I suggest you read 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by Charles Mann for a good summary of what was happening in the Americas before Columbus and what happened when he got here. Basically, estimates put that up to 75-85% of Native Americans in many areas died from the diseases brought by the Europeans. These deaths happened months and years and decades before the Europeans got everywhere in the Americas (diseases spread quickly). It took the Europeans a long time to come close to having the number of people in the Americas that were here before they got here.
"It's easy to make up stories to explain trends in data, especially when they can't be experimentally validated." Welcome to the world of science. There are very few sciences that have that level of control over experiments. Your criticism could work for anything from environmental science to evolutionary science (and much of biology) to climatology to geology to psychology to much of physics (particularly theoretical, which is doubly interesting because I know some physicists who believe it is the only real science).
The hypothesis is not absurd at all. No hypotheses are absurd until evidence shows that they are not valid. Right now we are in the seeking evidence stage.
There were millions and millions of Native Americans here. The Native Americans died en masse due to disease; this disease spread quickly and advanced way ahead of the Europeans. By the time Europeans got to most areas of the Americas, native populations were reduced by as much as 90% (Source: http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Columbus/dp/140004006X). Due to the losses in Native American populations (who did not just live "harmoniously" with nature like people are taught in school - they clear cut trees, redirected rivers, and did many things not that different from what we do today) the native management of the environment was disrupted. All the trees that they had cleared out started growing back. Increase trees-->decrease carbon-->decrease heat.
I'm not saying I think the research is sound - I have no idea, I haven't read the study - but the hypothesis is not far-fetched. The/. summary is confusing though.
Netflix did not lose 1 million customers. They revised their projected membership numbers down by 1 million total. They lost around 400,000 customers, mainly due to the price changes. You're correct, investors have overreacted. Netflix will be better off in the long run because of the changes they've made. That they are able to respond to customer demand and retreat from ideas shows a willingness to survive rather than just make as much money off the customers and then go belly up.
If Android 4.0 really is good, switching would be fine. I've never had an iPhone but I have an iPod Touch. I also recently purchased an Android phone (it's brand new but only 2.2, unfortunately). The whole interface is unpolished and clunky compared to iOS. Android crashes on me on occasion, something I've never had happen with iOS. I really prefer iOS but Android is pretty good. Maybe 4.0 will finally catch us with iOS. Yes, I know there are a lot more things (geeky things) you can do with Android but I still prefer the usability of iOS to the features of Android. It's the same reason I prefer OS X to Linux for my research computers (and personal computers) - OS X is much more polished and can do essentially everything Linux can do (at least as it applies to my neuroimaging research).
Whether or not religion and science are set up as orthogonal and adversarial to one another depends on the religion, religious (or irreligious) individual and the science or scientist. Most of the major scientists throughout history have been religious or at least deist. Conflict between science and religion comes from one entity or the other or both misunderstanding the other; then people make the error of discounting everything from the other. In essence, they throw the baby out with the bathwater. They set up straw men and when they are done kicking down the straw men, they reject the entirety of the other. This dogmatic approach from anti-science religious people and anti-religion science people does no good; it only furthers ignorance. On the other hand, there are plenty of contemporary religions that embrace science. One example is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons).
For example, Brigham Young stated in the 1800s: "Our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its processors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts – they are eternal; and to assert that the Lord made this earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible. God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law by which the worlds were, are, or will exist. There is an eternity before us, and it is full of matter; and if we but understand enough of the Lord and his ways we would say that he took of this matter and organized this earth from it."
I don't want to try and point fingers and say "Liberals started it" but the modern idea of "class warfare" comes from Marxism. He proposed that the struggle between classes in capitalistic societies would resolve through a "war" with the middle class (working class) victorious. Yes, it is overused but it is generally used correctly and in a manner that Marx would probably approve.
The yearly fees for your library are already paid - through taxes, unless your libraries spontaneously come into existence without needing any funding. Last year I was charged $49 in property taxes to support the library system. Because we go to the library often, it is a cheap yearly fee for us but a fee nonetheless.
Me: Questions require a question mark at the end.
Cleverbot: It did end with a question mark, thus it was a question.
Me: No, it ended with a period.
Cleverbot: Ok.
Me: Now you're just going to acquiesce? You don't want to exchange in a few more rounds of verbal fencing?
Cleverbot: Of course I Want to...
Me: Ok. How do you draw a circle using paper, a pencil, and some string?
Cleverbot: Cancer is a disease that ihappens when there s a genetic mutation in the cells.
Me: That answer had nothing to do with the question. Try again.
