So what is the effective arc of this weapon, exactly? It's hard to tell from just videos of course, but it seemed to me that there was no "narrow" to be had based on the reactions of the "crowd". Never minding horizontal arc, how about the vertical? I saw some second story apartments in the video; here's to hoping no one's cat or dog got brain fried because of this.
My vote was for social entrepreneurship; my filter words were "petty magnates".
I was disappointed by a number of the options, primarily because they would essentially establish more NGOs that relied, ultimately, on governmental action to make a difference (better tax structure, genocide awareness, etc); the same governments who have shown time and time again that they simply will not react to these problems, no matter how blatant the evidence. I chose social entrepreneurship because it is an outwardly distributed system. Rather than collect distributed resources and narrowing them towards a single focus, it will hopefully take a singular resource and deliver it into the hands of the many. Call it socialism if you want; I call it pragmatism.
Firstly, numerous universities bundle neuroscience and related fields of engineering into their psychology department, so it seems pretty apparent that this wasn't a bunch of cognitive psych "Let'
s build a graph/model!" junk. Also, its pretty common for psychologists to hold degrees in a "hard" science as well, so your bias is probably rooted in ignorance.
Secondly, it seems to me like that their point wasn't that the fMRI wasn't sensitive enough, or particular enough. Instead the problem seems to be a problem of statistically expected random noise. Their point seems to be that users of an fMRI should bear in mind that their marvelous magical machine can generate "real" errors, and that basic, common-sense multiple comparison habits should be developed, instead of a take a picture, slap a stat against it approach.
Apparently you did not, in fact, read the pdf.
This is the kind of claim you make in the NY Times or another public media outlet: while it might happen, because sometimes people do stupid things, I doubt the actual research article will go so far as to say anything so far-fetched.
While it makes logical sense (memory, so far as it is located any single place, does seem to be strongly linked to the deeper, distinct organs within the brain, like the hippocampus), there is no actual way to "know" what exactly is going on: this is a quasi-experimental design, at best, and at most all they can reliably say is "Similiar structures in the brain responded in a similar way during recall of an event compared with how they behaved during the observation of the event itself." For example, it has been shown in some studies that areas in the occipital area of the brain (which has been strongly linked to vision) "light up" when a subject is asked to describe a previously viewed visual stimulus: however, researchers in these studies make no claims to such being evidence of an observed activation of a memory, which is essentially the claim being made here. Typically, the most they will offer in such studies is that the brain may be "spoofed" into thinking it is viewing the same stimulus again, thus activating certain, similiar function. Logically, both the visual research and this phenomena certainly sound like memory: but logic isn't science, nor is something true because it makes logical sense. Newtonian mechanics make logical sense, but good luck building a model of the universe as successful as one provided by quantum/relativistic physics, which often times make utterly no logical sense.
This is one of the key problems in any kind of study concerning phenomena which are part and parcel of the conscious mind/brain: being that we do not experience the subject's perceptions ourselves, and since consciousness is so singular and personal, we might never be able to say with any clear confidence what we are observing in the brain. However, kudos to the researchers. At the very least they've examined a function (whatever it is) within the brain that is an utter pain in the ass to study.
I have to agree with other people who've posted that this is over-reaching a little bit. This is nothing more than a correllational study: all they can say is that these systems, in this particular series of trials, showed increased activity shortly before an error took place.
The main problem as I see it is that since they can't determine causaltiy, and only conducted this experiment with a small sample population, and with a specific task, is it could have been the task itself causing the particular regions to become active after a certain period of time. I just gave the article a quick look through, but I'd be curious to see if the errors came in distinct, set intervals. It could be simply the nature of the task that caused the activity. Furthermore, what about left handed participants? What about age groups outside of the twenties (which are a particular cohort, and can be expected to have similiar results/activity as such)? It seems like they failed to counterbalance either their participants or their trials in any meaningful way.
Also, I'm not familiar with this journal or whatever it is, but I've never seen one where the methods section came last, which is a little strange. That's almost always the first thing I go to after the abstract.
For me, something digital has always had the idea of transience at its core. I've never felt that any sort of digital media is permanent, or lasting, or really tangible in any sense. As such, someone deleting an adobe copy of a book is nothing to me, per se, though I do prefer that websites and resource sites remain open and preserved, if no other reason that just convenience.
Maybe it's the bibliophile in me, but a book has always seemed more permanent. Now, this might be a little hypocritical in an age of horrible binding, crappy paper, and poor ink quality, but there is something more, I guess romantic, in a sense, about a book. After all, when I give my family members books for birthdays and holidays (we're all book-nerds), I don;t give them burned cds and flash drives, I give them a printed copy of a work. Who knows, it might just be an antiquated, sentimental attachment which will disappear in 50 years or less, but still: there is something special about the nature of a book.
Having said that, I would love for there to be an explosive expansion of digital libraries, but that's more part and parcel of knowledge and learning as a worthy goal in and of itself, and providing broader educational opportunites. Even then, while I would probably become one with my chair if a large enough online library was established, I would probably still want to purchase a print copy of particularly good books.
But I really think this guy should be shot. Not in the head or anything, but maybe in the leg or arm or hand: someplace he'll remember. Oh, poor baby can't give the books away? There are schools and libraries the world over, Goodwills and Salvation Armies, etc., that would love to have some if not all of these books.
