I have been telling my friends for years that Ep 3 will rock. Why? Because I think it is clear from the storytelling that lucas knew where he wanted the story to start (beginning of episode I) and he knew where he wanted the story to end (end of Episode III). He probably had some vague idea about key events in the middle, but for the most part I think he didn't know how to get it to the end. That being said, I think that he has a truly spectacular ending to the prequel-trilogy in mind. If he caves in now to those who lob criticism at him as if he is Bush, then I think he might miss the chance to show the world where his vision truly was.
And in the likely chance that this movie sucks as well, we can know with certainty that Episodes IV-VI were a fluke:)
This is similar to how I intend on running a lab in the future. I plan to do a small startup on the side that will take things from my lab and implement them in devices or other such applications (intelligent implants, drugs, etc...). A portion of the money raised from these ventures would then be directed back into the lab. Granted, I like your idea better - where one person along doesn't have to try to do this. But I think it would take some good salesmanship to convince both parties that this is a mutually beneficial solution.
I am a grad student in computational neuroscience, and I just wanted to follow-up on some of the points.
Doing almost pure theoretical research on how the brain works, I see a definite skew in what parts of our research are actually funded. In the last few years, I have submitted numerous proposals to NIH/NIMH (Health/Mental Health) and NSF, as well as other sources. I have gotten very few of them (less than 15%), and the reason that is always cited for the rejection is that there is only a small portion of the proposal dedicated to direct medical applications or pharmacology. Granted, this may be the fault of my research focus as much as the particular study group that reviews the application - but I think this is plain wrong. Especially when I see the other side.
Part of our lab works on taking lessons learned from the brain, and implementing it in an intelligent device. I won't say which (as some of it is patent pending) but the research is entirely funded by the office of Naval Research. Now, they are not funding the brain research itself, but are more interested in an "intelligent" device to find and eliminate targets of interest in the battlefield. I find this completely deplorable. Why should millions of dollars of government money be dedicated to this, while research focused on actually understanding the world around us (which is what I always percieved as one of the main goals of science) is left for crazy scientist locked up in their basements writing their manifest?:P
Ok, to stop the whining, let me finish by saying that I don't know many countries outside the US that would have the money to fund more abstract and theoretical pursuits. If you look at percentages, of course they are dedicating more - but the US is still the biggest source in terms of sheer dollars available. It just needs to be redirected:)
...promulgate such regulations without impermissibly burdening interstate commerce
I got a 700 on my SAT verbal and still can't make heads or tails of that. Do I just need a better dictionary (or just one that makes up funny sentences to get around anti-spam/spyware laws)?
They now have a search engine that lets you put in ingredients you want in a particular recipe (or ingredients you DON'T want/have). When you have the hankerin for some cookies and all you have is sugar and peanut butter - allrecipes to the rescue.
Oh my god - that was one of the nicest (and funniest) accounts of what really happened. Could have been beefed up even more by an additional lotr line "what can men do against such wreckless hate":P
If anyone is interested, I have an account of when I met him during his visit to UIUC in 2002 here. While I agree that the book is interesting, I think it is clear that his book is not going to start the sort of paradigm shift that newton and einstein started. The reason? While interesting things happen with his automota, it is unclear what these results can show about natural phenomena beyond what insight has already been gained by "conventional" science.
While I don't feel as strongly as you do about what a "joke" the globes are, I did find it quite funny that they KEPT saying it was the "greatest party/awards show in hollywood". They must think that if they say it enough, it will be true:P
I completely agree. While I myself have found that I solve problems in my sleep, the experiment does not completely eliminate the effect of sleep/rest deprivation or exhaustion on the ability to find the shortcut. Though I think the only way to correct for this might be to totally rest everyone for a night, wake everyone up, and then do it for THAT eight hour period. That way you could minimize exhaustion, and the other effects.
