"Each test was run at least twice." If they were run at least 10 or 20 times you'd be able to estimate from the variance in the scores if the differences were significant.
The netbook had almost identical measures for all except Safari (caveat to significance, as above). Does anyone think it matters that the two laptops were running Vista and IE8, a fairly integrated collection of software, likely installed together, whereas all the others were thrown on top of an operating system that never could get the hang of running much more than itself.
Anyone want to put odds on whether the difference in drive activity in trying to (1) run MS operating system with MS vs. non-MS software and (2) run stuff installed together vs. installed after, would be proportional to the observed differences in battery life?
My scientist's heart sinks when I remember the hopes I had and that the following would re-popularize the space program as well as science in general, then lost when nobody noticed...
So you've got these guys who built these robot car things and they're going to send them to Mars. One of the cool things they did was collect peoples' names and messages to the New Planet to send along. They burned the messages to CDs and then started looking for a way to attach the CDs to the 'dashboards' of their robots. How about... oh, I dunno... maybe some interlocking plastic blocks with the CD trapped between a pair of them, and a screw or two to hold each of the 3 pairs in place? I'll bet some of these guys even have some of these things laying around and would be glad to donate them to the cause.....
From the left science panaorama camera on each Mars Rover, taken on Sol 2 of each mission:
Time was you went to the drug store with your Rx in hand, you knew you'd be getting quality product. BigPharma was big for good reason. They created magic bullets like Foolemol, Aniaffect and Imaginomycin that did precisely what was advertised -- exactly what you wanted it to do.
Now days if you try to get one of these, you're more likely than not going to receive some generic placebic acid formulation made in a factory by some company where they can't even spell "BM p.o., cf p.r." or "agit vag, admov adlib, w/o disc w/o disc w/o disc" properly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_abbreviations_used_in_medical_prescriptions)
This is a serious problem! If you can't get decent placebos, what are you going to use to treat factitious disorders?
Just some thoughts from research I've done that used or at least looked at reactions and reaction times. If game makers are already thinking about these things, good for them. If not, got an opening for a cognitive psychologist in game design?
As noted, reaction times are greater than your response lags. A good human reaction time is around a third of a second. If your lag times are cut according to the refresh rate, a person's reactions could get placed with an earlier or a later frame. But because perception is faster than reaction, the difference could be noticeable making the play seem uneven.
Human response times vary from 200 to 600 msec. The average isn't that different. What varies far more is the variance. Some people are very consistent, and these are usually the ones with a faster average. Some people vary across a wide range, and while they may sometimes be as fast as the fastest reacters, they sometimes have very slow reactions. This can vary from one response to the next. The delay is most often due to something distracting even if it's irrelevant to the reaction. Placing distracters in a game on purpose could serve to make the game better, Having them by accident wouldn't.
Besides reaction time, there are errors of omission and commission. These occur most frequently after a distraction. They also occur with a slower reaction time because the person has to shift some from automatic processing to a go/no-go decision. Again, placement of distracters should be taken into consideration -- do you want them there? Fine. If not?
Errors also occur due to persistence. Several of the same reaction in a row will tend to cause that same reaction. You can use this in design, You can also realize where it is by accident and how that might adversely affect play and so the player's opinions. "Tricking" them into an error can be a challenge or a pisser, depending on context.
I'm not kidding about the job; there's a whole lot more than reactions and reaction times that we do in the lab and you could use or eliminate if need be. I'm not kidding about being able to put together an EEG based play system that lets a person react so fast that they see the result before they realized they decided what to do, either. I played a Brickout game using one, and it's spooky, but cool.
When National Geographic wanted some space history background material, they contacted NASA' history office. NASA's history office sent National Geographic to http://www.astronautix.com/ I assume NASA sent NatGeo there due to its objectivity and completeness, because they sure didn't send them there for pro-NASA propaganda. This is a good example: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ares.htm
Ares is a salvage project from its inception. It is an attempt to build a family of lifters from existing designs, technology and manufacturing as much as possible, with as little new design, technology and manufacturing as they can get away with.
Ares was designed by ATK Thiokol, manufacturer of the shuttle's solid rocket boosters, using derivative components of the shuttle, and in the case of Ares 1, the solid rocket boosters as the main engine. It is far more adaptation than it is invention. This is in keeping with NASA's "faster, cheaper" mind set that served well in many planetary probes. But since it is not a ground-up design, where flaws are handled when they first occur, it is prone to problems emerging from more complex configurations, the errors themselves more often due to complex interactions. Vibration problems, such as the current Ares booster 'pogo-stick' problem, are a common example of such emergent behavior.
One of NASA's greatest inventions during the early manned space program was systems analysis software, intended to examine a large system as it was built to determine where problems might and/or did occur. But even now, with far greater computational capability, the complexity of potential interactions due to starting with a large system that has been altered in numerous small ways from its original design puts the Ares designs beyond predictability. That will continue to occur as long as the design philosophy is maintained. If this fact, and the fact that such problems could emerge only under certain conditions -- say at max Q, pushing a heavy load with a smaller, lighter load on the top (ie. an Orion) -- isn't at the forefront of those minds trying to decide whether to scrap it and start over, it should be.
Had the shuttle component and system design philosophy been based on extensibility and adaptability (such as with SpaceX's Falcon 1 -> Falcon 9 design), Ares might have a better chance. But the core design of Ares 1 is the SRB, which was designed over 35 years ago for one purpose -- to be strapped on the side of the shuttle to help with its initial lift phase. It did that job well, with its only major failure having been a NASA decision going counter to a Thiokol recommendation. Now we have Thiokol recommending and NASA deciding the same things.
Robert Truax designed vehicles using surplus components. He designed so many, with so much acclaim for his designs, that there was a TV show based on it (Salvage 1, with Andy Griffith, ABC, 1979). But Truax was salvaging components to use in their intended fashion, not entire systems being adapted to entirely new designs.
One has to wonder at the basis for decision making when an agency first builds from scratch, then declines designs reusing some of the parts, but later chooses to rebuild existing designs. The probability is great that the decision is not technical but rather administrative. When the decisions were technical we got "Not on my watch." and Apollo 13 got home. When the decisions became administrative we got "My God Thiokol, what do you want me to do, wait until April?" and the Challenger didn't come home. This is the sort of fuzzy, intuitive, gut-feeling stuff that gets trashed in serious discussions about such major projects as a space vehicle. But the people that trash that kind of thinking aren't going to fly these things. A pilot that doesn't have a personal example of an intuitive, gut-feeling decision that was right hasn't been flying long, and the older the pilot they more likely that following such a gut feeling
Subject is quote from "I Think We're All Bozos On This Bus" by Firesign Theatre. Apropo, no?