No, this guy just wants to generate more sales, and to do so in the most inhumane, barbaric, evil way possible. People who burn books are disguisting, and honestly, if I lived in this area, the thought of a book store owner, of all people, who was willing to burn a book, would ensure that I would never, ever, ever purchase anything at his establishment ever again. Burning any book, good or bad, whether you approve of it or not, is a crime against humanity; it is a violation against the essence of human genius, creativity, and generation, be it hate speech or a widely acclaimed work of art (hell, even a Tom Clancy novel). And for a book store owner, whom one would assume would be a bibliophile, to do this, is monstrous. Like I said: shoot him.
Honestly, while I liked the AI in the Halo series, I think the main reason that it came off as being so impressive wasn't due to the AI itself, but because Bungie gave the AI "personality." It's a lot easier to misattribute greater intelligence to somthing when it's funny (your fellow marines) or screaming profanities at you (the Covenant).
Likewise, it seems like the only real advancements in AI in games seem to be happening in FPSs, such as they are, anyways. I typically play Turn based strategy games and RPGS, and honestly, we're not exactly talking about the smartest AI in the world here. In most of these games, the AI is only given an advantage by being allowed more knowledgable than you; also, in RTS games, especially, a common tactic for "buffing" the AI is reducing material costs and production times relative to the player's, depending on how well the player is doing: essentially, just a fancier version of the good-ol rubber-band AI so common in racing games.
I'll have respect for an AI in a game the second it actually manages to do something truly surprising. In RTSs and Turn based Strategy games, for example, it's often very easy to predict avenues of attack, unit composition, etc. Even if something wasn't necessarily expected, like having all of your treaties cancelled in one turn in Civ 4, for example, such a thing is still more of a surprise because of the timing than the event itself: you knew it could happen, it's just that the timing was a bit unexpected. No, I want an AI that will do something that will make me wonder whether or not the coding has been deliberately designed to screw with my head. When I find an AI in a game that can play me like a fiddle; bait me, hook me, and then reel me in, all the while as I struggle in vain, unable to resist the inexorable pull of its god-like strategy, then I'll be impressed.
For now though, beating the AI is still just meta-game thinking: figure out where the AI can't adapt, and then exploit. Give me a truly adaptable, creative AI, and we'll see. Of course, by the time we get to "creative," AI, I'll probably lose on purpose, just so as to not piss off Skynet (let the robotic overlord win.)
Fires do happen. It's a sad thing, when a man's business burns down: can't feed his wife, can;t feed his kids, hell, what if he's caught inside? A man could die, couldn't he? But maybe, if you work with us, we can make sure you don't have any fires, eh Jimmy?
You are breaking the law, Jimmy. It's a sad thing, when a man breaks the law: can't get a job, gets kicked out of school, hell, what if he has to go to jail? A man could go away for a long, long time, couldn't he? But maybe, if you work with us, we can make sure that you don't get convicted of breaking any law, eh Jimmy?
Create a situation in which the illegal alternative is preferable to the legal alternative. Sue those that break the law. Convince them to settle, using the rest as "examples," to get other people to fear you.
Why hasn't anyone used RICO and extortion laws against the RIAA? Am I the only one that sees this? Yeah, these guys are breaking a law: but the RIAA is running a racket here, and is exhtorting and blackmailing these kids. So send em to court, get the law changed to something sane, and sue the pants off the RIAA under RICO, or something similar.
I've noticed several people attempting to use fallicious arguments in order to dismiss this report as "liberal-bias." So, as a conservative (a real one, as in small, limited government = the exact opposite of Bush and co.) let me lay it out for you.
The problem here isn't necessarily what they were monitoring, but why they were monitioring it. As the article repeatedly states, one must have grounds for an inquiry (i.e. possible illegal activity, backed up by either compelling circumstantial evidence or hard empirical evidence) before conducting a covert inquiry. As an example: it would be perfectly legal, in most cases, to begin covert surveillance of a target if the object of the investigation could in some way be demonstrated to be a possible factor involved in illegal activty, such as someone here in TN buying extremely large amounts of, say, nyquil (can be used in making crytsal methamphetamine), so long as the amounts were truly beyond any conceivable norm (compelling circumstantial evidence). While this would by no means be enough for an arrest or conviction, a judge could be convinced to allow wiretapping, diversion of assets towards surveillance, etc. However, one bottle of nyquil would not be enough (one would hope) to get this kind of permission.
In the case reported in the article, the NYPD was effectively conducting surveillance of the one bottle of nyquil people. Simply being involved in a political protest group is by no means indicitive of illegal activity; however, the police apparently deployed assets to groups with apparently peacful intentions, with no cause to suspect illegal activity (one bottle of nyquil.) Now, if the police could show that Group A. had been responsible, say, for severe property damage at the WTO riots in Seatlle, that is compelling circumstantial evidence (did it before, might do it again) that could be used in obtaining permission for covert intelligence gathering (55 gallons of nyquil, so to speak). This does not seem to be the case here, however.
The reason that this distinction is so important is that power does tend to corrupt, not necessarily morally, as the old adage is often taken to be stating, but more often ethically. You're a cop: protect and serve, preserve the peace, and all that. By the very nature of your job, if you're dedicated to it, anyways, you are going to always be pushing as close to the edge as possible. But where exactly is that edge? Where society (in the form of government, an ethical government one would hope) places it. Only when these distinctions are upheld, only when this line is constantly reinforced and restated, does the concept of checks and balances truly work. In this case, the police have overstepped their authority, it seems. Conducting an investigation with no probable cause is no different than pulling random people off of the street and interrogating them for a crime that one has no reason to suspect they comitted. Case in point: guys, how would you feel if everytime a woman was raped in your town, every male was wiretapped, followed, and snooped on? You might say that such a thing would be different, but it's not. After all, you have a penis (these people were involved in protest groups), and almost all women are raped by men (these groups are similar in form to groups that have created disruptions in the past), so all men should be surveilled equally (RTFA).
