Ok, I'll bite. There is plenty of description in science. How do you know if your "how" matches the "what" if the "what" isn't known in great detail? They couldn't describe electricity before it was observed, so would you say that the experiments in which the empirical properties of electricity were explored should not be classed as science?
Reminds me of some work done by psychologists Kahneman and Tversky (Kahneman went on to win the nobel prize in economics for different studies). In their studies they had people do things like this (e.g., what year was the constitution adopted by the states). Supplying "anchors" influences your judgement. For example, supplying the anchor that the articles of confederation were ratified in 1781 (I think) would shift the answer toward 1781 compared with the case in which the anchor was that George Washington left office in 1796. The idea is that if you know a.) that the constitution came after the articles of confederation and b.) that the constitution was ratified before Washington left office, you will use specific dates associated with those events to anchor your answer.
How does this put a "nature" spin on this? What if there's just a "satisfaction" area that "lights up" whenever anything that is satisfying (whether learned or innate) happens? These brain imaging studies are out of control.
There are a few things that people don't realize about fMRI (and that practitioners don't like to talk about). Here are a few:
1.) fMRI is a correlational technique. Correlation != causation.
2.) No one REALLY knows what increased blood flow to a certain brain area signifies. And that is what brain imaging techniques like this measure: changes in blood flow.
3.) fMRI relies on manifold t-tests with inadequate adjustments to significance levels. Actual differences could be miniscule and still show up as "significant."
This is an interesting result, but take it with a grain of salt. No one can really say what it means. Such small differences in blood flow certainly do NOT have determinate consequences on decision making. I'm not saying that brain activity does not give rise (in a deterministic manner) to mind and decision making. What I am saying is that what is being measured in studies like these are misleading, because they gave people a cartoon image of what is going on in the brain.
Sorry for the rant, I just get frustrated with "neuroscientists" that are obsessed with pretty pictures of the brain.
I searched for "Microsoft sucks" and didn't find anything. Are you telling me that no where in the entire crawlable internet do those two words co-occur?
I'll stick with google. At least a search for Google sucks turns something up.
For just pure enjoyment and general science knowledge, you really can't beat Scientific American. The articles are generally extremely good for people with a little exposure to their fields of focus, and are often worthy of being read by the experts (or at least those trying to become experts).
Science and Nature can both be good, but a large portion of both are quite technical. Even so, I enjoy reading those periodicals even when the articles are not within my field of primary interest. Since the articles published are typically on "big picture" findings that have potential to resolve major disputes or begin new ones, they can be really exciting to read.
I recently met a young neuroscientist who used to be a physicist. He got his PhD working on string theory. I asked him why he left the field, and he told me it was because there wasn't much left to be discovered in physics. I hear this claim all the time, that things are more less "done" in physics. And yet, every couple of weeks or once a month or so, there is a discovery like this, that doesn't fit into the current model at all. Not to mention all of the problems with dark matter and such. So, what gives? Do we really have it all almost figured out, or will we still be saying this 200 years ago, after all the books have been rewritten 20 times? The more we think we know, the less we seem to know. Or, are discoveries like this no big deal, just little chinks in the armor?
Netmeeting was out, but there were people in the group who used Mac OS and various *nix flavors, so it had to be a cross-platform solution. That was the main problem with that, there were other smaller issues with netmeeting features.
Yes, exactly. Not the same thing. Speaking from experience, this is not unusual. As part of a former job, I was asked to find a good video-conference call-whiteboard solution. I looked high and low for free services, and came up with nothing. This was a while ago, so things might have changed, but the service talked about in this article is one that brings together several services that would be a pain to set up individually into a single package, and no single free, open source solution exists AFAIK.
I would really love to hear a first-hand account from slashdotters who have actually seen these in person, at trade shows or whatnot. Popular media/press releases rob me of my soul.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I'll bite.
There is plenty of description in science. How do you know if your "how" matches the "what" if the "what" isn't known in great detail? They couldn't describe electricity before it was observed, so would you say that the experiments in which the empirical properties of electricity were explored should not be classed as science?
