SpaceX's main cost-cut compared to NASA is they're building it for themselves, by themselves. NASA doesn't build any spacecraft, they hire contractors. They have to pay their own people to operate the project plus the contractors to make the vehicle.
To be honest as well as fair, this is where things should expand into the BigAero Sucking NASA'a Corporate Welfare Teat Dry, but everybody knows that one already and the punchline sucks. Or used to. Looks like the new punchline just might be 'SpaceX', which, to quote Spock, "thrills me no end."
"There's a star ship circling in the sky. It ought to be ready by 1990. They'll be building it up in the air, ever since 1980."
The difference between Paul Kantner's Hugo nominated album (and soon to be Broadway musical) and TFA is that despite having equal veracity as predictive statements, the former was intended to be taken as a work of fiction.
I wish someone would start collecting such futurisms and create an award ceremony a la Ignobel Prize, to honor them when time punctures their balloon. They could sell tickets and use the proceeds to buy a flying car to give away as a door prize. I'm betting they could actually do that before desktops (READ: floor sitting equipment boxes that keep the desk clear) disappear.
Oh, sure, he said it. But I doubt anyone who can manage to get taken seriously due to knowledge of the subject can believe such crap. I think he just wants to get seen saying this, for PR points. My money says he's already assured his compatriots there will be special dispensations of anonymous accounts available to them. Yeah, so they can 'carry out their duties'.
Otherwise, let it begin here. Let's see everything made public that is sent or received by any member or associate of Italian government, public or private, and then propose the same for every Italian citizen. Italians relate to their government like fans at a football game, so if t5his made the first level and the second got proposed, figure the odds on the offending blowhard still being in office in order to bring it to a vote, even the next day. They'd storm the Parliment and drag him to the street.
They want traceable? Fine. They can trace me as Pope John Paul II at the Vatican, trading ethnic jokes with my pal Yassir Arafat in Palestine. They said traceable, they didn't say accurately or living.
IIRC, the failure of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to cover spam as well as junk faxes etc. was due to ISPs not being regulated the same as telecoms. Would this fix the problem?
If he's right, they'll call it that "Kajari Drive". That just doesn't ring for me. We need someone else to refine this and make it go. An Archer maybe, or a Cochrane. Now those are names a real space drive can wear. Hell even inter-compartment conduits get names like Jefferies Tubes. Kajari? No way. He can have an episode of his own when they serialize history (as we know they have, so we can see it but consider it fiction thus avoiding paradox), but not the name of the drive.
They previously determined what enzyme caused the damage and found something to inhibit it.
They *assert* that they could possibly reverse the damage using this inhibiting enzyme. COULD.
Inhibiting damage can prevent. You cannot inhibit damage already done. Inhibition and reversal are not the same. Nor are the two syndromes involved.
Times of India ranks up there with Pravda when it comes to truthful accuracy, especially when it comes to home ground science. The "for the first time" gets read as though nobody had ever done this mapping before. It could as easily mean it was the first time they did it. It has been done before.
The asserted reversal has also been done before. Not by them or by their New York friends, but at MIT.
Consider the Kerr solution, a rotating, non-charged body approaching the Schwarzchild limit. As it shrinks the spin increases. As this happens the matter near the edge of the now disk-like body gains mass via increased speed a la relativity. The amount gained may not be significant in normal space, but near the Schwarzchild limit it might prove enough to alter the development of the hole. (This mass gain may or may not serve to increase rotational speed more. If it does the following becomes more likely. We'll take the conservative view and ignore this possibility.)
As the body as a whole nears the limit, any portion of the body with greater mass will cross the limit first. This is generally taken as the center. However, the additional mass of the material near the edge of the disk causes it to cross over first and development of the hole begins around this material rather than the center. The hole begins to develop as a toroid. The matter that crosses over first becomes a singularity in terms of its effects, but takes the shape of a ring. The resulting toroidal black hole finishes its parent body off as the outer portion having turned into a black hole pulls in the remaining matter nearer the center, feeding the toroid formation process. The result is a black 'donut' hole, with a path through the axis that does not cross the event horizon. The center is empty (ie. non-horizon involved) because of the balance of gravity in the region neat the 'center' where the gravity from the opposite side of the ring balance out. The size of the hole remains to be calculated. From macro to quantum sized as long it stays non- zero, the donut remains. Even zero may work out as a toroid with a zero diameter center is possible. Perhaps only a negative result (indicating a merger of the opposing event horizons) ruins this postulation.