As a scientist in the biological/biophysical sciences, I for one welcome this new tool/colleague. I anticipate that it WILL replace many scientists. The reason? While many people accurately state that much innovation arises from scientists following a curiosity, or toying with some unknown variable, a huge chunk of scientist do nothing more than churn out the same kind of data and experiments that this robot is capable of. Instead of hubris, in assuming that this machine could never replace all scientist, we should be ashamed at the fact that it COULD replace a huge chunk of them. In fact, as an example, take a look at Bharat Aggarwal's lab. Even the last 100 papers he has published (no exaggeration btw) are all carbon copies of each other, with a particular pharmaceutical compound or protein of interest substituted in. I dare say that a robot and a not-so-advanced computer could produce all his data AND his papers:)
You know, once I got a hold of this thing called the Legacy Key, which let me into any door in my high school. Me and my freshman buddy decided we would break into the school's computer and change our grades. We called the computer maintenance people to get the passwords to the computers. Then we broke into our high school using the key, got to the principals office, and started changing grades. But we got locked out of the computer midway, and we had to bail.
Oh wait - that was just an episode of 90210.
If he obviously hates this country so much (or the way it is now at least), why did he decide to make this his place of residence? I am not saying he should "love it or leave it", but if we are doing things so horribly wrong, and there are places in the world doing it better - than why not live there? Isn't it hypocritical to choose to live here and then say that it is effectively garbage? I for one think that most people that live here do so because for THEM it is better than living just about anywhere else. Just my 2 cents. BTW - I am a foreigner:P
Was it just me, or did it sound like the author's "excitement" about SWG was the start of yet another honeymoon period that will inevitably lead to the same boredom? Just an observation:)
Is it just me, or does the "Pro" philosophy seem to be the best way to go (and not just because the author paints it that way). Why shouldn't we be completely unbiased, and merely provide the best tool for the job. Linux probably is the best tool in MOST cases, but in those few cases where it is not, should we really be sticking our head in the sand or covering our ears in denial? And more so, should we really claim that the advantage the other OS has doesn't exist? In my book, this doesn't really help anyone's case.
Wow - a great day for the University of Illinois. Even though the research wasn't done here, it is great that one of the nicest professors (and a professor in the graduate program I am in) was awarded such an honor.
Just to chime in with the other facts and tidbits here, note that the other awardee also did a research assistantship/postdoc at U of I in the early 60s:)
Must be all that sweet corn
I totally agree - it is certainly not a bad thing. This is only a more extreme form of the kind of "genetic engineering" that has been going on for thousands of years with cats, dogs, cattle, and other species that have close relationships with humans (either as food or pets). By selectively breeding pets, they enhance certain traits. Granted, this technology introduces genese that are not present in any form (most likley) in the host - I think that as long as there is no serious adverse effect to the organism then great. And if for some reason it does get into the wild, and decides to overrun the natural population - even better. It means that the gene that was introduced gave the new species a selective advantage over its predecessors. And isn't that what evolution (in any form, by any mechanism) is all about?
Conduction was the wrong word - I meant processing and typed conduction (was in the middle of writing my thesis when I posted:P). The best biophysical representations of neurons (using GENESIS or NEURON) cannot operate on anywhere NEAR the time scale that normal neurons operate on (off by a few orders of magnitude). By operation, I mean all of the internal processing and such that determines the behavior of the neuron. Granted, you are right in saying that electrical impulses are very fast, but remember that it is the circuitry (wiring) that will slow it down. Neurons use all kinds of tricks (Nodes of Ranvier) to bypass some of the constraints of their system (though as you said, still not approaching the speeds of silicon). The true problem will be to see if silicon processors will ever be able to match the processing power of a single neuron.
If I can do a slightly different interpretation of the questions being asked - can biology inspire changes in computing? The answer is yes - it already has. Many of our ideas of aritificial intelligence or computer learning have come from neural network-type studies of brain structures. At some point, the equivalent circuit in silicon may precisely reproduce what the neuron is doing. Aside from the time issue (nerve conduction is blazingly fast), you would serve your function staying in silicon.
I might as well buy a VCR then:)
Just kidding - I think turning your computer into a "Tivo" is much better than paying for a separate device to do all these things.
I would imagine that the premium content would be like Prima guides you can buy for games, with all the fancy color tables, pictures, maps, etc... And the free content would remain the "basic" (albeit usually more detailed) text and map info that we have come to expect from GameFAQs.
