Does anyone know (it's not been clear to me from what I've read) how they established a range to the satellite exactly? I get how the doppler measurement, along with an assumption of airplane speed can give you a heading. But I can't see that the doppler alone actually tells you anything about where the plane is.
It's possible that the "hand-shake" between the plane and satellite is time tagged and if one knew pretty precisely how long it would take the plane to respond then one could calculate a two-way travel time and convert this to range. We do this in underwater acoustics all the time. But I've not heard anyone say explicitly that this is how it was done.
Any thoughts?
You should listen to a recent interview of Wendy Kopp (founder of Teach for America) by Charlie Rose. She cites a recent Gallop poll that says essentially what you've said, that parents are largely responsible for the poor performance of America's schools. However when she gives the same poll to young teachers (who were at the very top of the class in some of the best schools in the country) finishing up their time with Teach for America, they all say the same thing - the problem is centered around poor teachers and poor leadership at the local level. She then talks about several schools that against all other odds turn out extraordinary kids because they are run by talented and dedicated teams of teachers with real leadership. Her point is that the problem is really not the kids or the parents, it is with schools and the problems are local, which may be difficult to address from the federal level.
Like the current article, a lot of this and other "neuroeconomic" or "neuromarketing" work has been misrepresented by the press to make it look like scientists are trying to give corporations the "keys to the kingdom" of the mind: to make us do and buy what they want and not what we want. That's just rank sensationalism. It's bad science, bad journalism, and completely insults the complexity of human decision-making, which is EXACTLY what us scientists are trying to demomstrate.
With all due respect, I completely disagree. The assumption in this post, and in the quote from the folks at BrightHouse in the original article, is that there is a substantial difference between subverting free will, and knowing apriori how someone will respond to an advertisement. It is simply an indirect form of manipulation, but it is manipulation none-the-less.
IMHO, if an advertiser can test his advertising against a test group and receive favorable results, or worse, use tools to measure the basic response of the brain to his advertising as is shown in the article, then free will has indeed been subverted. Advertisers do these tests and routinely get more frequently get similar results from the public at large to those from their test groups. It has become more of a science than an art.
Others will argue that they are not manipulating anyone directly, they cannot predict the behavior of any one individual. But neither can a physicist predict when any single atom of U-235 will decay. But in the same way a physicist knows with exatitude that a certain number of U-235 atoms will decay in a given amount of time, so does the advertiser know that they will receive a favorable response from X% of the population.
And while I agree that understanding any one mind is terribly complex, advertisers already rely on being able to predict with relative security how their advertising will be received by most consumers. Indeed, companies rely on their advertising efforts to be able to influence the population.
I think one would be hard pressed to make an ethical distinction between subliminal advertising and neuromarketing. [Now don't go get excited, I know that subliminal advertising has been completely debunked as an ineffective hoax.] However both seek to influence the decisions of individuals in a way that subverts free will. When the jury was still out, the idea of manipulating people in such a way was so abhorrent to the American populace that it touched off something like a national hysteria and the National Association of Broadcasters banned such techniques.
Finally, while scientists may not purposefully give corporations "the keys to the kingdom" they may well do so inadvertantly. It seems to me naive to think that in a capitolist marketplace, where companies are committed to producing ever better results, they will not take advantage of a tool that can predict with even more certainty how the population will respond to their adds.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone know (it's not been clear to me from what I've read) how they established a range to the satellite exactly? I get how the doppler measurement, along with an assumption of airplane speed can give you a heading. But I can't see that the doppler alone actually tells you anything about where the plane is. It's possible that the "hand-shake" between the plane and satellite is time tagged and if one knew pretty precisely how long it would take the plane to respond then one could calculate a two-way travel time and convert this to range. We do this in underwater acoustics all the time. But I've not heard anyone say explicitly that this is how it was done. Any thoughts?
You should listen to a recent interview of Wendy Kopp (founder of Teach for America) by Charlie Rose. She cites a recent Gallop poll that says essentially what you've said, that parents are largely responsible for the poor performance of America's schools. However when she gives the same poll to young teachers (who were at the very top of the class in some of the best schools in the country) finishing up their time with Teach for America, they all say the same thing - the problem is centered around poor teachers and poor leadership at the local level. She then talks about several schools that against all other odds turn out extraordinary kids because they are run by talented and dedicated teams of teachers with real leadership. Her point is that the problem is really not the kids or the parents, it is with schools and the problems are local, which may be difficult to address from the federal level.
Like the current article, a lot of this and other "neuroeconomic" or "neuromarketing" work has been misrepresented by the press to make it look like scientists are trying to give corporations the "keys to the kingdom" of the mind: to make us do and buy what they want and not what we want. That's just rank sensationalism. It's bad science, bad journalism, and completely insults the complexity of human decision-making, which is EXACTLY what us scientists are trying to demomstrate.
With all due respect, I completely disagree. The assumption in this post, and in the quote from the folks at BrightHouse in the original article, is that there is a substantial difference between subverting free will, and knowing apriori how someone will respond to an advertisement. It is simply an indirect form of manipulation, but it is manipulation none-the-less.
IMHO, if an advertiser can test his advertising against a test group and receive favorable results, or worse, use tools to measure the basic response of the brain to his advertising as is shown in the article, then free will has indeed been subverted. Advertisers do these tests and routinely get more frequently get similar results from the public at large to those from their test groups. It has become more of a science than an art.
Others will argue that they are not manipulating anyone directly, they cannot predict the behavior of any one individual. But neither can a physicist predict when any single atom of U-235 will decay. But in the same way a physicist knows with exatitude that a certain number of U-235 atoms will decay in a given amount of time, so does the advertiser know that they will receive a favorable response from X% of the population.
And while I agree that understanding any one mind is terribly complex, advertisers already rely on being able to predict with relative security how their advertising will be received by most consumers. Indeed, companies rely on their advertising efforts to be able to influence the population.
I think one would be hard pressed to make an ethical distinction between subliminal advertising and neuromarketing. [Now don't go get excited, I know that subliminal advertising has been completely debunked as an ineffective hoax.] However both seek to influence the decisions of individuals in a way that subverts free will. When the jury was still out, the idea of manipulating people in such a way was so abhorrent to the American populace that it touched off something like a national hysteria and the National Association of Broadcasters banned such techniques.
Finally, while scientists may not purposefully give corporations "the keys to the kingdom" they may well do so inadvertantly. It seems to me naive to think that in a capitolist marketplace, where companies are committed to producing ever better results, they will not take advantage of a tool that can predict with even more certainty how the population will respond to their adds.