"businesses and IT departments must adjust to the fact that everything's starting to move to the cloud"
When a pundit* makes a claim that comes true, they collect on the only currency involved -- publicity -- by reminding you at every chance. When they're wrong, which is usually, they simply wait until so few remember that if anyone does bring it up, they can easily explain things away with a line of BS (what they call Believable Statements) that they've developed since realizing they were wrong.
* Pun' dit (n): from
(1) "pun", a statement with a double meaning; those agile enough with language to earn the name pundit can manipulate the double meaning to be polar opposites, such as "is" and "is not". (A recent inquiry into the activities of one such person resulted in their tacit admission in belonging to this class of person, when they asked of the investigators, "Define 'is'.") Through the application of this inclusive exclusion, such a person can claim to have meant what they meant when they said it, and if necessary to have meant the opposite. A truly superior practitioner can not only apply this, but also make it appear as though it were the listener's fault for the confusion.
and from:
(2) dit, from Morse Code "dit" and "dah", known as "dot" and "dash" to non-Morse speakers. This is the equivalent to a single trinary "trit" of information in that it can take either active state (dit or dah), or not be there at all (a wait state). Applied to Boolean, it is the basis of the IF...THEN...MAYBE statement, the 'fuzzy logic' extension of IF...THEN...ELSE. By itself (ie. with no associated data or wait state) the single trit "dit" means nothing at all.
Thus, "pundit" is one who can take a piece of information, useless by itself, and by association with another statement, imply a meaning to it with which they may then later prove that they meant X or that they meant NOT X. For instance, a person at a tech-oriented new organization can make a statement like "everything's moving to the cloud", and when everything doesn't, claim that by "everything" they meant also "everything else", and by "is" they meant "isn't", yielding "everything is moving to the cloud, except everything that isn't moving to the cloud." If it seems that the phrase "some things" would be more appropriate, you are not a pundit. They use "everything" because it can be used as "everything is", "everything isn't" or "everything is except everything that isn't", and changed according to the need of the pundit to appear to be right at the cost of looking like an idiot, or even worse, a politician.
See also "pendantic"; similar to "pedantic" (holding forth at length with the appearance, even if not in actual fact, of being an authority), but taken from "pendulous" for 'swinging back and forth freely, usually something that is very low hanging', and "antic" a comical behavior.
It's completely unethical for bestbuy to go along with microsoft on pushing this course onto their employees. Though I can't say I'm surprised.
It is not unethical for a vendor to train a retailer's employees on the selling points of the vendor's products, or for the retailer to require its employees to attend such training. This has been common practice for decades. Given the cut throat nature of some of the businesses involved, were there anything unethical, illegal, immoral or otherwise untoward in this practice, the point would have been made a long time ago
What is stupid, though still not unethical, is raising negative points about the competition to counter with positive about the vendor's products. Doing so tends to appear desperate and mean spirited. If you can't say something good about them and raise it with a better rating on your product, you should just not talk about the other at all. Of course this is sales technique as taught and practised by decent retailers. One shouldn't expect that sort of thing from Best Buy.
You start to answer your own question with the "two kinds of people" statement. Rocket supporters and scramjet supporters, whatever those are, might take up the cause of a particular vehicle. But the point is not to use a particular vehicle, it's to get something done using the most effective and efficient vehicle available.
You start with your goal, develop flight profiles for the available vehicles, add in ground support and maintenance costs, and calculate your costs/benefits.
There are more than "2 kinds of people" -- actually goals to accomplish and flight profiles that can be used. Suborbitals: rapid deployment air to ground, air to air and air to space weapons platform; critical cargo delivery; recon. Orbital: supply, including immediate need repair supply, to orbital craft/stations; debris sweeping ahead of a sensitive craft or mission. Extra-orbital: lunar insertion; placement of probes such as solar weather into Earth/Sun LaGrange points; interplanetary delivery. All of these can be expanded greatly.
All other things being equal, a reusable booster with a delivery system fired from high speed and altitude would probably end up being very, if not most, economical in most cases. That would make 'both' a good answer.
For the most part, 'people' will have little to do with it. It'll be a long time before there's a human rated scramjet vehicle, and then it'll probably be of the two stage nature mentioned. The energy necessary for a given velocity/trajectory grows faster than the vehicle cross section. Something big enough to carry passengers would require more fuel than it could carry.
One can also obtain the DVD "The Prisoner: Special Edition" and look into the 'extras'. Two episodes had their soundtracks redone, but on this DVD were presented in their original form. Doesn't add meaning such as this reordering, but worth a comparison if one's a fan.
Verbally the title could be a little ambiguous, Is not the same AMC releasing "The Prisoner", than AMC releasing the prisoner
Originally the title was: Number Six Returns: AMC Releasing "The Prisoner". Less ambiguous but with enough double meaning to be catchy. The original did require fixing as it was max length before adding the quotes, and they caused it to truncate at the 'e' in 'Prisoner'. I didn't see it in the editor but did in the post-submission display.
What number will he have? The old one was 6, maybe next one will be 66, and we should wait till the real good version, in the reboot of the serie, when will be 666 (if the prisoner is 666, i would be very afraid of some entity called AMC that not only managed to imprison him, but plans soon to release him to the world)
If only you'd noticed that Jesus from 'The Passion of Christ' was playing the the hero, this last bit would have had much more impact. Someone already mentioned Caviezal having played Jesus, but nobody has yet commented on whether having McKellen as #2 would make it "Jesus vs. Magneto" or "Jesus vs. Gandolf". Since in the editing they decided that the links to the actors IMDB pages weren't necessary, it's more difficult to make such connections. Of course had I followed all the links I'd started with, I'd have noticed that one said "the ever changing Number Two" which I interpreted as a new one every episode, most Number Two actors played in 2 episodes, and one of them in 3. I might have even noticed how many of the Number Twos had played one part or another in Dr. Who, but I doubt I'd have had the nerve to appear to be that much of a nerd.
Hmm, it seems that this article might be somewhat relevant: <a href="http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/235/3/R99">Proton semiconductors and energy transduction in biological systems</a>
Unfortunately I don't have access to the journal in question - my university proxy doesn't even work:/
I wonder if this means doping ice with extra protons for conductance or similar? It seems like it'd take a lot of energy to rip a proton off a H2O molecule stuck in the crystal matrix.
That be the dude, d00d. As far as the technical particulars, that's why it should be done. Once done, the details of operation can put examined to find out if and in what circumstances protonics might be superior to electronics. BTW, I'd assumed the doping thing, not having see the reference you found. Also an assumption is the possibility that electrons are bound stronger with each bond and have more of them affecting them, making the protons relatively easier to kick loose.