The singularity ring itself is presaged in description by Mbrane theory. It is simply a circular macro-string of the sort postulated as having been created with the Big Bang. One could approach this from the other direction and starting with that description increase the mass until an external event horizon forms.
The above approaches the Kerr solution in tiny steps very near the time of formation and the logic as well as the physics and associated maths well known. It shouldn't be too difficult to test. If it is borne out, the paper referred to in the article, regarding 'destroying' a black hole, may have other solutions to consider. While an increase in angular momentum may 'destroy' a particular conformation, rather than shedding the event horizon, the singularity/hole may simply take up another form such a what is described here. If a rapidly spinning object can form a toroidal black hole, perhaps a rapidly spun black hole can also.
1. There is no such thing as "perfect" vision. There is normal vision that requires no correction. Typically that comes down to 20/20 vision. There are some people with better vision. Very good eyes are measured as 20/10. There is no limit, physiological or theoretical, hence no "perfect".
2. Resolving things at any distance requires far more than static placement of object with X size and retina of Y resolving power. The visual system (NOTE the retina does not resolve ANYTHING. The visual system as a whole does.) resolves things by a complex interplay between what's presented at any given point in time, what's presented at other times but is cognitively determined to be the same target, the speed at which the boundaries of images cross the same point in the visual field, and calculations that occur in the visual cortex on these things, which result in a VISUAL ACUITY (that's the term they were addressing, or should have been) that is often far greater than can be conceived of when one considers the components of the eye as though they were parts of a camera or other device. They are not, and the terms used for those don't apply.
3. Please tell me no one has bothered to test this empirically. I'm always looking for things my undergrad labs can do real science on, especially when it punctures some overinflated gas bag.
Plait, there's more than running numbers, there's knowing what to run numbers on. There's also knowing when to STFU. There's still also acting like a professional and not confusing people who'll believe you because you've made a name in the entertainment field. This last is something a real scientist/educator, not a blogger who happened to hold some science jobs and now makes a living getting attention for talking about science stuff like he knows it, would understand -- so we can expect your next spew in what, 600 words of 4 letters each is 2400 letters, and 40 cps is, an hour?
..."There is no doubt that technology which is only marginally related influences behavior. We've always had a more or less informal delineation of clubs into "hunting club", "fighting club" and "hit woman over head to catch her club". If one morning we happened to grab the wrong club, what would come of it other than some good natured ribbing from our fellows? But now, with the advent of painting the cave walls with streaks of dye and colored rock powders, creating images of incidents from everyday cave life, one never knows when one might be captured in such an image. Having one's soul swallowed whole by these images is problematic enough, but to be encased in an image showing one bringing home a gazelle while carrying the woman hunting club, well that's the origin of the sort of social upheaval that results in fragmentation of groupings and loss of contact with our cultural mores." The investigator's researcher partner only added "Hyuck hyuck hyuck, oh that Fred sure can get wound up when you get him talking.
1. Instead, write "This is an order, not a request."
2. Put "Please tell me where you're going to be working next week if these are not done."
3. Write "One of these id for a relative of yours, I believe."
4. Approach both techs and admin and ask them, if they had gotten hurt on the grounds and were taken to their ER, would they expect to be treated in this way. Would they expect to not receive treatment after they came to Research.
5. Circulate a memo stating that very soon all employees would be required to say please when asking for their salary check. ANd if it's not sincere or strong enough, they don't get paid. The eception is administration. They have to beg for theirs
It speeds the heart and increases blood pressure, but does not raise mental awareness. Simple, simple, simple.
Hell yeah, much simpler than all that nonsense cranked out by the experimental and cognitive psychologists, physiologists, pharmacologists and the like when they did all that complicated science. Especially since it said the opposite from what you did. After dozens of designs and replications. For decades. What were we thinking? What a fucking waste.
Are there any other fields of inquiry to which you have full and correct knowledge of, making it unnecessary to waste time and money pursuing ever more incorrect knowledge despite scientific backing?
The definition of addiction pretty much relies on a shifting baseline. They they didn;t react different over time to the same amount there'd be no habituation and no addiction could be recognized.
So TFA can be summed up a "Caffiene addicts act as though addicted to caffiene in much the same way heroin addicts display a characteristic physiological adaptation to heroin." Therefore TFA is only news in that they found (yet again, in another way) caffiene addiction acts like an addiciton.
