Agreed. My point is not that the brain can never actually be damaged - just that in most cases the description of mood disorders as being caused by "chemial imbalances" in the brain is misleading.
Yes, what the grandparent is probably thinking of is a deep brain stimulator, where an electrical device delivers stimulation directly to the brain, usually in the thalamus or globus pallidus. A vagus nerve stimulator is not implanted in the brain, it's implanted in the chest and stimulates the vagus nerve, which is a peripheral nerve that carries sensory information to the brain from the viscera.
Well, Tom Cruise is not entirely incorrect (although he's certainly insensitive, and somewhat insane).
The idea of depression being "due to a problem with the brain" is something of a misconception; of course it is one that has been promoted and reenforced by pharmaeutical companies.
Any mental state has a corresponding underlying physiology, but it really isn't correct to say one causes the other - to say the physiological state of the brain "causes" depression. Certainly when people become depressed that is associated with chemical changes in brain function. But cognitive behavioral therapy is (in most cases) as successful as drug treatment, and best results are when you use both. In other words, depression is cured by either changing thought patterns or by changing the chemical physiology of the brain, but really these two things are just two sides of the same coin.
To say that depression is a simply physiological disorder is misleading at best. Since all mental function is grounded in the biology of the brain, any mental state can be affected through a physical intervention, but that doesn't mean the state is "purely biological" or "caused" by brain function. For example, neuroimaging studies have shown that some of the abnormal patterns of brain activation you see in obsessive compulsive disorder change as a result of cognitive-behavioral therapy, that is, changing thoughts and behavior without drugs.
I agree with you halfway. I think the best part of OS X is that it combines what you have described (ease of use for the non-techie) with the potential to satisfy the hard-core techie with UNIX underneath. Your friend can get her computer up and running in no time, and when you come over you can pull up the terminal and work your magic...
In a lot of ways it would be easy to build a totally simple computer that was just easy to use; it seems to me the real beauty of OS X is how the complexity and power is so well cloaked beneath that surface simplicity.
Yeah, it doesn't open up more than one URL with a single click. It shows a menu of URLs with a mouseover.
In fact, one of the annoying things about it is that you can't simply click on the link. You have to hover over it, then mouse down to the link you want, then click. If you try and just click on the link you end up clicking on some useless menu title. It would be nicer if you could use it as a regular link - click on it once and it takes you to the default URL - but hover and get more options.
I do see the irony here, but he's not really contradicting himself. His point in the original article was that simply because some implementations of DRM are poorly done and make it unecessarily hard for the user does not mean that *all* DRM is bad. He gives the example of iTunes music store as a relatively acceptable form of DRM. So his current gripe is that microsoft's DRM technology falls into the first category - poorly done DRM that prevents legitimate use.
We may disagree with his analysis ( I do ) but he is not being inconsistent.
The email itself says that the investigation looked for more than literal copying. From the email:
Bob worked on the project for (I think) 4 to 6 months during which time he looked at the Linux kernel, and a large number of libraries and utilities and compared them with several different vesrions of AT&T UNIX source code. (Most of this work was automated using tools which were designed to to fuzzy matching and ignore trivial differences in formatting and spelling)
It's actually up to the widget to turn off (or not) when Dashboard is hidden. Apple recommends that "when Dashboard is hidden, your widget should not consume any CPU time or network resources", but you can write the widgets to keep running in the background if you wish. Widgets are able to tell if the Dashboard is active or not, but the Dashboard never really quits; like the Dock, it's running even when hidden.
Alex - I agree that financial success may aid in one's ultimate success, but the question is about how we measure ultimate success. Financial earnings do not guarantee success.
He doesn't fail if market-share is 5%, he fails if he fails to make an adequate return to his investors.
But that's where I'm disagreeing. This is one measure of success, for sure, and you're right business should be concerned with it. But it's not really the bottom line in terms of success viewed from a human perspective. Yes, perhaps all the shareholders care about is their profits, but we don't need to buy into that mentality when evaluating the success of company. There are more important ways to succeed.
This is interesting and all, but I have to say that it is really unfortunate if we view a computer company's success strictly in terms of its market share, or even in terms of its profit. If you do, you end up making statements like this:
The desktop wars are over. Commodity IBM PC-compatibles with Microsoft OSes and Intel chips won.
I think what really matters is who makes the best product, and in my opinion the success of Apple is in the acheivement of OS X. Now, I am not so naiive to think that the business side of things does not matter; in order for OS X to continue to exist Apple must be successful financially as well. I just think we'd all be better off if we reoriented ourselves towards what success really is. Part of the reason OS X is such a success is because SJ is not only concerned with market share. He's not thinking he failed if market share is 5%, he's thinking he failed if the computer sucks.
Yes. And seriously, I'm kinda tired of hearing this come up over and over again. Does it increase productivity? Jeez. I spend so much time on my computer I think of it like a second home. And is everything in my home there to increase productivity? I design my home so that I enjoy living in it, and so that I live well in it. It should be the same with computers, (not to mention buildings, cities, etc.).