The argument can go on and on: it is logically sound. However, the thing that is most compelling to me in this instance is it reminds me of the FBI during the Cold War, expecially during the Mcarthy era, and the Vietnam war. Do we not find it disturbing that people like MLK Jr., John Lennon, and the vast majority of the faculties of NE colleges were under surveillance, that dossiers were compiled on their potential "socialist," or "Communist," leanings, due to no more evidence than that they "fit the profile,"? Same thing here. Such policies were the product of Hoover and his protegees at the FBI, which nowadays are
I'm just surprised that some of this stuff is legal. I mean, I have no problem with the idea of a Saturn rocket engine being sold, or any of this other stuff, per se. But, one would figure that the same people who brought us bans on 20 oz. cokes and gel shoe inserts on planes would have freaked the @#%! out if they found out you could get workable rocket parts at some dive in California. I seem to recall a few years ago N. Korea trying very, very hard to figure out how to make their own version of the Saturn V work, and failing horribly. I guess they just didn't know how to shop around right =/
I imagine this is just one of those quirky things that has managed to escape the notice of the hyper paranoid Homeland Security people. One would think though that since many of the parts NASA used that wound up in this junkyard are considered 'military grade' that this place would have wound up on some kind of list. Oh well. Someone pick me up a friggin' space laser while they're over there, please.
My school (MTSU) has one of the few Recording Industry Majors in the country; it's actually its own department here. It's a completely BS major (as in the cow product, not Bachelor of Science): in fact, they tell everyone who signs up that only 1% of them are likely to get a job in the recording industry. All of the musicians and sound techs who sign up typically drop out or go to a specialized technical school, so essentially the only people who make it all the business types: i.e. people who typically have no interest in music.
I've met a few of the professors in the dept., all of whom have industry backgrounds, and let me tell you, meeting these guys and the graduates from these departments explains alot. You see, the the RIM college offers three basic majors: one for artists, one for techs, and one for business and pre-law in the recording industry. The most common? You guessed it, business and pre-law. These are the same asshats who, at any other school, would be learning how to ask for TPS reports and iguring out the best way to make partner in the shortest amount of time. Further still, I live in Murfreesboro, 30 min. away from Music Row in Nashville (or as we like to call it, Crackhead Alley), and I used to live in Nashville. When I lived there, I hung out in West End alot, and met alot of people in this business.
So let me say this: some of these people are cool, and I mean no disparagement towards them. But, in my time dealing with alot of these clowns, I have met a higher concentration of assholes than in any other sector (including advertising sales, the Devil's Piggy Bank). Most of these guys could give a flaming crap less about the actual music they produce: the techs normally do, and the artists, of course, but the lawyers and admin. people are so incredibly full of themselves that it's ridiculous. What was always great was hanging out at Cafe Coco, still kind of a hotspot, but mostly Vandy kids now, and seeing one of these jackasses walk in and expect to be treated like the Lords of All. Please understand though, that when I pick on these guys, I'm doing it because, even in a world full of jerks, these guys oftentimes stick out.
So, back to here at MTSU and our RIM dept. Quite literally, contempt of artists, techs, and fans is quite literally indoctrinated into these guys. I've sat in on some lectures, and my God. One of the classes was for artists contracts. I've always known how shady these things are, but to see completely unethical and illegal tricks being taught ina college course absolutely dropped my jaw.
Essentially, what I'm saying is that the reason the RIAA is so friggin bad is because it is expected of them. MTSU got it's RIM dept. up and running before Napster hit, so you have to understand, some of the people involved in the RIAA's modern tactics almost certainly came from this dept., where, as mentioned, these kinds of illegal and unethical behavior are correct answers on practical test questions. Further still, there is a culture on the admin side of the business that expects people, even demands, that they act this way. You want to fix the problem? It's not about fixing the laws, or methods of distribution. These people will just find new ways to screw artists, fans, and techs over. To change the problem, you have to change the education and the culture: nothing else will do. How we do that though, I have no idea.
I'm a double major in philosophy and psychology, and just today I submitted my first ever research grant proposal. I'll know in a month if it got approved, but if I do get it, the end result will ne a paper I'll have to deliver at both a conference and a journal. Sure, they'll be undergraduate journals, and way more accessible, but still, this makes me nervous. I'm going to have to pay to get published in academic journals, later on? I'll have to give away my rights to reprint the article, my own f@#$ing idea, that some shit-head editor who already has freakin tenure and a g#$damn mercedes has utterly no need of? We're f@#$ing academics people: we're supposed to be the smart ones. How the hell did this shit ever get to this point?
I am currently in an Intro to Neuroscience class atm, but this sounds a bit...off. I am, obviously, not a scientist, but it seems to me that 1.)neurons and their associated structures do not have the physiological equipment necessary to produce sound, and 2.)Considering that the vast majority of passive and active scanning procedures specifically monitor or stimulate electrical activity in the brain, this seems a wee bit kooky. But, as stated, I ain't a scientist. Sage wisdom, folks?
Make your player truly affordable for a full time college student working a full time job, give me the ability to easily take all the songs I buy to any device, any media I wanna take them to, and we'll talk.
In the meantime, I'll buy CDs from my local indie record store, and do with them as I see fit.
Typically, when you see this kind of "Behold, this will totally solve {problem X}" type project, its really just an academic trying to get national attention, so that he'll be noticed by someone running for an election at some point, and will thus get a "Vote for me, because I endorse {impossible solution that sounds good in a press byte X}" grant. Very few psychologists of any reputability put too much stock in these magical little Q and A's nowadays...