I don't have access to the journal either. While we look for it, if you ever wanted to know why it is you can pick up a piece of pizza that doesn't burn your fingers, then bite into and burn the hell out of your mouth, Morowitz worked that out too; the title piece in The Thermodynamics of Pizza.
It was in the intro paragraph to one of his essays. That essay appeared in one of his collections books, I believe either "Pizza" or "Mayonaisse". Sorry to be so vague; my Morowitz collection and I are a thousand miles apart, or I'd not only look it up, I'd quote it. Some of his short works include references themselves, but I don't recall whether this one did. It was only in the intro and wasn't the focus of the essay, so there was no technical discussion as to why this should be so. You can always write and ask him. He's at George Mason University.
He can (and does, in "Energy Flow In Biology") start from a few basic astronomical facts regarding the solar system (solar output, Earth's size distance, etc.) and the proportion of elements on the pre-biotic Earth, and using thermodynamics and physical chemistry, predict the evolution of chemical complexity from the most basic low energy compounds up through far more complex organic molecules than have been discovered extra-terrestrially or created any in experimental re-creations of energy + pre-biotic Earth atmosphere make up --> organic molecules. His entirely theoretical treatment uses easily verifiable facts and numbers and predicts the results already obtained as well as more than should be reasonably expected to be necessary to be accepted as supported by evidence. So I have no doubt he could fully answer the simpler question of voltage driven protonic flow in ice.
If he did provide it, could you evaluate it? Or was your "I don't see any reason" as vague as my reference? Not a criticism -- I'd really like to see his answer examined by someone able to check it.
I'd like to see a water ice computer. Pipes (!) and containers of water, frozen into ice. Doped to carry current efficiently. Areas of interface doped differentially to create N and P equivalent materials for semiconductor creation. It's very doable. So why bother for any reason other than a neat hack? Because it wouldn't be an electronic computer. It would be protonic, because when a voltage is applied to water ice, it's protons, not electrons, that flow.
Who cares WTF it's called? Call it Fred Flintstone if you like, it won't make any difference. When I traded my AppleModem 300 for a 1200, I was switching to a relatively broad band device. The distinction is arbitrary from the start, so arguing over it like it's a quantity is a waste.
Whatever name it's given, it comes with a technical specification and that's how it's sold. If they wanted to take 3M down/.5M up and call it 10M down/1M up, that would be an issue worth fussing over.
Those who came to colonize the western hemisphere expected to have a good chance not only to survive, but to thrive. That's why they brought children.
Until there is recycling closed environment technology adequate to the task of colonization, a one way trip is essentially sending the 'settler' on ahead as the first to arrive at their funeral. Who wants to go down in the books as the first person to go to another planet to die? The whole point is to go there to live.
BTW, this isn't quite a dupe. The first time this was covered it was Buzz Aldrin saying it.
The effect noted is an illusion due to category error (selection of mismatched items to compare).
The data regarding older advances are taken, as stated, from revolutionary changes, whereas the newer are taken from predictable and incremental advances.
The former are primarily advances in basic science. They do lend themselves to, and are made obvious by, later advances in applied technology, but the major discoveries themselves are of a more fundamental nature. Such things are highly visible now due to the large body of applied technology they made possible. Back tracking the technological advances leads to those discoveries. Without that large body converging on the major discoveries common to them, the discoveries themselves are not that prominent.
They were not so prominent at the time due to the lack of applied technology as an indicator. Likewise, most major discoveries in the recent past have not had time to mature and bear applied fruit. We cannot know for certain as yet just which or how many of those advances are the Next Big Thing(s). However, basic research continues apace, as evidenced by grants awarded, articles published and patents obtained, as well as the natural offshoot of basic research, those far more numerous discoveries that are developed, announced and then come to naught.
The authors note the details that they believe lead them to their conclusion, but fail to recognize that in examining those facts they are creating their conclusion through selection bias and category error. It is precisely the recent incremental technological advances that stem from the more distant major discoveries that make them visible. Their data originate in a cause and effect relationship, but they attempt to compare them as effects, recent and distant, and without the benefit of data regarding widespread effects of any recent major advances (effects which obviously have not occurred yet) they assume none have occurred due to an absence of evidence.
As Thomas Kuhn posits, revolutionary changes are inevitable and their origins are in the constantly ongoing basic research. He also notes that those already established in a field are less likely than the new generation to recognize (in terms of both becoming aware of the nature of, as well as accepting and admitting the importance or even existence of) the phenomenon.
To summarize with an illustration of the extreme view presented above: major discoveries in the past have resulted in entire fields that did not exist previously. The lack of of previously unknown but conceivable fields suddenly appearing today is obviously not evidence that they are somewhere simmering beneath the surface, waiting to erupt. But the lack of such conceivable revelations can be taken to indicate that there is room for such fields to blossom, and the lack of sudden occurrence evidence of the protracted nature of their development.
Finally, historical data provides many examples of people making the same mistake, assuming that the lack of major advances in the present with the visibility of such advances in the past indicates that there are no such advances forthcoming. For just one example, from http://quotesjournal.blogspot.com/2003/07/everything-that-can-be-invented-has.html "Everything that can be invented - has already been invented". Attributed to Charles Duell, Commissioner of the United States Patent Office, 1899. Cf.Henry Ellsworth, a patent commissioner in 1843 who said something similar in a report to Congress: "The advancement of the arts, from year to year, taxes our credulity and seems to presage the arrival of that period when human improvement must end." The most extreme example of this is, in my opinion, Stephen Hawking's oft quoted suggestion of the finality inherent in a 'theory of everything' which would be akin to knowing "the mind of God." To this I would reply that this may be so, but there have been an awful lot of gods throughout history that have been credited with ultimacy, only to be superseded by The Next Big God.
As far as I can see the only thing in TFA that wasn't covered months ago in http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/24/0151211 is the entirely useless analogy to the computer industry. I wonder if that section is replaced with say, an equally bogus analogy to automobiles so it can be sent to Car And Driver.
The summary seems to imply a "British Company To Pick Up NASA's Dropped Asteroid Ball" slant. "Seems" is used here because rhetorical device is relied on because the facts themselves don't do the job.
One failure is the false dichotomy created by positioning the Near Earth Object program(s -- there's seven http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/programs/ ) for detecting and tracking thousands of rocks against a vehicle intended to take one such rock and push it around. A tactic like this is common when the writer has little faith in the intended focus of the piece to carry the story alone, and they present a badly constructed straw man in contrast.
