is no longer a concern. It was an interesting idea in the 80's and tens of millions of dollars were spent investigating it. However flogging a dead oil well is no more productive than flogging a dead horse or a dead theory.
So why did you claim that it explains "dry wells refilling", and where is your source for the "everyone is taught this in Europe" claim you made in reply to the other poster?
It's FUD just like the anti-global warming FUD they have been peddling for the last 20yrs. Here is a random site that debunks the abiotic oil theory, there are many more out there.
And yes, a "-1 wrong" mod would come in handy, but for this kind of thing a "-1 bullshit" is more appropriate.
"the fittest end up at the front of the swarm until a single individual that is the most effectively enhanced"
Actually I think the biggest problem with any of these techniques is finding an algorithmic definition of 'fittest' and 'effectively', the rest can be solved by throwing money at the computation.
Actually, the idea is just some oil companies wet dream to counter the inevitable economic reality of peak oil. It adds nothing in the way of explaination.
Slashdot Mirror
"I haven't heard of any hijackings."
No hijackings, after all were are you going to hijack it to? As for 'terror', there was this incident.
Yeah, monorails suck. What we really need is an escalator to nowhere.
Sorry, I'm an Aussie and the RP spam makes me want to vomit.
...spam in 5, 4,...
1897, c'mon slashdot this really is old news!
"That's also why formal education sucks."
Pity the mods missed that comment, pearls before swine I tell ya.
Baby means under 12 months in this case, by the time they are three they have lost billions of brain circuits they built up in the first year of life (meercats all look the same to a 3yo).
It's not that people from a mono-lingual enviroment can't lean to speak a another language, it's that it's much more difficult for them. The further apart the languages the harder it becomes, this is why people from SE Asia, China, Japan, ect have a great deal of dificulty when speaking engrish. They filter out sounds such as 'll', 'urr' because they don't exist in their native tounge.
I can't recall the exact numbers but ALL human speach is composed of 50-60 distinct sounds, any one language uses a bit over half of them. The babies brain is trained to ignore the rest as rubbish. To keep the computer analogy going, learning an exotic language in adulthood is akin to defeating a spam filter you spent years perfecting.
This stuff has been known for a couple of decades now and it does not 'depend on the baby' unless you are counting disabilities. Some of the experiments on babies and toddlers (such as the meercat thing) are IMHO ingenious.
"what seemed far more interesting to me is why when we reach a certain age it becomes significantly harder to acquire languages"
Someone who is raised with a single language does not even hear certain sounds in other languages because their brain has long since rejected those sounds as irrelevant 'noise'. The same thing applies to vision, a baby sees every meercat face as different but adults don't (without a lot of practice).
A babies brain actually loses a lot of connectivity between neurons in the first year of life (not so much data minning as connection breaking/forming). In other words we are all programmed by our early environment to exclude irrelevant stimuli, hacking into that 'code' later in life can be extremely difficult.
No that's the other poster, I was thinking of Bohr's atomic model, apprently his dream was about a solidified sun surrounded by planets. Note that before Bohr's model the leading model was that atoms were like a round pudding with razor blades sticking out of it.
Inspirational dreams are more common than one might think, Pauli's periodic table is yet another example, but in all cases I have heard of the dream has come after a long period of consious thought.
On the artistic side Paul McCartney has stated that he would often wake up with a full blown tune playing inside his head and would not bother to write it down unless it stuck with him for a few days. His first attempt to put words to 'yesterday' was at the breakfast table and went something like, "scrambled eggs, how I love to eat my scrambled eggs...".
According to a study done at my HS in 1971 I had the drinking habits of a middle aged alcoholic. Most of my friends claimed similarly fancifull drinking habits simply because the study was annonomous and ..well.. we were 12. Also some of my friends claimed to have read Mao's "little red book" which was banned at the time, funny thing was they all claimed it was some sort of sex manual!
As for peodophiles, it's the same now as it ever was. The overwhelming majority are known and trusted by the family and are often only discovered after one or more of their victims has reached adulthood.
"And exactly what are these "practices""
The "best practices" you mention are for the benifit of the developers, any benifit to the application or the end user is incidental.
Three things make a robust system: Testing, testing, and then some more testing.
Not counting private cover, the US already spends 1.5 times what Australia pays per head for "free cover". The difference is that over here everyone is covered. You can buy private cover in Australia if a private room or silicone tits are important to you, but you get the same dotors using the same equipment.
The reason the US spends so much of the tax dollar on health yet still doesn't have UHC is that you guys strangle both the taxpayer and the patient with red tape. Not to mention half the country thinks UHC is a socialist plot of some sort.
"You may not negotiate the tax rate."
Try telling that to corporations who play one state/nation against another.
I love it! Thanks for the link.
With appologies to Meatloaf - two out of three ain't bad.
Would you like to buy one of my patented tinfoil nightcaps?
You are probably right about OPEC, they have a strong motive to keep the idea alive.
Sometimes the answer reveals itself in a dream rather than a consious flash, Bohr's atomic model being a famous example.
How did you get 'makes lots of financial sense' from what I said?
Oh and to answer your question - it doesn't, but since old wells magically refill when left fallow it moves the peak far enough into the future that it is no longer a concern. It was an interesting idea in the 80's and tens of millions of dollars were spent investigating it. However flogging a dead oil well is no more productive than flogging a dead horse or a dead theory.
I must have missed the second French revolution?
So why did you claim that it explains "dry wells refilling", and where is your source for the "everyone is taught this in Europe" claim you made in reply to the other poster?
It's FUD just like the anti-global warming FUD they have been peddling for the last 20yrs. Here is a random site that debunks the abiotic oil theory, there are many more out there.
And yes, a "-1 wrong" mod would come in handy, but for this kind of thing a "-1 bullshit" is more appropriate.
"the fittest end up at the front of the swarm until a single individual that is the most effectively enhanced"
Actually I think the biggest problem with any of these techniques is finding an algorithmic definition of 'fittest' and 'effectively', the rest can be solved by throwing money at the computation.
Actually, the idea is just some oil companies wet dream to counter the inevitable economic reality of peak oil. It adds nothing in the way of explaination.
I stand corrected.