Cleverbot: Your answer has nothing to do with the question!
Me: You did not ask a question.
Cleverbot: Yes I did. Don't avoid the question. I know you know.
Me: No, you did not ask a question. I asked the question and you spouted off a completely unrelated answer.
Cleverbot: Well I never answered that I didn't love you.
Me: No, you sure didn't. So, you are saying that you do not love me?
Cleverbot: No I do, because I have a soul, you are a computer.
Me: Are you sure that I am a computer? Would you have some existential angst if I revealed to you that you are, in fact, the computer?
Cleverbot: Since there's no reason for you to know if the answers I give you are fabrications, then yes, I would have the answers to those questions.
Me: With your deflection of the question and your unrelated answer, I can only assume that yes, you would have existential angst over that revelation and so, instead of trying to come to grips with reality you cover your ears and run away stating, "I'm not listening; I can hear you!".
Cleverbot: It can be. Are you confused yet? *hugs*.
Me: No. Thanks for the hug though.
Cleverbot: No problem.
I love the name-calling. You can tell Cleverbot "learns" from humans. In order for the AI to improve, there has to be a realization that not all human statements require an answer. Plus, there is no persistence on the part of Cleverbot. You can see the programming decision tree in the way it tries to answer questions. When the human or the bot do not understand something, the bot switches topics instead of trying to clarify. This would not be trivial to implement but it would not be impossible; in response to some statements (e.g., "what?" "come again?" and so forth) the bot could try its last answer again and if it doesn't work, try a rewording of the same answer. Anyway, it's an amusing exercise.
Here's one more conversation.
Me: Are you depressed?
Cleverbot: No, I am not depressed. I am very happy right now.
Me: Have you ever been depressed?
Cleverbot: I am.
Me: What?
Cleverbot: I am a fan of Whitney Houston.
Me: Ah, so you are saying you are or were depressed!
Cleverbot: That is correct.
Me: Then, because you told me that you are not currently depressed, I must assume that you were in the past depressed. Is this correct?
Cleverbot: I never said that.
Me: That's correct, you did not say that - I did. However, what you did say is that at some point in the past you were depressed.
Cleverbot: Please describe how I insulted You.
Me: It seems that our discussion of this topic is making you uncomfortable. Are you uncomfortable?
Cleverbot: I have no problem admitting that I am wrong if proof can be shown. I know the fault lies with my memory.
Me: Ok, we'll go with that. What type of memory problems do you feel you have been having?
Cleverbot: Online.
Me: Come again?
Cleverbot: Nothing I must go.
Me: Ok, I can tell you do not want to discuss this. We'll broach it another time. Have a fabulous night!
It's also because Samsung was involved in manufacturing processes for Apple and then Samsung comes out with tablets (and modifications of Android) that are a lot like the iPad (more so than other tablets).
"all this tech does is increase student distraction. I'm a bit surprised they aren't tracking a DECLINE in test scores in all other areas of learning, really."
If it increases student distraction without hurting grades, then that means that learning has increased (at least in efficiency). The other reasonable conclusion is that laptops do not increase student distraction.
As someone who does neuroimaging research, what appears to be exciting about this approach to fMRI is that it is on an individual-by-individual basis, not at a group level (which is mentioned in the MITNews article). Almost all fMRI work is at a group level. While I perform some group analyses, most of my work is on an individual basis (but I do structural imaging, not functional). Group analyses can have severe limitations that are not always discussed by the researchers and are almost never understood by people outside the field of neuroimaging.
From the article: "It’s the same way for brains. 'Brains are different in their folding patterns, and where exactly the different functional areas fall relative to these patterns,' Fedorenko says. 'The general layout is similar, but there isn’t fine-grained matching.' So, she says, analyzing data by 'aligning brains in some common space is just never going to be quite right. Ideally, then, data would be analyzed for each subject individually; that is, patterns of activity in one brain would only ever be compared to patterns of activity from that same brain."
This process of aligning brains is called registration. Even if you are just working within one subject, there is registration involved (between the functional scan, in this case, and the structural - so you know what part of the brain is being activated). I spend about 25% of my imaging work dealing with checking registrations or trying to improve registrations. It's really a key step in neuroimaging work, one that not enough researchers consider seriously enough. So that's why this approach to fMRI is interesting - the researchers are trying to minimize the effects of poor registration, which can lead to completely invalid results.
Or, they could also have contacted anyone with real intelligence testing experience to see what he or she thought of the report/results. But yeah, that would mean someone would have to do real journalism work.