This is probably intended more as a snub towards Bush, as opposed to a show of favor towards Gates. While it is typical for business leaders to meet with heads of state (Gates has done it several times, I believe) they typically do it on the head of state's home soil, as a sign of showing favor towards the nation. On the other hand, by making his first official visit to the U.S. one to the home of a person who is still technically a private citizen, Hu is essentially slapping Bush across the face. Otherwise, theres no real reason for Hu to come to the US, as opposed to Bush visiting China.
Honestly, I'm really not sure how many times since Western style diplomacy became the Gold standard internationally that something like this has happened. For a foreign head of state to visit a country and not visit at least someone in the government first is highly, highly irregular. This isn't so much a tech story, I think, as a political one.
I'm ready and willing to be flamed on this, so here goes. Let's take the example of a grocery store, Like Bi-Lo, or Krogers, or Publix. All of these stores have a produce section, and all of them buy tomatoes. The question is, do they buy every tomato that a distributor lays in front of them? Of course not: they check for quality, freshness, appearance, all of which have to meet certain minimum metrics. Now, obviously, the argument is a bit different when it comes to creative content, like games. Opinions as to quality (Civ 4) can difffer (Deer Hunter). However, I do know that I've never bought a tomato that looked fugly just because it was the only one on the shelf, and I've never bought a Deer Hunter game just because it took up a quarter of the shelf space.
Wal-Mart may have a large amount of influence over how games are made, marketed, and packaged, but it is still no different than the example of a tomato. Wal-MArt can't make me buy bad tomatoes, and Wal-Mart can't make me buy bad games. And Wal-Mart knows this. So what does Wal-Mart do? Well, for one, it starts selling an anime series called Gantz. Gantz is the "new thing," in violent/gory American released anime, and in its first episode features a dual decapitation, complete with a full minute of flying heads, the reconstruction of a naked girl with slashed wrists, incluing brains and intestines, as well as attempted rape. Gantz volumes one through three are also currently sitting on the shelf of one of my local Wal-Marts, right here in the buckle of that opressivee, socially dominant "Bible Belt," (Tennessee.)
So tomatos, games, and attempted rape anime; how does it all fit together? Simple, Wal-Mart is clever. Wal-Mart tells tomato growers to use chemicals and certain methods to grow the tomatoes that it wants. In this way, Wal-Mart isn't selling a product that offends customers. Wal-Mart sells GTA San Andreas up until the revelation of the stupid, stupid, stupid addition of Back Coffee, stops selling it, and then sells it again once the stupid, stupid addition is removed. And Wal-Mart will keep selling Gantz, as long as the publisher keeps it low-key and quiet, so no Soccer Moms are screaming at a Wal-Mart middle manager about the product that they themselves bought. Simply put, Wal-Mart does send a message to developers and distibutors of all type, but it is not the messge of "Don't do this, don't do that." Wal-Mart HAS sold games and other products with Graphic nudity before. Wal-Mart HAS sold products with sexual content, including games, before. The message isn;t "Don't," the message is: Keep it quiet, and don't make it a big problem for us.
On the one hand, I'm a conservative. Small government, stay the hell out of my way. On the other hand, basic communications (internet, telephone, and dare I say it, cell) should be available to anyone cheap and fair. As a capitalist, I see the opportunities for a greater chance ofnew jobs in the sector, if privatived, yet on the other hand, if privatived, a problem with the whole "cheap and fair," part.
The other part that worries me is that all of these ciies (New Orleans, Seattle, San Fran) are all doing this independant of any overarching standards, beyond those set by the technologies themselves. One would think that there would need to be some state/federal regulation on the matter, but then my conservative gene starts itching.....Oh well, hail, mighty conondrum!
If you read the rest of the series, it does make you understand one thing about these people: however much they may talk about e-mail, brainstorming, and cell phones, they really rely on two things: low amounts of sleep and a damn good staff. The tech makes it easier, but it's still the manpower that keeps in rolling. Kind of interesting when consider that most of these companies are reducing their manpower.
Take a look over the past few years of Supreme Court History. While there certainly are judges (Scalia, Scalia, Scalia) who adhere to a rather rigid ideology, one must remember that the Supreme Court foists on it's members the most powerful force known to man:
Peer Pressure.
When it all comes down to it, the Founders got this one right. As a SC Justice, you cannot be removed from your post except by your own free will or the icy hand of Death. No one's opinion nessecarily need matter to you....except for one simple fact. Most SCOTUS Justices serve I think something like 10-15 years. Imagine having to deal with the same eight people every day....for the next 15 years....and not getting along with them. Despite namecalling and derisive comments, no one can say that an SC Justice is an idiot. These people, no matter how insane or bizarre some of their ideologies may be, are very intelligent, logical people. Even if you disagree with them (Scalia, Scalia, Scalia), you have to grin, swallow and accept the fact that they are not lunatics, but reasoned, seasoned, judiciaries. Disagree with them, but do so respectfully.
To put it simply, while whatever right wing nutbag Bush slams into O'Connor's vacant seat may come into the SC thinking he or she is there to Kick Ass and Chew Bubble Gum, what do you think the odds are that the other eight justices, old, crocthety, and intelligent as they are, are going to allow this Noob to come in and tell them how to do their jobs? I say, not damn likely.