It is an exceedingly idiotic collection of assumptions and ignorance too profound to be able to recognize from the inside. There's not a shred of evidence saying that if a neuron has some perceptual tricera input, the signal would be anything other than the same old fluctuating ion densities. It certainly would not generate a signal part light-responsive and have that push through the neuron that's essentially unrelated. Just as any other increased signal impinging on a neuron causes it to fire more proportionally, I doubt the answer is 'in there'. Ah well, got to get back to work. Have fun.
My pick would be amateur high powered rocketry. With the recent change in our and FCC's regs regarding thrust and weight limits, I could put together a project from scratch to build a bird designed for carrying instrumentation up and back down thru noctoluscent clouds and bringing the bird back for reuse. It'd take you 2 to 3 years and $10K to build your self and equipment up to this point. It'd take another $20K to pull off this project including transpoerting your self and stuff to where the night clouds are (polar regions). With $50K I could make a good try at putting someone over the 100km altitude space limit.
But as for your EEG stuff, damn straight you could do meaningful work. I had several undergrad lab classes do worthy projects, get them published, present them at conferences, all using outdated physio equipment. The field is wide open. Doing primary EEG research is a dead end, but using one to verify and validate sensory/perceptual or cognitive results makes the latter big news. Write threesigma at rocketmail dot com if you want a veteran brain science hacker's help.
Oh my sweet variance. d00d, if those are barriers, then add a 6th: INABILITY TO PERSIST IN PROBLEM SOLVING. There are simple solutions to all of them, and some have several. I've cracke3d all of them despite being able to walk thru (ie. getting published with no affiliation and without saying I have a PhD).
If the suggested theory (using the term at its loosest possible fitting) is correct, it would have been noticed not long after "Watson, come here, I need you." It wasn't.
What people found most annoying at first, and some still do, is the violation of accepted protocol of interpersonal communication. When someone near you starts to talk out loud, it had always been a safe bet that they were talking to you. You redirect your attention and prepare to interact. Then you find out they weren't talking to you, may not even be aware of your existence, but there you are standing in front of them feeling like you've been made a fool of (or made of fool of yourself by starting to talk back). And It's All Their Fault. After a decade and more of experiencing it, fewer are bothered, and half a generation has been raised on a different context and can't understand why there was even a problem.
Another effect comes from violation of personal space (there's an auditory version as well as a visual-spatial). If someone invades your space without acknowledging you so they can apologize or get permission or whatever, it's a nonverbal communication version of a slap in the face. And as for failing to acknowledge you, when someone fails to consider whether you want to hear whatever it is they're blabbering about and fills your hearing space with talking far louder than is needed (especially considering they're not talking to anyone in sight), they're making an implied statement that if it bothers you, too fucking bad for you.
There are even some people who make a point of talking louder than they would otherwise because they want you to know they think they're important and you're not. At first, when only the rich could afford them, they made a point of doing this in restaurants and other places, even repeatedly interrupting a conversation with you or someone else to 'take a call'. There were more than a few comedy acts and sitcoms that jabbed at those people by emphasizing the few but true instances of people faking calls to do this in others' presence. The same happens now, but more often with people who couldn't afford to keep their phone on but don't want you to know that.
A one-liner version of this all could be "look at me not talking to you".
But as I said, with the passing years most people who were bothered have gotten used to it, and many more have come of age around it and have never been bothered.
Then again there are those few, those oh so unhappy few, who have not and will probably never get used to it and will always be bothered. To those I say, cheer up: I'm working on a version of the cell phone signal blocking device that detects their signal and sends out interference. But rather than just interference, it'll turn on a tesla coil and broadcast thousands of volts through that little piece of hellspawn technology frying the little shitbox as well as blowing their inner ear through their brain and out the other ear hole, and then we can jump up and say "LET'S SEE YOU SAY 'WHAT'S UP' WHILE LOOKING AT ME BUT THEN WHEN I START TO ANSWER YOU IT TURNS OUT YOU'RE NOT TALKING TO ME, NOW, YOU FUCKING BRAIN DEAD FREAK!"
The "study" (by a journalism professor?) is so fatally flawed that I'm keeping this for as test question for my methodology students.
The discomfort is cognitive dissonance, and it happens whenever someone's expectations are violated, in this case a change in accustom routine. That makes this 'new' study firmly in with the other work that have supported Festinger's theory since he wrote it in 1958.
The same people who brought you video game addiction, pinball addiction And such are behind this bogus definition. They're the same ones who stand to make money treating the 'problem'.