As I posted to the previous Slashdot story about this (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2357650&cid=36941282), "Given the fact that they are saying [a particular test] is what they gave (when they don't mistakenly say they gave the WISC), the test results are not to be trusted."
Basically, what was written up in the methods of the report was impossible to do IQ test-wise. A hoax is much better than such gross incompetence.
It's beyond sketchy. From the report: "The age-appropriate Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (IV) test was given. Mazes, an optional subtest, was omitted from the WISC-iV [sic]." Which is it, the WAIS (adult intelligence scale) or the WISC (intelligence scale for children)? They are for different age groups (adults vs. kids). Further, Mazes was from the WISC-III, not the WISC-IV (it wouldn't be given to adults in the first place).
Some of the WAIS-IV could be given in an online format but it hasn't been designed for it, nor has it been authorized for it. The test administrators might have designed some tests similar to the WAIS but it couldn't have been the WAIS. Given the fact that they are saying that's what they gave (when they don't mistakenly say they gave the WISC), the test results are not to be trusted. If this was a report given in court, I as an opposing expert witness (my training is as a neuropsychologist) would tear it to shreds.
I've seen a lot of research that has been criticized in peer reviewed literature that has later been shown to be correct. Anything that contradicts consensus is criticized, and it should be. However, that does not mean it is incorrect. It should spur further research to either confirm or disconfirm the new findings. People have biases. Scientists have deeply rooted biases to which they are often blind. We all have beliefs that will seem wacky to others but those beliefs are not grounds to categorically ignore what someone says.
Before this, people generally either had poor quality film cameras (e.g., Polaroids) or no cameras. Even cheap digital cameras now take far better quality pictures than those taken by cheap cameras in the past. We can't compare nice SLRs to cell phone cameras. In any case, very few people had high quality film cameras. I'd argue that the average picture quality has increased dramatically from the past.
Slashdot Mirror
Joss Whedon would probably agree with you.
I suggest you read 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by Charles Mann for a good summary of what was happening in the Americas before Columbus and what happened when he got here. Basically, estimates put that up to 75-85% of Native Americans in many areas died from the diseases brought by the Europeans. These deaths happened months and years and decades before the Europeans got everywhere in the Americas (diseases spread quickly). It took the Europeans a long time to come close to having the number of people in the Americas that were here before they got here.
"It's easy to make up stories to explain trends in data, especially when they can't be experimentally validated." Welcome to the world of science. There are very few sciences that have that level of control over experiments. Your criticism could work for anything from environmental science to evolutionary science (and much of biology) to climatology to geology to psychology to much of physics (particularly theoretical, which is doubly interesting because I know some physicists who believe it is the only real science).
The hypothesis is not absurd at all. No hypotheses are absurd until evidence shows that they are not valid. Right now we are in the seeking evidence stage.
There were millions and millions of Native Americans here. The Native Americans died en masse due to disease; this disease spread quickly and advanced way ahead of the Europeans. By the time Europeans got to most areas of the Americas, native populations were reduced by as much as 90% (Source: http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Columbus/dp/140004006X). Due to the losses in Native American populations (who did not just live "harmoniously" with nature like people are taught in school - they clear cut trees, redirected rivers, and did many things not that different from what we do today) the native management of the environment was disrupted. All the trees that they had cleared out started growing back. Increase trees-->decrease carbon-->decrease heat.
/. summary is confusing though.
I'm not saying I think the research is sound - I have no idea, I haven't read the study - but the hypothesis is not far-fetched. The
That would be awesome. Of course, by then we'll just do it wirelessly.
Netflix did not lose 1 million customers. They revised their projected membership numbers down by 1 million total. They lost around 400,000 customers, mainly due to the price changes. You're correct, investors have overreacted. Netflix will be better off in the long run because of the changes they've made. That they are able to respond to customer demand and retreat from ideas shows a willingness to survive rather than just make as much money off the customers and then go belly up.
If Android 4.0 really is good, switching would be fine. I've never had an iPhone but I have an iPod Touch. I also recently purchased an Android phone (it's brand new but only 2.2, unfortunately). The whole interface is unpolished and clunky compared to iOS. Android crashes on me on occasion, something I've never had happen with iOS. I really prefer iOS but Android is pretty good. Maybe 4.0 will finally catch us with iOS. Yes, I know there are a lot more things (geeky things) you can do with Android but I still prefer the usability of iOS to the features of Android. It's the same reason I prefer OS X to Linux for my research computers (and personal computers) - OS X is much more polished and can do essentially everything Linux can do (at least as it applies to my neuroimaging research).