This would be a fun one that probably no techie, and no engineer could do. It would be very, very nice, if the ubiquitous they, should they begin building this thing, were to get a nice, nasty team of copyright and patent lawyers together and tame them. Next, have them attempt to build into this thing, either through patents or liscensing agreements or whatever, some protection against the flood/slurry/deluge of crappy and bogus patents we've all seen over the past three years. No more "patent on pointing and clicking on an hyperlink," no more "patent on using the internet for a monetary transaction," crap.
I'm no more a lawyer than I am a techie, so I have no idea of how this could even begin to be started, but to put it simply, anyone designing this thing has simply got to take all the legal wrangling and abuse of the past few years into account, and at least attempt to deal with it, otherwise I don't care how wonderful this new internet is, none of us will be able to use it without ten subscriptions and an RFID tag shoved up our butts.
SCO at this point is like a ordering a pizza. Except, when the delivery guy gets to your door, he's forgotten the pizza, the 2-liter, the breadsticks, and the ticket. Instead of going back for the stuff though, he keeps banging on your door, threatening to call the cops if you don't pay up now. And he wants a tip. Or he is sooo keying your car. Watch him. He'll do it, damn it. He's crazy like that. Crazy baby. He'll do it man. He means it this time.........craaaaaaazy.......
Well crap. Help me with a new program
on
Kazaa-lite Shut Down
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Well, I'm using the program right now, but I've noticed its running reeeeaaaaallllyyyy slow, so maybe a bunch of people are on like the last days of Napster, downloading like crazy. I, however, am in a slight fix.
See, I live in a dorm, and we're unable to connect to Kazaa here, the network flat out won't let us, with no (legal) way around it. For some reason though, K-Lite still connects. Can someone reccomend a good program to me for all file types? I predominantly download movies, the occasional game to demo it, and sometimes music. And please don't reccomend iMesh. I don't know if I could have intentionally installed that much spyware on my computer. I strongly doubt they have anything of the GNU variety blocked, but there are so many GNU P2P programs I don;t know which one to get. Noobish question I'm sure, but any advice is appreciated.
I remember being about eight years old and looking through my parent's bookshelves, and finding two compilation books of Bloom County. I remember that even when I had no idea what the hell they were talking about, being eight years old at the time, I still knew, somehow, that people who knew the stuff they were talking about would find them funny as hell. I'm eally looking forward to this strip coming back, in a way, because he'll be talking about the issues that I wonder about as a 21 year old in college. I wonder if my mom still has the record that had all those Billy & the Boinger songs on it...
Slashdot Mirror
So what is the effective arc of this weapon, exactly? It's hard to tell from just videos of course, but it seemed to me that there was no "narrow" to be had based on the reactions of the "crowd". Never minding horizontal arc, how about the vertical? I saw some second story apartments in the video; here's to hoping no one's cat or dog got brain fried because of this.
My vote was for social entrepreneurship; my filter words were "petty magnates".
I was disappointed by a number of the options, primarily because they would essentially establish more NGOs that relied, ultimately, on governmental action to make a difference (better tax structure, genocide awareness, etc); the same governments who have shown time and time again that they simply will not react to these problems, no matter how blatant the evidence. I chose social entrepreneurship because it is an outwardly distributed system. Rather than collect distributed resources and narrowing them towards a single focus, it will hopefully take a singular resource and deliver it into the hands of the many. Call it socialism if you want; I call it pragmatism.
Firstly, numerous universities bundle neuroscience and related fields of engineering into their psychology department, so it seems pretty apparent that this wasn't a bunch of cognitive psych "Let' s build a graph/model!" junk. Also, its pretty common for psychologists to hold degrees in a "hard" science as well, so your bias is probably rooted in ignorance. Secondly, it seems to me like that their point wasn't that the fMRI wasn't sensitive enough, or particular enough. Instead the problem seems to be a problem of statistically expected random noise. Their point seems to be that users of an fMRI should bear in mind that their marvelous magical machine can generate "real" errors, and that basic, common-sense multiple comparison habits should be developed, instead of a take a picture, slap a stat against it approach. Apparently you did not, in fact, read the pdf.
This is the kind of claim you make in the NY Times or another public media outlet: while it might happen, because sometimes people do stupid things, I doubt the actual research article will go so far as to say anything so far-fetched.
While it makes logical sense (memory, so far as it is located any single place, does seem to be strongly linked to the deeper, distinct organs within the brain, like the hippocampus), there is no actual way to "know" what exactly is going on: this is a quasi-experimental design, at best, and at most all they can reliably say is "Similiar structures in the brain responded in a similar way during recall of an event compared with how they behaved during the observation of the event itself." For example, it has been shown in some studies that areas in the occipital area of the brain (which has been strongly linked to vision) "light up" when a subject is asked to describe a previously viewed visual stimulus: however, researchers in these studies make no claims to such being evidence of an observed activation of a memory, which is essentially the claim being made here. Typically, the most they will offer in such studies is that the brain may be "spoofed" into thinking it is viewing the same stimulus again, thus activating certain, similiar function. Logically, both the visual research and this phenomena certainly sound like memory: but logic isn't science, nor is something true because it makes logical sense. Newtonian mechanics make logical sense, but good luck building a model of the universe as successful as one provided by quantum/relativistic physics, which often times make utterly no logical sense.
This is one of the key problems in any kind of study concerning phenomena which are part and parcel of the conscious mind/brain: being that we do not experience the subject's perceptions ourselves, and since consciousness is so singular and personal, we might never be able to say with any clear confidence what we are observing in the brain. However, kudos to the researchers. At the very least they've examined a function (whatever it is) within the brain that is an utter pain in the ass to study.