For some reason it's accepted to choose furniture based on how it looks as well as how it works, but when it comes to computers you are being frivolous if you want it to look nice. Just imagine if every technology we have were built only with its most narrowly conceived function in mind. It would be like the whole world was made of those cookie cutter housing complexes. Maybe they're great for housing people, but don't they also slowly suck the inspiration out of us? Sorry, I don't want to live in one of those places.
You see, the thing that many people in the US completely miss is that the breweing of coffee was perfected in 1855 and it is senseless to mess with it. A shot of espresso made with freshly roasted / ground beans and on a well maintained machine by a well trained barrista is the apex of coffee perfection and cannot be improved upon.
Wow, spoken like a true innovator. You must work for Microsoft.
Well they are certainly talking ambitiously. But I'll believe it when I see it... From the article:
"Actually, our country has its own Deep Impact plans, it's just we've never revealed them to the public before," the Beijing News quoted Chinese astronomer Zhao Haibin as saying.
In other words, oh yes, we were planning to do that the whole time...but of course -
China still had to overcome technical obstacles before it could send a comet collider into space, Xinhua news agency quoted Huang Chunping, the lead engineer behind sending China's first man into space in '03, as saying
This is the Xinhua News Agency which according to wikipedia "reports directly to the Communist Party's Propoganda Department".
I agree, but my point is that you don't have to sacrifice functionality for good looks. They are not neccesarily in conflict, although it's unusual to find a designer that cares about both.
My can opener actually opens the can in an innovative way. Rather than slicing into the top, it slices the can around the side of the rim. This allows you to just lift off the top with no sharp edges.
Doubt me? Look at Mac users. They feel like thier part of something, but where has that gotten Apple in the PC market?
Well, for Apple still exists, but beyond that it is a thriving platform with an active, enthusiastic user community, and they are arguably making the best computers with a great OS. That's where it's gotten them.
I don't want my canopener to have a bunch of LEDs on it, but I like the ones with the cool looking rubberizied handles rather than the plain old metal. In other words, making something look cool does not have to mean adding extraneous stuff or interfering with functionality.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. My point is not that the brain can never actually be damaged - just that in most cases the description of mood disorders as being caused by "chemial imbalances" in the brain is misleading.
Well that doesn't quite sound like it is with all respect, but I'd be happy to answer any question you have - but you haven't asked one.
Define 'insane'?
Tom Cruise.
No, if you said that you'd be entirely incorrect.
Yes, what the grandparent is probably thinking of is a deep brain stimulator, where an electrical device delivers stimulation directly to the brain, usually in the thalamus or globus pallidus. A vagus nerve stimulator is not implanted in the brain, it's implanted in the chest and stimulates the vagus nerve, which is a peripheral nerve that carries sensory information to the brain from the viscera.
Well, Tom Cruise is not entirely incorrect (although he's certainly insensitive, and somewhat insane).
The idea of depression being "due to a problem with the brain" is something of a misconception; of course it is one that has been promoted and reenforced by pharmaeutical companies.
Any mental state has a corresponding underlying physiology, but it really isn't correct to say one causes the other - to say the physiological state of the brain "causes" depression. Certainly when people become depressed that is associated with chemical changes in brain function. But cognitive behavioral therapy is (in most cases) as successful as drug treatment, and best results are when you use both. In other words, depression is cured by either changing thought patterns or by changing the chemical physiology of the brain, but really these two things are just two sides of the same coin.
To say that depression is a simply physiological disorder is misleading at best. Since all mental function is grounded in the biology of the brain, any mental state can be affected through a physical intervention, but that doesn't mean the state is "purely biological" or "caused" by brain function. For example, neuroimaging studies have shown that some of the abnormal patterns of brain activation you see in obsessive compulsive disorder change as a result of cognitive-behavioral therapy, that is, changing thoughts and behavior without drugs.
I agree with you halfway. I think the best part of OS X is that it combines what you have described (ease of use for the non-techie) with the potential to satisfy the hard-core techie with UNIX underneath. Your friend can get her computer up and running in no time, and when you come over you can pull up the terminal and work your magic...
In a lot of ways it would be easy to build a totally simple computer that was just easy to use; it seems to me the real beauty of OS X is how the complexity and power is so well cloaked beneath that surface simplicity.
Sounds like a good idea, but it doesn't seem to be working for the grandparent poster. Take a look at his sig...
Yeah, it doesn't open up more than one URL with a single click. It shows a menu of URLs with a mouseover.
In fact, one of the annoying things about it is that you can't simply click on the link. You have to hover over it, then mouse down to the link you want, then click. If you try and just click on the link you end up clicking on some useless menu title. It would be nicer if you could use it as a regular link - click on it once and it takes you to the default URL - but hover and get more options.
I do see the irony here, but he's not really contradicting himself. His point in the original article was that simply because some implementations of DRM are poorly done and make it unecessarily hard for the user does not mean that *all* DRM is bad. He gives the example of iTunes music store as a relatively acceptable form of DRM. So his current gripe is that microsoft's DRM technology falls into the first category - poorly done DRM that prevents legitimate use.