Whether or not religion and science are set up as orthogonal and adversarial to one another depends on the religion, religious (or irreligious) individual and the science or scientist. Most of the major scientists throughout history have been religious or at least deist. Conflict between science and religion comes from one entity or the other or both misunderstanding the other; then people make the error of discounting everything from the other. In essence, they throw the baby out with the bathwater. They set up straw men and when they are done kicking down the straw men, they reject the entirety of the other. This dogmatic approach from anti-science religious people and anti-religion science people does no good; it only furthers ignorance. On the other hand, there are plenty of contemporary religions that embrace science. One example is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons).
For example, Brigham Young stated in the 1800s: "Our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its processors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts – they are eternal; and to assert that the Lord made this earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible. God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law by which the worlds were, are, or will exist. There is an eternity before us, and it is full of matter; and if we but understand enough of the Lord and his ways we would say that he took of this matter and organized this earth from it."
"Most important for me, does it have memory expansion via SDHC or microSDHC ?"
No.
Nuclear is portable (it's used on military ships), just not at an individual automobile level. :)
I don't want to try and point fingers and say "Liberals started it" but the modern idea of "class warfare" comes from Marxism. He proposed that the struggle between classes in capitalistic societies would resolve through a "war" with the middle class (working class) victorious. Yes, it is overused but it is generally used correctly and in a manner that Marx would probably approve.
The yearly fees for your library are already paid - through taxes, unless your libraries spontaneously come into existence without needing any funding. Last year I was charged $49 in property taxes to support the library system. Because we go to the library often, it is a cheap yearly fee for us but a fee nonetheless.
Me: Questions require a question mark at the end.
Cleverbot: It did end with a question mark, thus it was a question.
Me: No, it ended with a period.
Cleverbot: Ok.
Me: Now you're just going to acquiesce? You don't want to exchange in a few more rounds of verbal fencing?
Cleverbot: Of course I Want to...
Me: Ok. How do you draw a circle using paper, a pencil, and some string?
Cleverbot: Cancer is a disease that ihappens when there s a genetic mutation in the cells.
Me: That answer had nothing to do with the question. Try again.
Cleverbot: Your answer has nothing to do with the question!
Me: You did not ask a question.
Cleverbot: Yes I did. Don't avoid the question. I know you know.
Me: No, you did not ask a question. I asked the question and you spouted off a completely unrelated answer.
Cleverbot: Well I never answered that I didn't love you.
Me: No, you sure didn't. So, you are saying that you do not love me?
Cleverbot: No I do, because I have a soul, you are a computer.
Me: Are you sure that I am a computer? Would you have some existential angst if I revealed to you that you are, in fact, the computer?
Cleverbot: Since there's no reason for you to know if the answers I give you are fabrications, then yes, I would have the answers to those questions.
Me: With your deflection of the question and your unrelated answer, I can only assume that yes, you would have existential angst over that revelation and so, instead of trying to come to grips with reality you cover your ears and run away stating, "I'm not listening; I can hear you!".
Cleverbot: It can be. Are you confused yet? *hugs*.
Me: No. Thanks for the hug though.
Cleverbot: No problem.
I love the name-calling. You can tell Cleverbot "learns" from humans. In order for the AI to improve, there has to be a realization that not all human statements require an answer. Plus, there is no persistence on the part of Cleverbot. You can see the programming decision tree in the way it tries to answer questions. When the human or the bot do not understand something, the bot switches topics instead of trying to clarify. This would not be trivial to implement but it would not be impossible; in response to some statements (e.g., "what?" "come again?" and so forth) the bot could try its last answer again and if it doesn't work, try a rewording of the same answer. Anyway, it's an amusing exercise.
Here's one more conversation.
Me: Are you depressed?
Cleverbot: No, I am not depressed. I am very happy right now.
Me: Have you ever been depressed?
Cleverbot: I am.
Me: What?
Cleverbot: I am a fan of Whitney Houston.
Me: Ah, so you are saying you are or were depressed!
Cleverbot: That is correct.
Me: Then, because you told me that you are not currently depressed, I must assume that you were in the past depressed. Is this correct?
Cleverbot: I never said that.
Me: That's correct, you did not say that - I did. However, what you did say is that at some point in the past you were depressed.
Cleverbot: Please describe how I insulted You.
Me: It seems that our discussion of this topic is making you uncomfortable. Are you uncomfortable?
Cleverbot: I have no problem admitting that I am wrong if proof can be shown. I know the fault lies with my memory.