Slashdot Mirror
I have been telling my friends for years that Ep 3 will rock. Why? Because I think it is clear from the storytelling that lucas knew where he wanted the story to start (beginning of episode I) and he knew where he wanted the story to end (end of Episode III). He probably had some vague idea about key events in the middle, but for the most part I think he didn't know how to get it to the end. That being said, I think that he has a truly spectacular ending to the prequel-trilogy in mind. If he caves in now to those who lob criticism at him as if he is Bush, then I think he might miss the chance to show the world where his vision truly was.
:)
And in the likely chance that this movie sucks as well, we can know with certainty that Episodes IV-VI were a fluke
This is similar to how I intend on running a lab in the future. I plan to do a small startup on the side that will take things from my lab and implement them in devices or other such applications (intelligent implants, drugs, etc...). A portion of the money raised from these ventures would then be directed back into the lab. Granted, I like your idea better - where one person along doesn't have to try to do this. But I think it would take some good salesmanship to convince both parties that this is a mutually beneficial solution.
I am a grad student in computational neuroscience, and I just wanted to follow-up on some of the points.
:P
:)
Doing almost pure theoretical research on how the brain works, I see a definite skew in what parts of our research are actually funded. In the last few years, I have submitted numerous proposals to NIH/NIMH (Health/Mental Health) and NSF, as well as other sources. I have gotten very few of them (less than 15%), and the reason that is always cited for the rejection is that there is only a small portion of the proposal dedicated to direct medical applications or pharmacology. Granted, this may be the fault of my research focus as much as the particular study group that reviews the application - but I think this is plain wrong. Especially when I see the other side.
Part of our lab works on taking lessons learned from the brain, and implementing it in an intelligent device. I won't say which (as some of it is patent pending) but the research is entirely funded by the office of Naval Research. Now, they are not funding the brain research itself, but are more interested in an "intelligent" device to find and eliminate targets of interest in the battlefield. I find this completely deplorable. Why should millions of dollars of government money be dedicated to this, while research focused on actually understanding the world around us (which is what I always percieved as one of the main goals of science) is left for crazy scientist locked up in their basements writing their manifest?
Ok, to stop the whining, let me finish by saying that I don't know many countries outside the US that would have the money to fund more abstract and theoretical pursuits. If you look at percentages, of course they are dedicating more - but the US is still the biggest source in terms of sheer dollars available. It just needs to be redirected
But will this holster for the iPOD keep it in place when the Explorer invariably flips over? :P
...promulgate such regulations without impermissibly burdening interstate commerce
I got a 700 on my SAT verbal and still can't make heads or tails of that. Do I just need a better dictionary (or just one that makes up funny sentences to get around anti-spam/spyware laws)?
They now have a search engine that lets you put in ingredients you want in a particular recipe (or ingredients you DON'T want/have). When you have the hankerin for some cookies and all you have is sugar and peanut butter - allrecipes to the rescue.
Oh my god - that was one of the nicest (and funniest) accounts of what really happened. Could have been beefed up even more by an additional lotr line "what can men do against such wreckless hate" :P
Yeah - it worked for me too. More than doubled my penis length. Oh wait - that was an erection :P
If anyone is interested, I have an account of when I met him during his visit to UIUC in 2002 here. While I agree that the book is interesting, I think it is clear that his book is not going to start the sort of paradigm shift that newton and einstein started. The reason? While interesting things happen with his automota, it is unclear what these results can show about natural phenomena beyond what insight has already been gained by "conventional" science.
While I don't feel as strongly as you do about what a "joke" the globes are, I did find it quite funny that they KEPT saying it was the "greatest party/awards show in hollywood". They must think that if they say it enough, it will be true :P
I completely agree. While I myself have found that I solve problems in my sleep, the experiment does not completely eliminate the effect of sleep/rest deprivation or exhaustion on the ability to find the shortcut. Though I think the only way to correct for this might be to totally rest everyone for a night, wake everyone up, and then do it for THAT eight hour period. That way you could minimize exhaustion, and the other effects.