Reminds me of some work done by psychologists Kahneman and Tversky (Kahneman went on to win the nobel prize in economics for different studies). In their studies they had people do things like this (e.g., what year was the constitution adopted by the states). Supplying "anchors" influences your judgement. For example, supplying the anchor that the articles of confederation were ratified in 1781 (I think) would shift the answer toward 1781 compared with the case in which the anchor was that George Washington left office in 1796. The idea is that if you know a.) that the constitution came after the articles of confederation and b.) that the constitution was ratified before Washington left office, you will use specific dates associated with those events to anchor your answer.
How does this put a "nature" spin on this? What if there's just a "satisfaction" area that "lights up" whenever anything that is satisfying (whether learned or innate) happens? These brain imaging studies are out of control.
There are a few things that people don't realize about fMRI (and that practitioners don't like to talk about). Here are a few: 1.) fMRI is a correlational technique. Correlation != causation. 2.) No one REALLY knows what increased blood flow to a certain brain area signifies. And that is what brain imaging techniques like this measure: changes in blood flow. 3.) fMRI relies on manifold t-tests with inadequate adjustments to significance levels. Actual differences could be miniscule and still show up as "significant." This is an interesting result, but take it with a grain of salt. No one can really say what it means. Such small differences in blood flow certainly do NOT have determinate consequences on decision making. I'm not saying that brain activity does not give rise (in a deterministic manner) to mind and decision making. What I am saying is that what is being measured in studies like these are misleading, because they gave people a cartoon image of what is going on in the brain. Sorry for the rant, I just get frustrated with "neuroscientists" that are obsessed with pretty pictures of the brain.
I searched for "Microsoft sucks" and didn't find anything. Are you telling me that no where in the entire crawlable internet do those two words co-occur? I'll stick with google. At least a search for Google sucks turns something up.
For just pure enjoyment and general science knowledge, you really can't beat Scientific American. The articles are generally extremely good for people with a little exposure to their fields of focus, and are often worthy of being read by the experts (or at least those trying to become experts). Science and Nature can both be good, but a large portion of both are quite technical. Even so, I enjoy reading those periodicals even when the articles are not within my field of primary interest. Since the articles published are typically on "big picture" findings that have potential to resolve major disputes or begin new ones, they can be really exciting to read.
wakka-chikka-wakka-chikka "Hello Saturn, I'm Cassini-Huygens. I'm here to repair your plumbing."
I recently met a young neuroscientist who used to be a physicist. He got his PhD working on string theory. I asked him why he left the field, and he told me it was because there wasn't much left to be discovered in physics. I hear this claim all the time, that things are more less "done" in physics. And yet, every couple of weeks or once a month or so, there is a discovery like this, that doesn't fit into the current model at all. Not to mention all of the problems with dark matter and such. So, what gives? Do we really have it all almost figured out, or will we still be saying this 200 years ago, after all the books have been rewritten 20 times? The more we think we know, the less we seem to know. Or, are discoveries like this no big deal, just little chinks in the armor?
Forget military applications...Those cloaks make even those dorks look cool.
Moore's Law has NOTHING to do with CPU speed. Um, I think he meant Moore's Law as it is popularly conceived. Who's the dummy now, big shot?
Netmeeting was out, but there were people in the group who used Mac OS and various *nix flavors, so it had to be a cross-platform solution. That was the main problem with that, there were other smaller issues with netmeeting features.
Yes, exactly. Not the same thing. Speaking from experience, this is not unusual. As part of a former job, I was asked to find a good video-conference call-whiteboard solution. I looked high and low for free services, and came up with nothing. This was a while ago, so things might have changed, but the service talked about in this article is one that brings together several services that would be a pain to set up individually into a single package, and no single free, open source solution exists AFAIK.
I don't think it's a rumor...they quote an AOL veep named Edmund Fish liberally in the article.
I would really love to hear a first-hand account from slashdotters who have actually seen these in person, at trade shows or whatnot. Popular media/press releases rob me of my soul.
Nah, I don't think that's very interesting.
Instead of turning red, the stoplight should drop small animals in the path of the speeding car. This would be a much more effective punishment.