The second problem is in presenting NASA's possible future NEO (a currently operating and planned continued project, mind you) budget crunch as problematic, whereas this British company's announcement of what amounts to grand plans on paper that would admittedly require huge national or international funding to even begin is held up as "taking the lead".
If announcing one has plans that one considers viable is "taking the lead", the team in TFA is taking the lead behind dozens of other "programs" in equal or farther planning stages, some described in a recent Discovery/Science Channel program, many written up in popular media over the years and available to the search engine of your choice, with the Top Ten Ways listed at http://dsc.discovery.com/space/top-10/asteroid-stopping-technology/index-03.html . Harry Stamper's roughnecks and Spurgeon Tanner's shuttle crew are not among them, which didn't stop me from using them in the obligatory/. inclusion of SF references.
Interesting Background Material
on
Robotic Mold
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I went looking for negative stuff, knowing plasmodiums were behind malaria. Couldn't find any for this stuff, but I did find some juicy bits from biomedical science regarding its computational ability, or rather its internal processes that can be used as such. Not many will be able to get the referenced material, but just the abstracts are tasty.
Get over it, he's fucking dead, and all it costs you people is making some words happen. What's the matter, will the guilt become unbearable if you admit it? You know, we know, you know we know, and we know you know.
Either apologize, pardon, and clean the slate, or someone in the future is going to do it, as well as apologize to him, and us, because you didn't have the balls that Turing had even after you subjected him to estrogen emasculation. That's psychological AND physical torture, with the perpetrators attempting to skip with less than full accounting.
If the Crown's proud bastard son Australia can apologize to an entire race for worse http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7241965.stm you can manage this surely. Or if you've actually managed to export all your intestinal fortitude, ring up down under and see if maybe Kevin Rudd could pop up topside and do it for you.
No matter what you do it won't be enough because he saved all your asses many times over, and started a movement that makes modern life possible. So the only measure of your sincerity, humility and mettle will be your effort. Most visible in that effort will be that which you put towards minimizing your responsibility then and now.
If they're going to drool into the keys and ruin it, they're too young.
If they're going to type at me all day, they're too young.
If they're going to type at their father all day instead of me, not only are they not too young, I fully expect a call saying "Dad? Remember when you first got that Apple II and were learning to program, and I kept trying to help you? I just wanted to say I'm sorry." THEN if I get that phone call, and they keep pestering him, they're too young. But I'll still laugh. In fact, I may go buy it. They got any with drool proof keys?
If the tornado is occurring where the wind farm is, it's the turbines.
If the tornado is occurring where the wind farm is, and the electricity goes out, it's not the turbines.
It'd be a damn shame with all this great technology and great problems to solve if they had to rely on a phone call to a guy at the wind farm who had to look out the window for them in order to know whether there was a tornado or not.
The Huntsville Times (of all places) gets the story half right and half sensationalistic speculation based on ignoring the rest of the facts, and in posting it here the summary turns to 25/75, prompting shadow tippers to pretend they know enough to continue the line of assumed criticisms and innuendos.
Cook has been on this project since it began, working his way up and filling bigger shoes capably, including those of his previous supervisor. Now he's leaving with the blessings of NASA to rejoin his previous supervisor, working for a contractor specializing in space craft test telemetry and analysis, including that of (The Rocket Boys' "Miss Riley"? no. My Shiny Metal Ass? no. Wait for it...) Ares.
Cook is not leaving the project, he's only leaving federal employment. That's not necessarily true, he may be tasked with other work, but figure the odds they'll waste his experience on something else as long as Ares is viable.
Now, my money says it's not viable and will get canceled and Cook will continue to make good money elsewhere, but at this point neither NASA nor Dynetics is betting that way, and that's how the story should have been written if it had been intended to be journalism. Had it been, it may have even been reported as such here. Of course that would never stop such dedicated and learned critics from toppling every perceived ivory tower with their Tonka Trucks of Truth as long as the facts can be safely kept outside the sandbox.
Does Australia not license criminologists? Failure to do so can result in all manner of self-promoting twits making claims about themselves in order to get listened to long when they rant. In the US this is often seen when private investigators can't make enough money at their primary occupation (installing home and car security systems) and start charging people to listen to them hold forth on anything they think they've wrapped their head around. What makes me draw that parallel is the fact that I see nothing on the AIC web site that says they have a "principal criminologist". Also, keep in mind we do license PIs, but that doesn't stop them from acting a fool in other areas, which seems to be the case here.
From the sophomoric language in the summary (my apologies to real sophomores, like the ones in high school) and the fact the paper hasn't been submitted anywhere and so who else would have access, I conclude that it is the first author (a student), not the second (a post doc that did the matlab work) or third (an MD/PHD) that posted this here. Calling yourself a researcher and not making your student status clear is a failure of full disclosure. It also works against you in that people will forgive a students a lot of mistakes that they'll end up holding against you otherwise.
In your hurry to promote your ideas you gloss over or ignore a large body of research that disproves your assertions. - We've known for a long time about sparse networks and distal activation. The distribution is due to Hebbian assemblies. Hebb, Donald O. - We can and do stimulate and record nearby spatially and temporally. Use the stimulation pulse as the deactivation signal on the recording probe. We can even do them simultaneously with high impedance, high speed data collection equipment and adjusting the output Y scale to logarithmic. Ask Vince to explain this last part. We also use magnetic stimulation and shielded electrical probes. - Inadequate and poorly stated background material is a sure way to not only get rejected but also get remembered by those editors and rejected in the future. You've got to assume that not only will some of them know about the field, some of those reading your submission may be among those being misrepresented or those who you fail to represent but should have. - The above goes double for trying to make your idea sound good by making others sound bad. It pisses people off, and you may be wrong (you are) which just gets your manuscript returned. - You fail to show that your method can be generalized to normal neuron activation, and thus be useful for (the inadequately described) computer interface, or anything else that requires 'normal' operation. And not being able to show normal operation means not being able to tell if and/or when your method causes incorrect operation or damage. - The background theory and history shortcomings call into question your theory, the need for your technique, and the usefulness of your large volume of supporting data and graphics. This last part looks like argumentation by bafflement - flooding the reader with overly technical details in order to bullshit them into accepting your other points. Even if it's not that, it looks like it.
Slashdot Mirror
... those people aren't.
"Each test was run at least twice." If they were run at least 10 or 20 times you'd be able to estimate from the variance in the scores if the differences were significant.
The netbook had almost identical measures for all except Safari (caveat to significance, as above). Does anyone think it matters that the two laptops were running Vista and IE8, a fairly integrated collection of software, likely installed together, whereas all the others were thrown on top of an operating system that never could get the hang of running much more than itself.