WTF is IBTimes and why is someone dragging bad science out of it to post here? Only to skewer it, I hope, because that's about all that's going to happen.
> Um, our guys did *not* use an HP-48 calculator on Apollo-Soyuz, they used an HP-65 Thanks. Don't know how I got them confused, I sold them at a bookstore near Purdue (ie. I sold LOTS of them).
Knowing the parameters they have to meet now, amateurs have managed suborbital rockets with minimal computation. With the recent change in the upper bounds of amateur spaceflight (ie. when FAA says NASA takes over permissions) and the knowledge in hand, amateur orbital flight is a matter of time. NASA helped develop and made use of VLSI not because it made what they were doing possible, but because it made what they were already doing easier.
As for doing without, the Russians provided us with proof positive during the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. They flew first and we went up to meet them because we had better aim. Our guys used an HP 48 handheld for calculations and their clock was fed by the signals from the atomic clock at National Bureau of Standards. When we got there we saw they were using, respectively, slide rules, pencil and paper, and a stop watch. But our having the better technology did not prevent them from getting there. And their having lesser technology did not prevent them successfully participating in the several cat-and-mouse rendezvous practices that followed the first.
The last first was first until this first came along and included *some* bones. This first will be the first until the next first included more bones. I think they're on to something here. Not only have they found a way to generate repeating headliners, they can do so farther and farther by redefining 'face'.
'Researchers today performed the first really really for real face transplant. The previous first removed enough skin from the front side of the person so that their navel was pulled upwards to serve as a third nostril. In this record shattering surgery, the skin was pulled even farther upwards, so that now her pubic hair serves as a beard. According to Dr. Rob Zombie they have yet to solve the problem of the patient urinating onto her dinner plate from her chin. "We tried a diaper, but then she couldn't breathe." Dr. John Carpenter stated "We don't expect to have the problems that we previously with this patient, specifically her negative reaction to having three nostrils. This time we're 'replanted' [their term for transplants performed on the same person but involving different locations] most of the old evolutionary hold-overs that were previously user to define 'face'. We find it highly unlikely the patient will state objections to having a beard on her face if she can't see in a mirror. We moved her eyes around back to make room for the beard." Dr. Zombie added "And if she does, so what? If we don't want to listen to her, we've moved her mouth too. We'll just make her sit down. It wasn't strictly necessary to move her mouth that far, but we had to do something. It was impossible to work with all that screaming going on."
> Roger Ebert has long held the opinion that video games are not and can never be > considered an art form.
27 years ago a group of young code thugs decided that they were going to earn (according to Bill Budge of pinball fame) the title "software artists". Their first self-promotion as a company with this goal was titled "Can a computer make you cry?" Museum piece visible at http://chrishecker.com/Cry
Art is intended (if not defined by the ability) to evoke an emotional response. Crying isn't a common response to most art, so these kids set their sights high. But laugh? Hell yes. A sense of awe? My first trip up on the space shuttle, done in line drawing style on a green phosphor, did the trick for me. Ebert's assertion and its rationalization are arbitrary and selective. Most of his negatives could be applied to movies, and many of them are a matter of opinion and/or taste.
In any case, Ebert is a "critic", meaning he can't do what he talks about, he can only be critical. Not only can he not create a computer game, he can't make a movie either. So why do people pay attention to him? Because he is, as are almost all "critics" an entertainer, and we have been trained by the media to accept their designated authorities as experts based on their entertainment value. Now, he is quite knowledgeable about the history and such surrounding film, but the fact remains he only knows stuff, and makes a show of knowing it, yet cannot do. And knowing a lot about something does not make one an expert at something else.
Like all long time critics, he's been outvoted by the viewing public repeatedly, yet he continues to promote his opinions as though he hadn't been proven wrong. The same goes here.
> Considering the super numerous convicts clogging our prisons and jails perhaps > that treadmill could be better powered by them than by cattle.
It takes a pound of barely processed grain to produce an ounce of beef. It costs $1000 to raise one animal and you might get a dollar a pound for a 1500 pound animal. Cost to consumers will be about twice that.
It costs about $50,000 a year to house a criminal. They eat about 1500 pounds of highly processed food per year and we don't get squat back from it. Use the cheaper animal to run the treadmill and turn the prisoners into food stock before they cost us more than we could ever get back out of them.
Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX's main cost-cut compared to NASA is they're building it for themselves, by themselves. NASA doesn't build any spacecraft, they hire contractors. They have to pay their own people to operate the project plus the contractors to make the vehicle.