I may just have to take his damn red stapler
As a scientist in the biological/biophysical sciences, I for one welcome this new tool/colleague. I anticipate that it WILL replace many scientists. The reason? While many people accurately state that much innovation arises from scientists following a curiosity, or toying with some unknown variable, a huge chunk of scientist do nothing more than churn out the same kind of data and experiments that this robot is capable of. Instead of hubris, in assuming that this machine could never replace all scientist, we should be ashamed at the fact that it COULD replace a huge chunk of them. In fact, as an example, take a look at Bharat Aggarwal's lab. Even the last 100 papers he has published (no exaggeration btw) are all carbon copies of each other, with a particular pharmaceutical compound or protein of interest substituted in. I dare say that a robot and a not-so-advanced computer could produce all his data AND his papers :)
You know, once I got a hold of this thing called the Legacy Key, which let me into any door in my high school. Me and my freshman buddy decided we would break into the school's computer and change our grades. We called the computer maintenance people to get the passwords to the computers. Then we broke into our high school using the key, got to the principals office, and started changing grades. But we got locked out of the computer midway, and we had to bail. Oh wait - that was just an episode of 90210.
If he obviously hates this country so much (or the way it is now at least), why did he decide to make this his place of residence? I am not saying he should "love it or leave it", but if we are doing things so horribly wrong, and there are places in the world doing it better - than why not live there? Isn't it hypocritical to choose to live here and then say that it is effectively garbage? I for one think that most people that live here do so because for THEM it is better than living just about anywhere else. Just my 2 cents. BTW - I am a foreigner :P
Was it just me, or did it sound like the author's "excitement" about SWG was the start of yet another honeymoon period that will inevitably lead to the same boredom? Just an observation :)
Did anyone hear Victory Point, see the board, and immediately think of Settlers of Catan? A funny "coincidence"
Is it just me, or does the "Pro" philosophy seem to be the best way to go (and not just because the author paints it that way). Why shouldn't we be completely unbiased, and merely provide the best tool for the job. Linux probably is the best tool in MOST cases, but in those few cases where it is not, should we really be sticking our head in the sand or covering our ears in denial? And more so, should we really claim that the advantage the other OS has doesn't exist? In my book, this doesn't really help anyone's case.
Wow - a great day for the University of Illinois. Even though the research wasn't done here, it is great that one of the nicest professors (and a professor in the graduate program I am in) was awarded such an honor. Just to chime in with the other facts and tidbits here, note that the other awardee also did a research assistantship/postdoc at U of I in the early 60s :)
Must be all that sweet corn
Yup - great mud (really nice staff). I am there myself (though not so often anymore).
I totally agree - it is certainly not a bad thing. This is only a more extreme form of the kind of "genetic engineering" that has been going on for thousands of years with cats, dogs, cattle, and other species that have close relationships with humans (either as food or pets). By selectively breeding pets, they enhance certain traits. Granted, this technology introduces genese that are not present in any form (most likley) in the host - I think that as long as there is no serious adverse effect to the organism then great. And if for some reason it does get into the wild, and decides to overrun the natural population - even better. It means that the gene that was introduced gave the new species a selective advantage over its predecessors. And isn't that what evolution (in any form, by any mechanism) is all about?
Conduction was the wrong word - I meant processing and typed conduction (was in the middle of writing my thesis when I posted :P). The best biophysical representations of neurons (using GENESIS or NEURON) cannot operate on anywhere NEAR the time scale that normal neurons operate on (off by a few orders of magnitude). By operation, I mean all of the internal processing and such that determines the behavior of the neuron. Granted, you are right in saying that electrical impulses are very fast, but remember that it is the circuitry (wiring) that will slow it down. Neurons use all kinds of tricks (Nodes of Ranvier) to bypass some of the constraints of their system (though as you said, still not approaching the speeds of silicon). The true problem will be to see if silicon processors will ever be able to match the processing power of a single neuron.
If I can do a slightly different interpretation of the questions being asked - can biology inspire changes in computing? The answer is yes - it already has. Many of our ideas of aritificial intelligence or computer learning have come from neural network-type studies of brain structures. At some point, the equivalent circuit in silicon may precisely reproduce what the neuron is doing. Aside from the time issue (nerve conduction is blazingly fast), you would serve your function staying in silicon.
I might as well buy a VCR then :)
Just kidding - I think turning your computer into a "Tivo" is much better than paying for a separate device to do all these things.
I would imagine that the premium content would be like Prima guides you can buy for games, with all the fancy color tables, pictures, maps, etc... And the free content would remain the "basic" (albeit usually more detailed) text and map info that we have come to expect from GameFAQs.