Anyone want to put odds on whether the difference in drive activity in trying to (1) run MS operating system with MS vs. non-MS software and (2) run stuff installed together vs. installed after, would be proportional to the observed differences in battery life?
My scientist's heart sinks when I remember the hopes I had and that the following would re-popularize the space program as well as science in general, then lost when nobody noticed...
So you've got these guys who built these robot car things and they're going to send them to Mars. One of the cool things they did was collect peoples' names and messages to the New Planet to send along. They burned the messages to CDs and then started looking for a way to attach the CDs to the 'dashboards' of their robots. How about... oh, I dunno... maybe some interlocking plastic blocks with the CD trapped between a pair of them, and a screw or two to hold each of the 3 pairs in place? I'll bet some of these guys even have some of these things laying around and would be glad to donate them to the cause.....
From the left science panaorama camera on each Mars Rover, taken on Sol 2 of each mission:
Spirit:
http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/002/2P126556804EFF0200P2205L1M1.JPG
http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/002/2P126556727EFF0200P2205L4M1.JPG
Opportunity:
http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/p/002/1P128365194EDN0100P2205L5M1.JPG
http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/p/002/1P128365248EDN0100P2205L6M1.JPG
Time was you went to the drug store with your Rx in hand, you knew you'd be getting quality product. BigPharma was big for good reason. They created magic bullets like Foolemol, Aniaffect and Imaginomycin that did precisely what was advertised -- exactly what you wanted it to do.
Now days if you try to get one of these, you're more likely than not going to receive some generic placebic acid formulation made in a factory by some company where they can't even spell "BM p.o., cf p.r." or "agit vag, admov adlib, w/o disc w/o disc w/o disc" properly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_abbreviations_used_in_medical_prescriptions)
This is a serious problem! If you can't get decent placebos, what are you going to use to treat factitious disorders?
Just some thoughts from research I've done that used or at least looked at reactions and reaction times. If game makers are already thinking about these things, good for them. If not, got an opening for a cognitive psychologist in game design?
As noted, reaction times are greater than your response lags. A good human reaction time is around a third of a second. If your lag times are cut according to the refresh rate, a person's reactions could get placed with an earlier or a later frame. But because perception is faster than reaction, the difference could be noticeable making the play seem uneven.
Human response times vary from 200 to 600 msec. The average isn't that different. What varies far more is the variance. Some people are very consistent, and these are usually the ones with a faster average. Some people vary across a wide range, and while they may sometimes be as fast as the fastest reacters, they sometimes have very slow reactions. This can vary from one response to the next. The delay is most often due to something distracting even if it's irrelevant to the reaction. Placing distracters in a game on purpose could serve to make the game better, Having them by accident wouldn't.
Besides reaction time, there are errors of omission and commission. These occur most frequently after a distraction. They also occur with a slower reaction time because the person has to shift some from automatic processing to a go/no-go decision. Again, placement of distracters should be taken into consideration -- do you want them there? Fine. If not?
Errors also occur due to persistence. Several of the same reaction in a row will tend to cause that same reaction. You can use this in design, You can also realize where it is by accident and how that might adversely affect play and so the player's opinions. "Tricking" them into an error can be a challenge or a pisser, depending on context.
I'm not kidding about the job; there's a whole lot more than reactions and reaction times that we do in the lab and you could use or eliminate if need be. I'm not kidding about being able to put together an EEG based play system that lets a person react so fast that they see the result before they realized they decided what to do, either. I played a Brickout game using one, and it's spooky, but cool.
When National Geographic wanted some space history background material, they contacted NASA' history office. NASA's history office sent National Geographic to http://www.astronautix.com/ I assume NASA sent NatGeo there due to its objectivity and completeness, because they sure didn't send them there for pro-NASA propaganda. This is a good example: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ares.htm
Ares is a salvage project from its inception. It is an attempt to build a family of lifters from existing designs, technology and manufacturing as much as possible, with as little new design, technology and manufacturing as they can get away with.
Ares was designed by ATK Thiokol, manufacturer of the shuttle's solid rocket boosters, using derivative components of the shuttle, and in the case of Ares 1, the solid rocket boosters as the main engine. It is far more adaptation than it is invention. This is in keeping with NASA's "faster, cheaper" mind set that served well in many planetary probes. But since it is not a ground-up design, where flaws are handled when they first occur, it is prone to problems emerging from more complex configurations, the errors themselves more often due to complex interactions. Vibration problems, such as the current Ares booster 'pogo-stick' problem, are a common example of such emergent behavior.
One of NASA's greatest inventions during the early manned space program was systems analysis software, intended to examine a large system as it was built to determine where problems might and/or did occur. But even now, with far greater computational capability, the complexity of potential interactions due to starting with a large system that has been altered in numerous small ways from its original design puts the Ares designs beyond predictability. That will continue to occur as long as the design philosophy is maintained. If this fact, and the fact that such problems could emerge only under certain conditions -- say at max Q, pushing a heavy load with a smaller, lighter load on the top (ie. an Orion) -- isn't at the forefront of those minds trying to decide whether to scrap it and start over, it should be.
Had the shuttle component and system design philosophy been based on extensibility and adaptability (such as with SpaceX's Falcon 1 -> Falcon 9 design), Ares might have a better chance. But the core design of Ares 1 is the SRB, which was designed over 35 years ago for one purpose -- to be strapped on the side of the shuttle to help with its initial lift phase. It did that job well, with its only major failure having been a NASA decision going counter to a Thiokol recommendation. Now we have Thiokol recommending and NASA deciding the same things.
Robert Truax designed vehicles using surplus components. He designed so many, with so much acclaim for his designs, that there was a TV show based on it (Salvage 1, with Andy Griffith, ABC, 1979). But Truax was salvaging components to use in their intended fashion, not entire systems being adapted to entirely new designs.
One has to wonder at the basis for decision making when an agency first builds from scratch, then declines designs reusing some of the parts, but later chooses to rebuild existing designs. The probability is great that the decision is not technical but rather administrative. When the decisions were technical we got "Not on my watch." and Apollo 13 got home. When the decisions became administrative we got "My God Thiokol, what do you want me to do, wait until April?" and the Challenger didn't come home. This is the sort of fuzzy, intuitive, gut-feeling stuff that gets trashed in serious discussions about such major projects as a space vehicle. But the people that trash that kind of thinking aren't going to fly these things. A pilot that doesn't have a personal example of an intuitive, gut-feeling decision that was right hasn't been flying long, and the older the pilot they more likely that following such a gut feeling
Subject is quote from "I Think We're All Bozos On This Bus" by Firesign Theatre. Apropo, no?