I have to agree with other people who've posted that this is over-reaching a little bit. This is nothing more than a correllational study: all they can say is that these systems, in this particular series of trials, showed increased activity shortly before an error took place.
The main problem as I see it is that since they can't determine causaltiy, and only conducted this experiment with a small sample population, and with a specific task, is it could have been the task itself causing the particular regions to become active after a certain period of time. I just gave the article a quick look through, but I'd be curious to see if the errors came in distinct, set intervals. It could be simply the nature of the task that caused the activity. Furthermore, what about left handed participants? What about age groups outside of the twenties (which are a particular cohort, and can be expected to have similiar results/activity as such)? It seems like they failed to counterbalance either their participants or their trials in any meaningful way.
Also, I'm not familiar with this journal or whatever it is, but I've never seen one where the methods section came last, which is a little strange. That's almost always the first thing I go to after the abstract.
Maybe it's the bibliophile in me, but a book has always seemed more permanent. Now, this might be a little hypocritical in an age of horrible binding, crappy paper, and poor ink quality, but there is something more, I guess romantic, in a sense, about a book. After all, when I give my family members books for birthdays and holidays (we're all book-nerds), I don;t give them burned cds and flash drives, I give them a printed copy of a work. Who knows, it might just be an antiquated, sentimental attachment which will disappear in 50 years or less, but still: there is something special about the nature of a book.
Having said that, I would love for there to be an explosive expansion of digital libraries, but that's more part and parcel of knowledge and learning as a worthy goal in and of itself, and providing broader educational opportunites. Even then, while I would probably become one with my chair if a large enough online library was established, I would probably still want to purchase a print copy of particularly good books.
No, this guy just wants to generate more sales, and to do so in the most inhumane, barbaric, evil way possible. People who burn books are disguisting, and honestly, if I lived in this area, the thought of a book store owner, of all people, who was willing to burn a book, would ensure that I would never, ever, ever purchase anything at his establishment ever again. Burning any book, good or bad, whether you approve of it or not, is a crime against humanity; it is a violation against the essence of human genius, creativity, and generation, be it hate speech or a widely acclaimed work of art (hell, even a Tom Clancy novel). And for a book store owner, whom one would assume would be a bibliophile, to do this, is monstrous. Like I said: shoot him.
Likewise, it seems like the only real advancements in AI in games seem to be happening in FPSs, such as they are, anyways. I typically play Turn based strategy games and RPGS, and honestly, we're not exactly talking about the smartest AI in the world here. In most of these games, the AI is only given an advantage by being allowed more knowledgable than you; also, in RTS games, especially, a common tactic for "buffing" the AI is reducing material costs and production times relative to the player's, depending on how well the player is doing: essentially, just a fancier version of the good-ol rubber-band AI so common in racing games.
I'll have respect for an AI in a game the second it actually manages to do something truly surprising. In RTSs and Turn based Strategy games, for example, it's often very easy to predict avenues of attack, unit composition, etc. Even if something wasn't necessarily expected, like having all of your treaties cancelled in one turn in Civ 4, for example, such a thing is still more of a surprise because of the timing than the event itself: you knew it could happen, it's just that the timing was a bit unexpected. No, I want an AI that will do something that will make me wonder whether or not the coding has been deliberately designed to screw with my head. When I find an AI in a game that can play me like a fiddle; bait me, hook me, and then reel me in, all the while as I struggle in vain, unable to resist the inexorable pull of its god-like strategy, then I'll be impressed.
For now though, beating the AI is still just meta-game thinking: figure out where the AI can't adapt, and then exploit. Give me a truly adaptable, creative AI, and we'll see. Of course, by the time we get to "creative," AI, I'll probably lose on purpose, just so as to not piss off Skynet (let the robotic overlord win.)
You are breaking the law, Jimmy. It's a sad thing, when a man breaks the law: can't get a job, gets kicked out of school, hell, what if he has to go to jail? A man could go away for a long, long time, couldn't he? But maybe, if you work with us, we can make sure that you don't get convicted of breaking any law, eh Jimmy?
Create a situation in which the illegal alternative is preferable to the legal alternative. Sue those that break the law. Convince them to settle, using the rest as "examples," to get other people to fear you.
Why hasn't anyone used RICO and extortion laws against the RIAA? Am I the only one that sees this? Yeah, these guys are breaking a law: but the RIAA is running a racket here, and is exhtorting and blackmailing these kids. So send em to court, get the law changed to something sane, and sue the pants off the RIAA under RICO, or something similar.
The problem here isn't necessarily what they were monitoring, but why they were monitioring it. As the article repeatedly states, one must have grounds for an inquiry (i.e. possible illegal activity, backed up by either compelling circumstantial evidence or hard empirical evidence) before conducting a covert inquiry. As an example: it would be perfectly legal, in most cases, to begin covert surveillance of a target if the object of the investigation could in some way be demonstrated to be a possible factor involved in illegal activty, such as someone here in TN buying extremely large amounts of, say, nyquil (can be used in making crytsal methamphetamine), so long as the amounts were truly beyond any conceivable norm (compelling circumstantial evidence). While this would by no means be enough for an arrest or conviction, a judge could be convinced to allow wiretapping, diversion of assets towards surveillance, etc. However, one bottle of nyquil would not be enough (one would hope) to get this kind of permission.
In the case reported in the article, the NYPD was effectively conducting surveillance of the one bottle of nyquil people. Simply being involved in a political protest group is by no means indicitive of illegal activity; however, the police apparently deployed assets to groups with apparently peacful intentions, with no cause to suspect illegal activity (one bottle of nyquil.) Now, if the police could show that Group A. had been responsible, say, for severe property damage at the WTO riots in Seatlle, that is compelling circumstantial evidence (did it before, might do it again) that could be used in obtaining permission for covert intelligence gathering (55 gallons of nyquil, so to speak). This does not seem to be the case here, however.