To be honest as well as fair, this is where things should expand into the BigAero Sucking NASA'a Corporate Welfare Teat Dry, but everybody knows that one already and the punchline sucks. Or used to. Looks like the new punchline just might be 'SpaceX', which, to quote Spock, "thrills me no end."
"There's a star ship circling in the sky.
It ought to be ready by 1990.
They'll be building it up in the air,
ever since 1980."
The difference between Paul Kantner's Hugo nominated album (and soon to be Broadway musical) and TFA is that despite having equal veracity as predictive statements, the former was intended to be taken as a work of fiction.
I wish someone would start collecting such futurisms and create an award ceremony a la Ignobel Prize, to honor them when time punctures their balloon. They could sell tickets and use the proceeds to buy a flying car to give away as a door prize. I'm betting they could actually do that before desktops (READ: floor sitting equipment boxes that keep the desk clear) disappear.
Oh, sure, he said it. But I doubt anyone who can manage to get taken seriously due to knowledge of the subject can believe such crap. I think he just wants to get seen saying this, for PR points. My money says he's already assured his compatriots there will be special dispensations of anonymous accounts available to them. Yeah, so they can 'carry out their duties'.
Otherwise, let it begin here. Let's see everything made public that is sent or received by any member or associate of Italian government, public or private, and then propose the same for every Italian citizen. Italians relate to their government like fans at a football game, so if t5his made the first level and the second got proposed, figure the odds on the offending blowhard still being in office in order to bring it to a vote, even the next day. They'd storm the Parliment and drag him to the street.
They want traceable? Fine. They can trace me as Pope John Paul II at the Vatican, trading ethnic jokes with my pal Yassir Arafat in Palestine. They said traceable, they didn't say accurately or living.
IIRC, the failure of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to cover spam as well as junk faxes etc. was due to ISPs not being regulated the same as telecoms. Would this fix the problem?
If he's right, they'll call it that "Kajari Drive". That just doesn't ring for me. We need someone else to refine this and make it go. An Archer maybe, or a Cochrane. Now those are names a real space drive can wear. Hell even inter-compartment conduits get names like Jefferies Tubes. Kajari? No way. He can have an episode of his own when they serialize history (as we know they have, so we can see it but consider it fiction thus avoiding paradox), but not the name of the drive.
They supposedly mapped the connections involved.
They previously determined what enzyme caused the damage and found something to inhibit it.
They *assert* that they could possibly reverse the damage using this inhibiting enzyme. COULD.
Inhibiting damage can prevent. You cannot inhibit damage already done. Inhibition and reversal are not the same. Nor are the two syndromes involved.
Times of India ranks up there with Pravda when it comes to truthful accuracy, especially when it comes to home ground science. The "for the first time" gets read as though nobody had ever done this mapping before. It could as easily mean it was the first time they did it. It has been done before.
The asserted reversal has also been done before. Not by them or by their New York friends, but at MIT.
I want credit for the name if the maths work out.
Consider the Kerr solution, a rotating, non-charged body approaching the Schwarzchild limit. As it shrinks the spin increases. As this happens the matter near the edge of the now disk-like body gains mass via increased speed a la relativity. The amount gained may not be significant in normal space, but near the Schwarzchild limit it might prove enough to alter the development of the hole. (This mass gain may or may not serve to increase rotational speed more. If it does the following becomes more likely. We'll take the conservative view and ignore this possibility.)
As the body as a whole nears the limit, any portion of the body with greater mass will cross the limit first. This is generally taken as the center. However, the additional mass of the material near the edge of the disk causes it to cross over first and development of the hole begins around this material rather than the center. The hole begins to develop as a toroid. The matter that crosses over first becomes a singularity in terms of its effects, but takes the shape of a ring. The resulting toroidal black hole finishes its parent body off as the outer portion having turned into a black hole pulls in the remaining matter nearer the center, feeding the toroid formation process. The result is a black 'donut' hole, with a path through the axis that does not cross the event horizon. The center is empty (ie. non-horizon involved) because of the balance of gravity in the region neat the 'center' where the gravity from the opposite side of the ring balance out. The size of the hole remains to be calculated. From macro to quantum sized as long it stays non- zero, the donut remains. Even zero may work out as a toroid with a zero diameter center is possible. Perhaps only a negative result (indicating a merger of the opposing event horizons) ruins this postulation.