"businesses and IT departments must adjust to the fact that everything's starting to move to the cloud"
When a pundit* makes a claim that comes true, they collect on the only currency involved -- publicity -- by reminding you at every chance. When they're wrong, which is usually, they simply wait until so few remember that if anyone does bring it up, they can easily explain things away with a line of BS (what they call Believable Statements) that they've developed since realizing they were wrong.
* Pun' dit (n): from
(1) "pun", a statement with a double meaning; those agile enough with language to earn the name pundit can manipulate the double meaning to be polar opposites, such as "is" and "is not". (A recent inquiry into the activities of one such person resulted in their tacit admission in belonging to this class of person, when they asked of the investigators, "Define 'is'.") Through the application of this inclusive exclusion, such a person can claim to have meant what they meant when they said it, and if necessary to have meant the opposite. A truly superior practitioner can not only apply this, but also make it appear as though it were the listener's fault for the confusion.
and from:
(2) dit, from Morse Code "dit" and "dah", known as "dot" and "dash" to non-Morse speakers. This is the equivalent to a single trinary "trit" of information in that it can take either active state (dit or dah), or not be there at all (a wait state). Applied to Boolean, it is the basis of the IF...THEN...MAYBE statement, the 'fuzzy logic' extension of IF...THEN...ELSE. By itself (ie. with no associated data or wait state) the single trit "dit" means nothing at all.
Thus, "pundit" is one who can take a piece of information, useless by itself, and by association with another statement, imply a meaning to it with which they may then later prove that they meant X or that they meant NOT X. For instance, a person at a tech-oriented new organization can make a statement like "everything's moving to the cloud", and when everything doesn't, claim that by "everything" they meant also "everything else", and by "is" they meant "isn't", yielding "everything is moving to the cloud, except everything that isn't moving to the cloud." If it seems that the phrase "some things" would be more appropriate, you are not a pundit. They use "everything" because it can be used as "everything is", "everything isn't" or "everything is except everything that isn't", and changed according to the need of the pundit to appear to be right at the cost of looking like an idiot, or even worse, a politician.
See also "pendantic"; similar to "pedantic" (holding forth at length with the appearance, even if not in actual fact, of being an authority), but taken from "pendulous" for 'swinging back and forth freely, usually something that is very low hanging', and "antic" a comical behavior.
It's completely unethical for bestbuy to go along with microsoft on pushing this course onto their employees. Though I can't say I'm surprised.
It is not unethical for a vendor to train a retailer's employees on the selling points of the vendor's products, or for the retailer to require its employees to attend such training. This has been common practice for decades. Given the cut throat nature of some of the businesses involved, were there anything unethical, illegal, immoral or otherwise untoward in this practice, the point would have been made a long time ago
What is stupid, though still not unethical, is raising negative points about the competition to counter with positive about the vendor's products. Doing so tends to appear desperate and mean spirited. If you can't say something good about them and raise it with a better rating on your product, you should just not talk about the other at all. Of course this is sales technique as taught and practised by decent retailers. One shouldn't expect that sort of thing from Best Buy.
You start to answer your own question with the "two kinds of people" statement. Rocket supporters and scramjet supporters, whatever those are, might take up the cause of a particular vehicle. But the point is not to use a particular vehicle, it's to get something done using the most effective and efficient vehicle available.
You start with your goal, develop flight profiles for the available vehicles, add in ground support and maintenance costs, and calculate your costs/benefits.
There are more than "2 kinds of people" -- actually goals to accomplish and flight profiles that can be used. Suborbitals: rapid deployment air to ground, air to air and air to space weapons platform; critical cargo delivery; recon. Orbital: supply, including immediate need repair supply, to orbital craft/stations; debris sweeping ahead of a sensitive craft or mission. Extra-orbital: lunar insertion; placement of probes such as solar weather into Earth/Sun LaGrange points; interplanetary delivery. All of these can be expanded greatly.
All other things being equal, a reusable booster with a delivery system fired from high speed and altitude would probably end up being very, if not most, economical in most cases. That would make 'both' a good answer.
For the most part, 'people' will have little to do with it. It'll be a long time before there's a human rated scramjet vehicle, and then it'll probably be of the two stage nature mentioned. The energy necessary for a given velocity/trajectory grows faster than the vehicle cross section. Something big enough to carry passengers would require more fuel than it could carry.
One can also obtain the DVD "The Prisoner: Special Edition" and look into the 'extras'. Two episodes had their soundtracks redone, but on this DVD were presented in their original form. Doesn't add meaning such as this reordering, but worth a comparison if one's a fan.
Verbally the title could be a little ambiguous, Is not the same AMC releasing "The Prisoner", than AMC releasing the prisoner
Originally the title was: Number Six Returns: AMC Releasing "The Prisoner". Less ambiguous but with enough double meaning to be catchy. The original did require fixing as it was max length before adding the quotes, and they caused it to truncate at the 'e' in 'Prisoner'. I didn't see it in the editor but did in the post-submission display.
What number will he have? The old one was 6, maybe next one will be 66, and we should wait till the real good version, in the reboot of the serie, when will be 666 (if the prisoner is 666, i would be very afraid of some entity called AMC that not only managed to imprison him, but plans soon to release him to the world)
If only you'd noticed that Jesus from 'The Passion of Christ' was playing the the hero, this last bit would have had much more impact. Someone already mentioned Caviezal having played Jesus, but nobody has yet commented on whether having McKellen as #2 would make it "Jesus vs. Magneto" or "Jesus vs. Gandolf". Since in the editing they decided that the links to the actors IMDB pages weren't necessary, it's more difficult to make such connections. Of course had I followed all the links I'd started with, I'd have noticed that one said "the ever changing Number Two" which I interpreted as a new one every episode, most Number Two actors played in 2 episodes, and one of them in 3. I might have even noticed how many of the Number Twos had played one part or another in Dr. Who, but I doubt I'd have had the nerve to appear to be that much of a nerd.
Hmm, it seems that this article might be somewhat relevant: <a href="http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/235/3/R99">Proton semiconductors and energy transduction in biological systems</a>
Unfortunately I don't have access to the journal in question - my university proxy doesn't even work :/
I wonder if this means doping ice with extra protons for conductance or similar? It seems like it'd take a lot of energy to rip a proton off a H2O molecule stuck in the crystal matrix.
That be the dude, d00d. As far as the technical particulars, that's why it should be done. Once done, the details of operation can put examined to find out if and in what circumstances protonics might be superior to electronics. BTW, I'd assumed the doping thing, not having see the reference you found. Also an assumption is the possibility that electrons are bound stronger with each bond and have more of them affecting them, making the protons relatively easier to kick loose.