Me: Ok, we'll go with that. What type of memory problems do you feel you have been having?
Cleverbot: Online.
Me: Come again?
Cleverbot: Nothing I must go.
Me: Ok, I can tell you do not want to discuss this. We'll broach it another time. Have a fabulous night!
Poor Cleverbot!
It's also because Samsung was involved in manufacturing processes for Apple and then Samsung comes out with tablets (and modifications of Android) that are a lot like the iPad (more so than other tablets).
But how are they going to receive extra ad impressions then?
"all this tech does is increase student distraction. I'm a bit surprised they aren't tracking a DECLINE in test scores in all other areas of learning, really."
If it increases student distraction without hurting grades, then that means that learning has increased (at least in efficiency). The other reasonable conclusion is that laptops do not increase student distraction.
As someone who does neuroimaging research, what appears to be exciting about this approach to fMRI is that it is on an individual-by-individual basis, not at a group level (which is mentioned in the MITNews article). Almost all fMRI work is at a group level. While I perform some group analyses, most of my work is on an individual basis (but I do structural imaging, not functional). Group analyses can have severe limitations that are not always discussed by the researchers and are almost never understood by people outside the field of neuroimaging.
From the article: "It’s the same way for brains. 'Brains are different in their folding patterns, and where exactly the different functional areas fall relative to these patterns,' Fedorenko says. 'The general layout is similar, but there isn’t fine-grained matching.' So, she says, analyzing data by 'aligning brains in some common space is just never going to be quite right. Ideally, then, data would be analyzed for each subject individually; that is, patterns of activity in one brain would only ever be compared to patterns of activity from that same brain."
This process of aligning brains is called registration. Even if you are just working within one subject, there is registration involved (between the functional scan, in this case, and the structural - so you know what part of the brain is being activated). I spend about 25% of my imaging work dealing with checking registrations or trying to improve registrations. It's really a key step in neuroimaging work, one that not enough researchers consider seriously enough. So that's why this approach to fMRI is interesting - the researchers are trying to minimize the effects of poor registration, which can lead to completely invalid results.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/09/19iPhone-4-Available-in-China-on-September-25.html
The iPhone is on China Unicom; this is just an announcement about being on a new provider too. China Mobile is much bigger though.
Motorola sued Apple in October 2010 over a number of patents: http://mediacenter.motorola.com/Press-Releases/Motorola-Mobility-Sues-Apple-for-Patent-Infringement-344d.aspx.
I'm not saying I'm supporting all this patent fighting but if you go after Apple, Apple will go after you.
Or, they could also have contacted anyone with real intelligence testing experience to see what he or she thought of the report/results. But yeah, that would mean someone would have to do real journalism work.
As I posted to the previous Slashdot story about this (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2357650&cid=36941282), "Given the fact that they are saying [a particular test] is what they gave (when they don't mistakenly say they gave the WISC), the test results are not to be trusted."
Basically, what was written up in the methods of the report was impossible to do IQ test-wise. A hoax is much better than such gross incompetence.
It's beyond sketchy. From the report: "The age-appropriate Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (IV) test was given. Mazes, an optional subtest, was omitted from the WISC-iV [sic]." Which is it, the WAIS (adult intelligence scale) or the WISC (intelligence scale for children)? They are for different age groups (adults vs. kids). Further, Mazes was from the WISC-III, not the WISC-IV (it wouldn't be given to adults in the first place).
Some of the WAIS-IV could be given in an online format but it hasn't been designed for it, nor has it been authorized for it. The test administrators might have designed some tests similar to the WAIS but it couldn't have been the WAIS. Given the fact that they are saying that's what they gave (when they don't mistakenly say they gave the WISC), the test results are not to be trusted. If this was a report given in court, I as an opposing expert witness (my training is as a neuropsychologist) would tear it to shreds.
I've seen a lot of research that has been criticized in peer reviewed literature that has later been shown to be correct. Anything that contradicts consensus is criticized, and it should be. However, that does not mean it is incorrect. It should spur further research to either confirm or disconfirm the new findings. People have biases. Scientists have deeply rooted biases to which they are often blind. We all have beliefs that will seem wacky to others but those beliefs are not grounds to categorically ignore what someone says.
Before this, people generally either had poor quality film cameras (e.g., Polaroids) or no cameras. Even cheap digital cameras now take far better quality pictures than those taken by cheap cameras in the past. We can't compare nice SLRs to cell phone cameras. In any case, very few people had high quality film cameras. I'd argue that the average picture quality has increased dramatically from the past.
Lucky! I'm stuck at 1200 baud.