The singularity ring itself is presaged in description by Mbrane theory. It is simply a circular macro-string of the sort postulated as having been created with the Big Bang. One could approach this from the other direction and starting with that description increase the mass until an external event horizon forms.
The above approaches the Kerr solution in tiny steps very near the time of formation and the logic as well as the physics and associated maths well known. It shouldn't be too difficult to test. If it is borne out, the paper referred to in the article, regarding 'destroying' a black hole, may have other solutions to consider. While an increase in angular momentum may 'destroy' a particular conformation, rather than shedding the event horizon, the singularity/hole may simply take up another form such a what is described here. If a rapidly spinning object can form a toroidal black hole, perhaps a rapidly spun black hole can also.
1. There is no such thing as "perfect" vision. There is normal vision that requires no correction. Typically that comes down to 20/20 vision. There are some people with better vision. Very good eyes are measured as 20/10. There is no limit, physiological or theoretical, hence no "perfect".
2. Resolving things at any distance requires far more than static placement of object with X size and retina of Y resolving power. The visual system (NOTE the retina does not resolve ANYTHING. The visual system as a whole does.) resolves things by a complex interplay between what's presented at any given point in time, what's presented at other times but is cognitively determined to be the same target, the speed at which the boundaries of images cross the same point in the visual field, and calculations that occur in the visual cortex on these things, which result in a VISUAL ACUITY (that's the term they were addressing, or should have been) that is often far greater than can be conceived of when one considers the components of the eye as though they were parts of a camera or other device. They are not, and the terms used for those don't apply.
3. Please tell me no one has bothered to test this empirically. I'm always looking for things my undergrad labs can do real science on, especially when it punctures some overinflated gas bag.
Plait, there's more than running numbers, there's knowing what to run numbers on. There's also knowing when to STFU. There's still also acting like a professional and not confusing people who'll believe you because you've made a name in the entertainment field. This last is something a real scientist/educator, not a blogger who happened to hold some science jobs and now makes a living getting attention for talking about science stuff like he knows it, would understand -- so we can expect your next spew in what, 600 words of 4 letters each is 2400 letters, and 40 cps is, an hour?
..."There is no doubt that technology which is only marginally related influences behavior. We've always had a more or less informal delineation of clubs into "hunting club", "fighting club" and "hit woman over head to catch her club". If one morning we happened to grab the wrong club, what would come of it other than some good natured ribbing from our fellows? But now, with the advent of painting the cave walls with streaks of dye and colored rock powders, creating images of incidents from everyday cave life, one never knows when one might be captured in such an image. Having one's soul swallowed whole by these images is problematic enough, but to be encased in an image showing one bringing home a gazelle while carrying the woman hunting club, well that's the origin of the sort of social upheaval that results in fragmentation of groupings and loss of contact with our cultural mores." The investigator's researcher partner only added "Hyuck hyuck hyuck, oh that Fred sure can get wound up when you get him talking.
1. Instead, write "This is an order, not a request."
2. Put "Please tell me where you're going to be working next week if these are not done."
3. Write "One of these id for a relative of yours, I believe."
4. Approach both techs and admin and ask them, if they had gotten hurt on the grounds and were taken to their ER, would they expect to be treated in this way. Would they expect to not receive treatment after they came to Research.
5. Circulate a memo stating that very soon all employees would be required to say please when asking for their salary check. ANd if it's not sincere or strong enough, they don't get paid. The eception is administration. They have to beg for theirs
It speeds the heart and increases blood pressure, but does not raise mental awareness. Simple, simple, simple.
Hell yeah, much simpler than all that nonsense cranked out by the experimental and cognitive psychologists, physiologists, pharmacologists and the like when they did all that complicated science. Especially since it said the opposite from what you did. After dozens of designs and replications. For decades. What were we thinking? What a fucking waste.
Are there any other fields of inquiry to which you have full and correct knowledge of, making it unnecessary to waste time and money pursuing ever more incorrect knowledge despite scientific backing?
The definition of addiction pretty much relies on a shifting baseline. They they didn;t react different over time to the same amount there'd be no habituation and no addiction could be recognized.
So TFA can be summed up a "Caffiene addicts act as though addicted to caffiene in much the same way heroin addicts display a characteristic physiological adaptation to heroin." Therefore TFA is only news in that they found (yet again, in another way) caffiene addiction acts like an addiciton.