I don't have access to the journal either. While we look for it, if you ever wanted to know why it is you can pick up a piece of pizza that doesn't burn your fingers, then bite into and burn the hell out of your mouth, Morowitz worked that out too; the title piece in The Thermodynamics of Pizza.
Protons moving? Do you have a citation for this? I don't see any reason for protons to move more freely in ice than anything else.
Yes, as a matter of fact I do have a citation. Somewhat.
Harold J. Morowitz
Bio with some pubs: http://cajal.unizar.es/eng/part/Morowitz.html
It was in the intro paragraph to one of his essays. That essay appeared in one of his collections books, I believe either "Pizza" or "Mayonaisse". Sorry to be so vague; my Morowitz collection and I are a thousand miles apart, or I'd not only look it up, I'd quote it. Some of his short works include references themselves, but I don't recall whether this one did. It was only in the intro and wasn't the focus of the essay, so there was no technical discussion as to why this should be so. You can always write and ask him. He's at George Mason University.
He can (and does, in "Energy Flow In Biology") start from a few basic astronomical facts regarding the solar system (solar output, Earth's size distance, etc.) and the proportion of elements on the pre-biotic Earth, and using thermodynamics and physical chemistry, predict the evolution of chemical complexity from the most basic low energy compounds up through far more complex organic molecules than have been discovered extra-terrestrially or created any in experimental re-creations of energy + pre-biotic Earth atmosphere make up --> organic molecules. His entirely theoretical treatment uses easily verifiable facts and numbers and predicts the results already obtained as well as more than should be reasonably expected to be necessary to be accepted as supported by evidence. So I have no doubt he could fully answer the simpler question of voltage driven protonic flow in ice.
If he did provide it, could you evaluate it? Or was your "I don't see any reason" as vague as my reference? Not a criticism -- I'd really like to see his answer examined by someone able to check it.
I'd like to see a water ice computer. Pipes (!) and containers of water, frozen into ice. Doped to carry current efficiently. Areas of interface doped differentially to create N and P equivalent materials for semiconductor creation. It's very doable. So why bother for any reason other than a neat hack? Because it wouldn't be an electronic computer. It would be protonic, because when a voltage is applied to water ice, it's protons, not electrons, that flow.
Who cares WTF it's called? Call it Fred Flintstone if you like, it won't make any difference. When I traded my AppleModem 300 for a 1200, I was switching to a relatively broad band device. The distinction is arbitrary from the start, so arguing over it like it's a quantity is a waste.
Whatever name it's given, it comes with a technical specification and that's how it's sold. If they wanted to take 3M down/.5M up and call it 10M down/1M up, that would be an issue worth fussing over.
Those who came to colonize the western hemisphere expected to have a good chance not only to survive, but to thrive. That's why they brought children.
Until there is recycling closed environment technology adequate to the task of colonization, a one way trip is essentially sending the 'settler' on ahead as the first to arrive at their funeral. Who wants to go down in the books as the first person to go to another planet to die? The whole point is to go there to live.
BTW, this isn't quite a dupe. The first time this was covered it was Buzz Aldrin saying it.
The effect noted is an illusion due to category error (selection of mismatched items to compare).
The data regarding older advances are taken, as stated, from revolutionary changes, whereas the newer are taken from predictable and incremental advances.
The former are primarily advances in basic science. They do lend themselves to, and are made obvious by, later advances in applied technology, but the major discoveries themselves are of a more fundamental nature. Such things are highly visible now due to the large body of applied technology they made possible. Back tracking the technological advances leads to those discoveries. Without that large body converging on the major discoveries common to them, the discoveries themselves are not that prominent.
They were not so prominent at the time due to the lack of applied technology as an indicator. Likewise, most major discoveries in the recent past have not had time to mature and bear applied fruit. We cannot know for certain as yet just which or how many of those advances are the Next Big Thing(s). However, basic research continues apace, as evidenced by grants awarded, articles published and patents obtained, as well as the natural offshoot of basic research, those far more numerous discoveries that are developed, announced and then come to naught.
The authors note the details that they believe lead them to their conclusion, but fail to recognize that in examining those facts they are creating their conclusion through selection bias and category error. It is precisely the recent incremental technological advances that stem from the more distant major discoveries that make them visible. Their data originate in a cause and effect relationship, but they attempt to compare them as effects, recent and distant, and without the benefit of data regarding widespread effects of any recent major advances (effects which obviously have not occurred yet) they assume none have occurred due to an absence of evidence.
As Thomas Kuhn posits, revolutionary changes are inevitable and their origins are in the constantly ongoing basic research. He also notes that those already established in a field are less likely than the new generation to recognize (in terms of both becoming aware of the nature of, as well as accepting and admitting the importance or even existence of) the phenomenon.
To summarize with an illustration of the extreme view presented above: major discoveries in the past have resulted in entire fields that did not exist previously. The lack of of previously unknown but conceivable fields suddenly appearing today is obviously not evidence that they are somewhere simmering beneath the surface, waiting to erupt. But the lack of such conceivable revelations can be taken to indicate that there is room for such fields to blossom, and the lack of sudden occurrence evidence of the protracted nature of their development.
Finally, historical data provides many examples of people making the same mistake, assuming that the lack of major advances in the present with the visibility of such advances in the past indicates that there are no such advances forthcoming. For just one example, from http://quotesjournal.blogspot.com/2003/07/everything-that-can-be-invented-has.html "Everything that can be invented - has already been invented". Attributed to Charles Duell, Commissioner of the United States Patent Office, 1899. Cf.Henry Ellsworth, a patent commissioner in 1843 who said something similar in a report to Congress: "The advancement of the arts, from year to year, taxes our credulity and seems to presage the arrival of that period when human improvement must end." The most extreme example of this is, in my opinion, Stephen Hawking's oft quoted suggestion of the finality inherent in a 'theory of everything' which would be akin to knowing "the mind of God." To this I would reply that this may be so, but there have been an awful lot of gods throughout history that have been credited with ultimacy, only to be superseded by The Next Big God.
As far as I can see the only thing in TFA that wasn't covered months ago in http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/24/0151211 is the entirely useless analogy to the computer industry. I wonder if that section is replaced with say, an equally bogus analogy to automobiles so it can be sent to Car And Driver.
The summary seems to imply a "British Company To Pick Up NASA's Dropped Asteroid Ball" slant. "Seems" is used here because rhetorical device is relied on because the facts themselves don't do the job.
