Since when are we opposed to technology? Like freenet and every other technology, this has the potential for both good and bad use. Woz has proposed a perfectly legitimate use for tracking technology. If the government ever proposes tracking us with it, THEN we can start an uproar.
Researchers found that when a driver is talking on the cell phone, it's almost like they enter a tunnel of sorts- they loose their situational awareness
I think it's because your mind has to adapt to the concept of the phone. It's not natural to talk to a hunk of plastic, so you kind of project yourself somewhere else where you can ignore everything but the voice. Talking to a real person is more natural- they are actually there, so you still pay attention to your surroundings.
What if the company itself isn't in the US? What if they don't speak ENGLISH? I'm serious- I've gotten Chinese telemarketing calls. I mean, how the hell can there be any chance that they could sell something if I can't even understand them??
There are proper venues for requesting information where there is evidence of wrongdoing. What if the government just needs more food for its big database?
That sounded much more negative than I intended. I was just trying to clarify it.
The research is fascinating, but not in that it makes you use any more of your brain. Rather, it sheds more light on autism and conceptual thinking, and helps show where savant skills come from. Perhaps that's also what makes us nerds.
This actually shows that we can influence those parts of the brain, and that's really amazing.
I've heard that the reason many people are bad at art is that they try to draw their preconception of the object- the ideas and shapes, but not what they actually see. For example, when you draw a person, you think to draw a head, body, arms, legs, etc. A good artist instead takes the image of what they actually see, and copies those curves onto the paper, without thinking of what they represent.
So what this guy is doing is turning off those symbolic parts of the brain, that tell us that a person must consist of a head and body. He kind of explains this, but he seems to say it a cryptic way.
I wouldn't say these are "genius skills". In art, being able to think visually and not conceptually is an advantage, but math may be the opposite. It might be nice to notice the mistake in that sentence, but we would not be able to function without our minds' ability to fill in and generalize information. So, it's interesting that we can turn off those parts of the brain, but it's not making you better. I wouldn't opt to be autistic just so I could be an amazing artist. Our conceptual abilities are supposed to be balanced.
Have there been studies in alternate programming methods/languages for DNA, like there were for quantum computers? DNA logic doesn't need to be sequential- each protein can affect many things at once. It seems rather unwieldy to try to apply conventional logic building blocks, as each gate would require a unique protein and inhibitor- you can't use the same block twice.
I think they just made some wrong assumptions. Intuitively, a V-shape would seem stronger, but the physics at such a small scale are very different. Perhaps it's such a simple assumption that no one bothered to analyze it.
I'm sure there are other examples of where engineers got so buried into the complexities of a problem that they overlooked a basic assumption.
"As you get closer and closer, there is more eye strain," Nakagaw said.
So.. they want to limit the 3D effect, so programs don't take it upon themselves to pop out and poke you in the eye?
How do you make standards for eye strain? Maybe they need to define some unit of pain. Like, using this display for one hour is equivalent to x hours using Windows...
...the capability to save messages for future reference, for example
They want to charge for logging? Will they make money off of something already available in countless other third-party clients? If anything, they'll lose advertising money when more people go elsewhere for their IM clients. Of course, I could be underestimating the power of laziness...
I remember a quote along the lines that if you covered the entire earth with a grid of sensors 1m apart and had a computer powerful enough to analyze them, you would only be able to predict the weather about a month or two ahead. The tiny inaccuracies and air currents between those sensors would eventually build up to large variations in weather (the butterfly effect).
So this supercomputer can't actually predict everything about the weather. What it *can* predict are very isolated problems, such as ocean temperature and currents, which change very little over time.
last I checked, SSL doesn't know or care about the data being transmitted
Only email is vulnerable because email programs automatically check for new mail at regular intervals. This vulnerability requires that the password be sent frequently to the server. In most other transactions, it's only sent once.
"Okay, you see these engines... and now you see this flame. Don't put the engines near flame. Fire Bad."
Actually, model rocket motors are unbelievably safe. You can literally set them on fire, and nothing will happen (Yes, I tried). Few things except an actual igniter can set them off; they're made to require a certain pressure and heat level that is otherwise very hard to reach.
Gosh, those spammers are using EMAIL! We gotta investigate all those other email users!