It is an exceedingly idiotic collection of assumptions and ignorance too profound to be able to recognize from the inside. There's not a shred of evidence saying that if a neuron has some perceptual tricera input, the signal would be anything other than the same old fluctuating ion densities. It certainly would not generate a signal part light-responsive and have that push through the neuron that's essentially unrelated. Just as any other increased signal impinging on a neuron causes it to fire more proportionally, I doubt the answer is 'in there'. Ah well, got to get back to work. Have fun.
... if I used a prepaid ID? They aren't much harder to get than the phones.
My pick would be amateur high powered rocketry. With the recent change in our and FCC's regs regarding thrust and weight limits, I could put together a project from scratch to build a bird designed for carrying instrumentation up and back down thru noctoluscent clouds and bringing the bird back for reuse. It'd take you 2 to 3 years and $10K to build your self and equipment up to this point. It'd take another $20K to pull off this project including transpoerting your self and stuff to where the night clouds are (polar regions). With $50K I could make a good try at putting someone over the 100km altitude space limit.
But as for your EEG stuff, damn straight you could do meaningful work. I had several undergrad lab classes do worthy projects, get them published, present them at conferences, all using outdated physio equipment. The field is wide open. Doing primary EEG research is a dead end, but using one to verify and validate sensory/perceptual or cognitive results makes the latter big news. Write threesigma at rocketmail dot com if you want a veteran brain science hacker's help.
Oh my sweet variance. d00d, if those are barriers, then add a 6th: INABILITY TO PERSIST IN PROBLEM SOLVING. There are simple solutions to all of them, and some have several. I've cracke3d all of them despite being able to walk thru (ie. getting published with no affiliation and without saying I have a PhD).
If the suggested theory (using the term at its loosest possible fitting) is correct, it would have been noticed not long after "Watson, come here, I need you." It wasn't.
What people found most annoying at first, and some still do, is the violation of accepted protocol of interpersonal communication. When someone near you starts to talk out loud, it had always been a safe bet that they were talking to you. You redirect your attention and prepare to interact. Then you find out they weren't talking to you, may not even be aware of your existence, but there you are standing in front of them feeling like you've been made a fool of (or made of fool of yourself by starting to talk back). And It's All Their Fault. After a decade and more of experiencing it, fewer are bothered, and half a generation has been raised on a different context and can't understand why there was even a problem.
Another effect comes from violation of personal space (there's an auditory version as well as a visual-spatial). If someone invades your space without acknowledging you so they can apologize or get permission or whatever, it's a nonverbal communication version of a slap in the face. And as for failing to acknowledge you, when someone fails to consider whether you want to hear whatever it is they're blabbering about and fills your hearing space with talking far louder than is needed (especially considering they're not talking to anyone in sight), they're making an implied statement that if it bothers you, too fucking bad for you.
There are even some people who make a point of talking louder than they would otherwise because they want you to know they think they're important and you're not. At first, when only the rich could afford them, they made a point of doing this in restaurants and other places, even repeatedly interrupting a conversation with you or someone else to 'take a call'. There were more than a few comedy acts and sitcoms that jabbed at those people by emphasizing the few but true instances of people faking calls to do this in others' presence. The same happens now, but more often with people who couldn't afford to keep their phone on but don't want you to know that.
A one-liner version of this all could be "look at me not talking to you".
But as I said, with the passing years most people who were bothered have gotten used to it, and many more have come of age around it and have never been bothered.
Then again there are those few, those oh so unhappy few, who have not and will probably never get used to it and will always be bothered. To those I say, cheer up: I'm working on a version of the cell phone signal blocking device that detects their signal and sends out interference. But rather than just interference, it'll turn on a tesla coil and broadcast thousands of volts through that little piece of hellspawn technology frying the little shitbox as well as blowing their inner ear through their brain and out the other ear hole, and then we can jump up and say "LET'S SEE YOU SAY 'WHAT'S UP' WHILE LOOKING AT ME BUT THEN WHEN I START TO ANSWER YOU IT TURNS OUT YOU'RE NOT TALKING TO ME, NOW, YOU FUCKING BRAIN DEAD FREAK!"
"Would the software license [orig.: 'my country'] die for me?"
He didn't have all these problems when he was doing Miami Vice.
The "study" (by a journalism professor?) is so fatally flawed that I'm keeping this for as test question for my methodology students.
The discomfort is cognitive dissonance, and it happens whenever someone's expectations are violated, in this case a change in accustom routine. That makes this 'new' study firmly in with the other work that have supported Festinger's theory since he wrote it in 1958.