We may disagree with his analysis ( I do ) but he is not being inconsistent.
The email itself says that the investigation looked for more than literal copying. From the email:
Bob worked on the project for (I think) 4 to 6 months during which time he looked at the Linux kernel, and a large number of libraries and utilities and compared them with several different vesrions of AT&T UNIX source code. (Most of this work was automated using tools which were designed to to fuzzy matching and ignore trivial differences in formatting and spelling)
It's actually up to the widget to turn off (or not) when Dashboard is hidden. Apple recommends that "when Dashboard is hidden, your widget should not consume any CPU time or network resources", but you can write the widgets to keep running in the background if you wish. Widgets are able to tell if the Dashboard is active or not, but the Dashboard never really quits; like the Dock, it's running even when hidden.
See the Dashboard Programming Guide.
Hermione grows up.
Alex - I agree that financial success may aid in one's ultimate success, but the question is about how we measure ultimate success. Financial earnings do not guarantee success.
I think you missed my point.
He doesn't fail if market-share is 5%, he fails if he fails to make an adequate return to his investors.
But that's where I'm disagreeing. This is one measure of success, for sure, and you're right business should be concerned with it. But it's not really the bottom line in terms of success viewed from a human perspective. Yes, perhaps all the shareholders care about is their profits, but we don't need to buy into that mentality when evaluating the success of company. There are more important ways to succeed.
This is interesting and all, but I have to say that it is really unfortunate if we view a computer company's success strictly in terms of its market share, or even in terms of its profit. If you do, you end up making statements like this:
The desktop wars are over. Commodity IBM PC-compatibles with Microsoft OSes and Intel chips won.
I think what really matters is who makes the best product, and in my opinion the success of Apple is in the acheivement of OS X. Now, I am not so naiive to think that the business side of things does not matter; in order for OS X to continue to exist Apple must be successful financially as well. I just think we'd all be better off if we reoriented ourselves towards what success really is. Part of the reason OS X is such a success is because SJ is not only concerned with market share. He's not thinking he failed if market share is 5%, he's thinking he failed if the computer sucks.
Yes. And seriously, I'm kinda tired of hearing this come up over and over again. Does it increase productivity? Jeez. I spend so much time on my computer I think of it like a second home. And is everything in my home there to increase productivity? I design my home so that I enjoy living in it, and so that I live well in it. It should be the same with computers, (not to mention buildings, cities, etc.).
For some reason it's accepted to choose furniture based on how it looks as well as how it works, but when it comes to computers you are being frivolous if you want it to look nice. Just imagine if every technology we have were built only with its most narrowly conceived function in mind. It would be like the whole world was made of those cookie cutter housing complexes. Maybe they're great for housing people, but don't they also slowly suck the inspiration out of us? Sorry, I don't want to live in one of those places.
You see, the thing that many people in the US completely miss is that the breweing of coffee was perfected in 1855 and it is senseless to mess with it. A shot of espresso made with freshly roasted / ground beans and on a well maintained machine by a well trained barrista is the apex of coffee perfection and cannot be improved upon.
Wow, spoken like a true innovator. You must work for Microsoft.
Maybe in 1957, pal. Nowadays if you want instantly hot what you need is about 10 million dollars to go along with that coffee.
I don't consider the bagel a pastry.
Well they are certainly talking ambitiously. But I'll believe it when I see it... From the article:
"Actually, our country has its own Deep Impact plans, it's just we've never revealed them to the public before," the Beijing News quoted Chinese astronomer Zhao Haibin as saying.
In other words, oh yes, we were planning to do that the whole time...but of course -
China still had to overcome technical obstacles before it could send a comet collider into space, Xinhua news agency quoted Huang Chunping, the lead engineer behind sending China's first man into space in '03, as saying
This is the Xinhua News Agency which according to wikipedia "reports directly to the Communist Party's Propoganda Department".
I agree, but my point is that you don't have to sacrifice functionality for good looks. They are not neccesarily in conflict, although it's unusual to find a designer that cares about both.
My can opener actually opens the can in an innovative way. Rather than slicing into the top, it slices the can around the side of the rim. This allows you to just lift off the top with no sharp edges.
Perhaps there isn't a whole lot left, except slow *evolution*. All the *revolutionary* concepts have come and gone.
:)
Spoken like a true visionary. I guess we know who's not gonna be doing any innovation.
Doubt me? Look at Mac users. They feel like thier part of something, but where has that gotten Apple in the PC market?
Well, for Apple still exists, but beyond that it is a thriving platform with an active, enthusiastic user community, and they are arguably making the best computers with a great OS. That's where it's gotten them.
I don't want my canopener to have a bunch of LEDs on it, but I like the ones with the cool looking rubberizied handles rather than the plain old metal. In other words, making something look cool does not have to mean adding extraneous stuff or interfering with functionality.