The reason that this distinction is so important is that power does tend to corrupt, not necessarily morally, as the old adage is often taken to be stating, but more often ethically. You're a cop: protect and serve, preserve the peace, and all that. By the very nature of your job, if you're dedicated to it, anyways, you are going to always be pushing as close to the edge as possible. But where exactly is that edge? Where society (in the form of government, an ethical government one would hope) places it. Only when these distinctions are upheld, only when this line is constantly reinforced and restated, does the concept of checks and balances truly work. In this case, the police have overstepped their authority, it seems. Conducting an investigation with no probable cause is no different than pulling random people off of the street and interrogating them for a crime that one has no reason to suspect they comitted. Case in point: guys, how would you feel if everytime a woman was raped in your town, every male was wiretapped, followed, and snooped on? You might say that such a thing would be different, but it's not. After all, you have a penis (these people were involved in protest groups), and almost all women are raped by men (these groups are similar in form to groups that have created disruptions in the past), so all men should be surveilled equally (RTFA).
The argument can go on and on: it is logically sound. However, the thing that is most compelling to me in this instance is it reminds me of the FBI during the Cold War, expecially during the Mcarthy era, and the Vietnam war. Do we not find it disturbing that people like MLK Jr., John Lennon, and the vast majority of the faculties of NE colleges were under surveillance, that dossiers were compiled on their potential "socialist," or "Communist," leanings, due to no more evidence than that they "fit the profile,"? Same thing here. Such policies were the product of Hoover and his protegees at the FBI, which nowadays are
I imagine this is just one of those quirky things that has managed to escape the notice of the hyper paranoid Homeland Security people. One would think though that since many of the parts NASA used that wound up in this junkyard are considered 'military grade' that this place would have wound up on some kind of list. Oh well. Someone pick me up a friggin' space laser while they're over there, please.
I've met a few of the professors in the dept., all of whom have industry backgrounds, and let me tell you, meeting these guys and the graduates from these departments explains alot. You see, the the RIM college offers three basic majors: one for artists, one for techs, and one for business and pre-law in the recording industry. The most common? You guessed it, business and pre-law. These are the same asshats who, at any other school, would be learning how to ask for TPS reports and iguring out the best way to make partner in the shortest amount of time. Further still, I live in Murfreesboro, 30 min. away from Music Row in Nashville (or as we like to call it, Crackhead Alley), and I used to live in Nashville. When I lived there, I hung out in West End alot, and met alot of people in this business.
So let me say this: some of these people are cool, and I mean no disparagement towards them. But, in my time dealing with alot of these clowns, I have met a higher concentration of assholes than in any other sector (including advertising sales, the Devil's Piggy Bank). Most of these guys could give a flaming crap less about the actual music they produce: the techs normally do, and the artists, of course, but the lawyers and admin. people are so incredibly full of themselves that it's ridiculous. What was always great was hanging out at Cafe Coco, still kind of a hotspot, but mostly Vandy kids now, and seeing one of these jackasses walk in and expect to be treated like the Lords of All. Please understand though, that when I pick on these guys, I'm doing it because, even in a world full of jerks, these guys oftentimes stick out.
So, back to here at MTSU and our RIM dept. Quite literally, contempt of artists, techs, and fans is quite literally indoctrinated into these guys. I've sat in on some lectures, and my God. One of the classes was for artists contracts. I've always known how shady these things are, but to see completely unethical and illegal tricks being taught ina college course absolutely dropped my jaw.
Essentially, what I'm saying is that the reason the RIAA is so friggin bad is because it is expected of them. MTSU got it's RIM dept. up and running before Napster hit, so you have to understand, some of the people involved in the RIAA's modern tactics almost certainly came from this dept., where, as mentioned, these kinds of illegal and unethical behavior are correct answers on practical test questions. Further still, there is a culture on the admin side of the business that expects people, even demands, that they act this way. You want to fix the problem? It's not about fixing the laws, or methods of distribution. These people will just find new ways to screw artists, fans, and techs over. To change the problem, you have to change the education and the culture: nothing else will do. How we do that though, I have no idea.
I'm a double major in philosophy and psychology, and just today I submitted my first ever research grant proposal. I'll know in a month if it got approved, but if I do get it, the end result will ne a paper I'll have to deliver at both a conference and a journal. Sure, they'll be undergraduate journals, and way more accessible, but still, this makes me nervous. I'm going to have to pay to get published in academic journals, later on? I'll have to give away my rights to reprint the article, my own f@#$ing idea, that some shit-head editor who already has freakin tenure and a g#$damn mercedes has utterly no need of? We're f@#$ing academics people: we're supposed to be the smart ones. How the hell did this shit ever get to this point?
I am currently in an Intro to Neuroscience class atm, but this sounds a bit...off. I am, obviously, not a scientist, but it seems to me that 1.)neurons and their associated structures do not have the physiological equipment necessary to produce sound, and 2.)Considering that the vast majority of passive and active scanning procedures specifically monitor or stimulate electrical activity in the brain, this seems a wee bit kooky. But, as stated, I ain't a scientist. Sage wisdom, folks?
Make your player truly affordable for a full time college student working a full time job, give me the ability to easily take all the songs I buy to any device, any media I wanna take them to, and we'll talk. In the meantime, I'll buy CDs from my local indie record store, and do with them as I see fit.