The same people who brought you video game addiction, pinball addiction And such are behind this bogus definition. They're the same ones who stand to make money treating the 'problem'.
WTF is IBTimes and why is someone dragging bad science out of it to post here? Only to skewer it, I hope, because that's about all that's going to happen.
> Um, our guys did *not* use an HP-48 calculator on Apollo-Soyuz, they used an HP-65
Thanks. Don't know how I got them confused, I sold them at a bookstore near Purdue (ie. I sold LOTS of them).
Knowing the parameters they have to meet now, amateurs have managed suborbital rockets with minimal computation. With the recent change in the upper bounds of amateur spaceflight (ie. when FAA says NASA takes over permissions) and the knowledge in hand, amateur orbital flight is a matter of time. NASA helped develop and made use of VLSI not because it made what they were doing possible, but because it made what they were already doing easier.
As for doing without, the Russians provided us with proof positive during the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. They flew first and we went up to meet them because we had better aim. Our guys used an HP 48 handheld for calculations and their clock was fed by the signals from the atomic clock at National Bureau of Standards. When we got there we saw they were using, respectively, slide rules, pencil and paper, and a stop watch. But our having the better technology did not prevent them from getting there. And their having lesser technology did not prevent them successfully participating in the several cat-and-mouse rendezvous practices that followed the first.
The last first was first until this first came along and included *some* bones.
This first will be the first until the next first included more bones.
I think they're on to something here. Not only have they found a way to generate repeating headliners, they can do so farther and farther by redefining 'face'.
'Researchers today performed the first really really for real face transplant. The previous first removed enough skin from the front side of the person so that their navel was pulled upwards to serve as a third nostril. In this record shattering surgery, the skin was pulled even farther upwards, so that now her pubic hair serves as a beard. According to Dr. Rob Zombie they have yet to solve the problem of the patient urinating onto her dinner plate from her chin. "We tried a diaper, but then she couldn't breathe." Dr. John Carpenter stated "We don't expect to have the problems that we previously with this patient, specifically her negative reaction to having three nostrils. This time we're 'replanted' [their term for transplants performed on the same person but involving different locations] most of the old evolutionary hold-overs that were previously user to define 'face'. We find it highly unlikely the patient will state objections to having a beard on her face if she can't see in a mirror. We moved her eyes around back to make room for the beard." Dr. Zombie added "And if she does, so what? If we don't want to listen to her, we've moved her mouth too. We'll just make her sit down. It wasn't strictly necessary to move her mouth that far, but we had to do something. It was impossible to work with all that screaming going on."
> Roger Ebert has long held the opinion that video games are not and can never be
> considered an art form.
27 years ago a group of young code thugs decided that they were going to earn (according to Bill Budge of pinball fame) the title "software artists". Their first self-promotion as a company with this goal was titled "Can a computer make you cry?" Museum piece visible at http://chrishecker.com/Cry
Art is intended (if not defined by the ability) to evoke an emotional response. Crying isn't a common response to most art, so these kids set their sights high. But laugh? Hell yes. A sense of awe? My first trip up on the space shuttle, done in line drawing style on a green phosphor, did the trick for me. Ebert's assertion and its rationalization are arbitrary and selective. Most of his negatives could be applied to movies, and many of them are a matter of opinion and/or taste.
In any case, Ebert is a "critic", meaning he can't do what he talks about, he can only be critical. Not only can he not create a computer game, he can't make a movie either. So why do people pay attention to him? Because he is, as are almost all "critics" an entertainer, and we have been trained by the media to accept their designated authorities as experts based on their entertainment value. Now, he is quite knowledgeable about the history and such surrounding film, but the fact remains he only knows stuff, and makes a show of knowing it, yet cannot do. And knowing a lot about something does not make one an expert at something else.
Like all long time critics, he's been outvoted by the viewing public repeatedly, yet he continues to promote his opinions as though he hadn't been proven wrong. The same goes here.
> Considering the super numerous convicts clogging our prisons and jails perhaps
> that treadmill could be better powered by them than by cattle.
It takes a pound of barely processed grain to produce an ounce of beef. It costs $1000 to raise one animal and you might get a dollar a pound for a 1500 pound animal. Cost to consumers will be about twice that.
It costs about $50,000 a year to house a criminal. They eat about 1500 pounds of highly processed food per year and we don't get squat back from it. Use the cheaper animal to run the treadmill and turn the prisoners into food stock before they cost us more than we could ever get back out of them.