One failure is the false dichotomy created by positioning the Near Earth Object program(s -- there's seven http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/programs/ ) for detecting and tracking thousands of rocks against a vehicle intended to take one such rock and push it around. A tactic like this is common when the writer has little faith in the intended focus of the piece to carry the story alone, and they present a badly constructed straw man in contrast.
The second problem is in presenting NASA's possible future NEO (a currently operating and planned continued project, mind you) budget crunch as problematic, whereas this British company's announcement of what amounts to grand plans on paper that would admittedly require huge national or international funding to even begin is held up as "taking the lead".
If announcing one has plans that one considers viable is "taking the lead", the team in TFA is taking the lead behind dozens of other "programs" in equal or farther planning stages, some described in a recent Discovery/Science Channel program, many written up in popular media over the years and available to the search engine of your choice, with the Top Ten Ways listed at http://dsc.discovery.com/space/top-10/asteroid-stopping-technology/index-03.html . Harry Stamper's roughnecks and Spurgeon Tanner's shuttle crew are not among them, which didn't stop me from using them in the obligatory /. inclusion of SF references.
From an unlikely source: PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
Search terms "plasmodium Physarum polycephalum"
I went looking for negative stuff, knowing plasmodiums were behind malaria. Couldn't find any for this stuff, but I did find some juicy bits from biomedical science regarding its computational ability, or rather its internal processes that can be used as such. Not many will be able to get the referenced material, but just the abstracts are tasty.
> pardon is 'unlikely,'
Get over it, he's fucking dead, and all it costs you people is making some words happen. What's the matter, will the guilt become unbearable if you admit it? You know, we know, you know we know, and we know you know.
Either apologize, pardon, and clean the slate, or someone in the future is going to do it, as well as apologize to him, and us, because you didn't have the balls that Turing had even after you subjected him to estrogen emasculation. That's psychological AND physical torture, with the perpetrators attempting to skip with less than full accounting.
If the Crown's proud bastard son Australia can apologize to an entire race for worse http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7241965.stm you can manage this surely. Or if you've actually managed to export all your intestinal fortitude, ring up down under and see if maybe Kevin Rudd could pop up topside and do it for you.
No matter what you do it won't be enough because he saved all your asses many times over, and started a movement that makes modern life possible. So the only measure of your sincerity, humility and mettle will be your effort. Most visible in that effort will be that which you put towards minimizing your responsibility then and now.
If they're going to drool into the keys and ruin it, they're too young.
If they're going to type at me all day, they're too young.
If they're going to type at their father all day instead of me, not only are they not too young, I fully expect a call saying "Dad? Remember when you first got that Apple II and were learning to program, and I kept trying to help you? I just wanted to say I'm sorry." THEN if I get that phone call, and they keep pestering him, they're too young. But I'll still laugh. In fact, I may go buy it. They got any with drool proof keys?
If the tornado is occurring where the wind farm is, it's the turbines.
If the tornado is occurring where the wind farm is, and the electricity goes out, it's not the turbines.
It'd be a damn shame with all this great technology and great problems to solve if they had to rely on a phone call to a guy at the wind farm who had to look out the window for them in order to know whether there was a tornado or not.
The Huntsville Times (of all places) gets the story half right and half sensationalistic speculation based on ignoring the rest of the facts, and in posting it here the summary turns to 25/75, prompting shadow tippers to pretend they know enough to continue the line of assumed criticisms and innuendos.
Cook has been on this project since it began, working his way up and filling bigger shoes capably, including those of his previous supervisor. Now he's leaving with the blessings of NASA to rejoin his previous supervisor, working for a contractor specializing in space craft test telemetry and analysis, including that of (The Rocket Boys' "Miss Riley"? no. My Shiny Metal Ass? no. Wait for it...) Ares.
Cook is not leaving the project, he's only leaving federal employment. That's not necessarily true, he may be tasked with other work, but figure the odds they'll waste his experience on something else as long as Ares is viable.
Now, my money says it's not viable and will get canceled and Cook will continue to make good money elsewhere, but at this point neither NASA nor Dynetics is betting that way, and that's how the story should have been written if it had been intended to be journalism. Had it been, it may have even been reported as such here. Of course that would never stop such dedicated and learned critics from toppling every perceived ivory tower with their Tonka Trucks of Truth as long as the facts can be safely kept outside the sandbox.
Does Australia not license criminologists? Failure to do so can result in all manner of self-promoting twits making claims about themselves in order to get listened to long when they rant. In the US this is often seen when private investigators can't make enough money at their primary occupation (installing home and car security systems) and start charging people to listen to them hold forth on anything they think they've wrapped their head around. What makes me draw that parallel is the fact that I see nothing on the AIC web site that says they have a "principal criminologist". Also, keep in mind we do license PIs, but that doesn't stop them from acting a fool in other areas, which seems to be the case here.
From the sophomoric language in the summary (my apologies to real sophomores, like the ones in high school) and the fact the paper hasn't been submitted anywhere and so who else would have access, I conclude that it is the first author (a student), not the second (a post doc that did the matlab work) or third (an MD/PHD) that posted this here. Calling yourself a researcher and not making your student status clear is a failure of full disclosure. It also works against you in that people will forgive a students a lot of mistakes that they'll end up holding against you otherwise.
In your hurry to promote your ideas you gloss over or ignore a large body of research that disproves your assertions.
- We've known for a long time about sparse networks and distal activation. The distribution is due to Hebbian assemblies. Hebb, Donald O.
- We can and do stimulate and record nearby spatially and temporally. Use the stimulation pulse as the deactivation signal on the recording probe. We can even do them simultaneously with high impedance, high speed data collection equipment and adjusting the output Y scale to logarithmic. Ask Vince to explain this last part. We also use magnetic stimulation and shielded electrical probes.
- Inadequate and poorly stated background material is a sure way to not only get rejected but also get remembered by those editors and rejected in the future. You've got to assume that not only will some of them know about the field, some of those reading your submission may be among those being misrepresented or those who you fail to represent but should have.
- The above goes double for trying to make your idea sound good by making others sound bad. It pisses people off, and you may be wrong (you are) which just gets your manuscript returned.
- You fail to show that your method can be generalized to normal neuron activation, and thus be useful for (the inadequately described) computer interface, or anything else that requires 'normal' operation. And not being able to show normal operation means not being able to tell if and/or when your method causes incorrect operation or damage.
- The background theory and history shortcomings call into question your theory, the need for your technique, and the usefulness of your large volume of supporting data and graphics. This last part looks like argumentation by bafflement - flooding the reader with overly technical details in order to bullshit them into accepting your other points. Even if it's not that, it looks like it.
Does Dr. Reid know this was posted here?