Typically, when you see this kind of "Behold, this will totally solve {problem X}" type project, its really just an academic trying to get national attention, so that he'll be noticed by someone running for an election at some point, and will thus get a "Vote for me, because I endorse {impossible solution that sounds good in a press byte X}" grant. Very few psychologists of any reputability put too much stock in these magical little Q and A's nowadays...
Honestly, I'm really not sure how many times since Western style diplomacy became the Gold standard internationally that something like this has happened. For a foreign head of state to visit a country and not visit at least someone in the government first is highly, highly irregular. This isn't so much a tech story, I think, as a political one.
Wal-Mart may have a large amount of influence over how games are made, marketed, and packaged, but it is still no different than the example of a tomato. Wal-MArt can't make me buy bad tomatoes, and Wal-Mart can't make me buy bad games. And Wal-Mart knows this. So what does Wal-Mart do? Well, for one, it starts selling an anime series called Gantz. Gantz is the "new thing," in violent/gory American released anime, and in its first episode features a dual decapitation, complete with a full minute of flying heads, the reconstruction of a naked girl with slashed wrists, incluing brains and intestines, as well as attempted rape. Gantz volumes one through three are also currently sitting on the shelf of one of my local Wal-Marts, right here in the buckle of that opressivee, socially dominant "Bible Belt," (Tennessee.)
So tomatos, games, and attempted rape anime; how does it all fit together? Simple, Wal-Mart is clever. Wal-Mart tells tomato growers to use chemicals and certain methods to grow the tomatoes that it wants. In this way, Wal-Mart isn't selling a product that offends customers. Wal-Mart sells GTA San Andreas up until the revelation of the stupid, stupid, stupid addition of Back Coffee, stops selling it, and then sells it again once the stupid, stupid addition is removed. And Wal-Mart will keep selling Gantz, as long as the publisher keeps it low-key and quiet, so no Soccer Moms are screaming at a Wal-Mart middle manager about the product that they themselves bought. Simply put, Wal-Mart does send a message to developers and distibutors of all type, but it is not the messge of "Don't do this, don't do that." Wal-Mart HAS sold games and other products with Graphic nudity before. Wal-Mart HAS sold products with sexual content, including games, before. The message isn;t "Don't," the message is: Keep it quiet, and don't make it a big problem for us.
On the one hand, I'm a conservative. Small government, stay the hell out of my way. On the other hand, basic communications (internet, telephone, and dare I say it, cell) should be available to anyone cheap and fair. As a capitalist, I see the opportunities for a greater chance ofnew jobs in the sector, if privatived, yet on the other hand, if privatived, a problem with the whole "cheap and fair," part. The other part that worries me is that all of these ciies (New Orleans, Seattle, San Fran) are all doing this independant of any overarching standards, beyond those set by the technologies themselves. One would think that there would need to be some state/federal regulation on the matter, but then my conservative gene starts itching.....Oh well, hail, mighty conondrum!
If you read the rest of the series, it does make you understand one thing about these people: however much they may talk about e-mail, brainstorming, and cell phones, they really rely on two things: low amounts of sleep and a damn good staff. The tech makes it easier, but it's still the manpower that keeps in rolling. Kind of interesting when consider that most of these companies are reducing their manpower.
Peer Pressure.
When it all comes down to it, the Founders got this one right. As a SC Justice, you cannot be removed from your post except by your own free will or the icy hand of Death. No one's opinion nessecarily need matter to you....except for one simple fact. Most SCOTUS Justices serve I think something like 10-15 years. Imagine having to deal with the same eight people every day....for the next 15 years....and not getting along with them. Despite namecalling and derisive comments, no one can say that an SC Justice is an idiot. These people, no matter how insane or bizarre some of their ideologies may be, are very intelligent, logical people. Even if you disagree with them (Scalia, Scalia, Scalia), you have to grin, swallow and accept the fact that they are not lunatics, but reasoned, seasoned, judiciaries. Disagree with them, but do so respectfully.
To put it simply, while whatever right wing nutbag Bush slams into O'Connor's vacant seat may come into the SC thinking he or she is there to Kick Ass and Chew Bubble Gum, what do you think the odds are that the other eight justices, old, crocthety, and intelligent as they are, are going to allow this Noob to come in and tell them how to do their jobs? I say, not damn likely.
I'm no more a lawyer than I am a techie, so I have no idea of how this could even begin to be started, but to put it simply, anyone designing this thing has simply got to take all the legal wrangling and abuse of the past few years into account, and at least attempt to deal with it, otherwise I don't care how wonderful this new internet is, none of us will be able to use it without ten subscriptions and an RFID tag shoved up our butts.
SCO at this point is like a ordering a pizza. Except, when the delivery guy gets to your door, he's forgotten the pizza, the 2-liter, the breadsticks, and the ticket. Instead of going back for the stuff though, he keeps banging on your door, threatening to call the cops if you don't pay up now. And he wants a tip. Or he is sooo keying your car. Watch him. He'll do it, damn it. He's crazy like that. Crazy baby. He'll do it man. He means it this time.........craaaaaaazy.......
See, I live in a dorm, and we're unable to connect to Kazaa here, the network flat out won't let us, with no (legal) way around it. For some reason though, K-Lite still connects. Can someone reccomend a good program to me for all file types? I predominantly download movies, the occasional game to demo it, and sometimes music. And please don't reccomend iMesh. I don't know if I could have intentionally installed that much spyware on my computer. I strongly doubt they have anything of the GNU variety blocked, but there are so many GNU P2P programs I don;t know which one to get. Noobish question I'm sure, but any advice is appreciated.