You can't go and hassle everyone who doesn't eat pork, just because terrorists don't. If terrorists don't eat pork, then are people who don't eat pork more likely to be terrorists? That's a logical fallacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when are we opposed to technology? Like freenet and every other technology, this has the potential for both good and bad use. Woz has proposed a perfectly legitimate use for tracking technology. If the government ever proposes tracking us with it, THEN we can start an uproar.
I think it's because your mind has to adapt to the concept of the phone. It's not natural to talk to a hunk of plastic, so you kind of project yourself somewhere else where you can ignore everything but the voice. Talking to a real person is more natural- they are actually there, so you still pay attention to your surroundings.
The best way to avoid spam is to never give out your e-mail address to anyone.
That is, of course, unless you own asdf@asdf.com
What if the company itself isn't in the US? What if they don't speak ENGLISH? I'm serious- I've gotten Chinese telemarketing calls. I mean, how the hell can there be any chance that they could sell something if I can't even understand them??
It seems like warfare is becoming like a bunch of people locked in a closet with automatic weapons. Just too easy...
There are proper venues for requesting information where there is evidence of wrongdoing. What if the government just needs more food for its big database?
Now I'm just talking to myself.
That sounded much more negative than I intended. I was just trying to clarify it.
The research is fascinating, but not in that it makes you use any more of your brain. Rather, it sheds more light on autism and conceptual thinking, and helps show where savant skills come from. Perhaps that's also what makes us nerds.
This actually shows that we can influence those parts of the brain, and that's really amazing.
I've heard that the reason many people are bad at art is that they try to draw their preconception of the object- the ideas and shapes, but not what they actually see. For example, when you draw a person, you think to draw a head, body, arms, legs, etc. A good artist instead takes the image of what they actually see, and copies those curves onto the paper, without thinking of what they represent.
So what this guy is doing is turning off those symbolic parts of the brain, that tell us that a person must consist of a head and body. He kind of explains this, but he seems to say it a cryptic way.
I wouldn't say these are "genius skills". In art, being able to think visually and not conceptually is an advantage, but math may be the opposite. It might be nice to notice the mistake in that sentence, but we would not be able to function without our minds' ability to fill in and generalize information. So, it's interesting that we can turn off those parts of the brain, but it's not making you better. I wouldn't opt to be autistic just so I could be an amazing artist. Our conceptual abilities are supposed to be balanced.
but perhaps it's just that someone named "honestpuck" is reviewing a book by a "Goodman".
It's not working... Oh, crap. Well, my LCD was deteriorating anyway.
Have there been studies in alternate programming methods/languages for DNA, like there were for quantum computers? DNA logic doesn't need to be sequential- each protein can affect many things at once. It seems rather unwieldy to try to apply conventional logic building blocks, as each gate would require a unique protein and inhibitor- you can't use the same block twice.
toast.jpg
I think they just made some wrong assumptions. Intuitively, a V-shape would seem stronger, but the physics at such a small scale are very different. Perhaps it's such a simple assumption that no one bothered to analyze it.
I'm sure there are other examples of where engineers got so buried into the complexities of a problem that they overlooked a basic assumption.
So.. they want to limit the 3D effect, so programs don't take it upon themselves to pop out and poke you in the eye?
How do you make standards for eye strain? Maybe they need to define some unit of pain. Like, using this display for one hour is equivalent to x hours using Windows...
I remember a quote along the lines that if you covered the entire earth with a grid of sensors 1m apart and had a computer powerful enough to analyze them, you would only be able to predict the weather about a month or two ahead. The tiny inaccuracies and air currents between those sensors would eventually build up to large variations in weather (the butterfly effect).
So this supercomputer can't actually predict everything about the weather. What it *can* predict are very isolated problems, such as ocean temperature and currents, which change very little over time.
Only email is vulnerable because email programs automatically check for new mail at regular intervals. This vulnerability requires that the password be sent frequently to the server. In most other transactions, it's only sent once.
Actually, model rocket motors are unbelievably safe. You can literally set them on fire, and nothing will happen (Yes, I tried). Few things except an actual igniter can set them off; they're made to require a certain pressure and heat level that is otherwise very hard to reach.
not to mention that weapon-of-mass-destruction known as the
or you could say...
Gosh, those spammers are using EMAIL! We gotta investigate all those other email users!
You can't go and hassle everyone who doesn't eat pork, just because terrorists don't. If terrorists don't eat pork, then are people who don't eat pork more likely to be terrorists? That's a logical fallacy.