...so I might be wrong. But even if they did have the foresight in 2003 to describe the exact technology of Podcasting (as executed in iTunes) before there was prior art for the idea, doesn't existing patented technology utilizing their structure (i.e. iTunes) nullify their claim? Or does the fact that they applied BEFORE there was prior art give them a "first-come-first-serve" access to the patent?
Either way, I assume we've got ourselves a cute little patent-troll baby developing here.
They should go after all those horrible, illegal grade school teachers who read books out loud to their classes! Don't they know that's an unlicensed derivative work! Just goes to show how crime-ridden our schools are these days.
Re:Just two words
on
Daemon
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Hmmm.. I've got 13 peer reviewed Neuroscience publications under my name, 1 book chapter in press, 2 articles in submission (one to Nature Neuroscience and one to Neuron), and several published and unpublished custom-written toolboxes for analyzing brain imaging data. I guess my Ph.D from UC Berkeley also ads to my geek-credit.
That said, Critchon was trained as a clinician through and through, not scientist. From what I can find, most of his non-fiction work in peer-reviewed journals is a review or meta-analysis. So he might have dabbled in programming and such (to give him some geek cred), I think he knew only the gist of the science he used in his popular works. He was by no means an expert.
Re:Just two words
on
Daemon
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Andromeda Strain wasn't written by a geek! It was written by a cheeky medical doctor who (like all clinicians) thinks he knows science, but really just knows how to read abstracts. No way a true geek would create Jeff Goldblum's horrifically bad mathematician character in Jurassic Park!
Both methods require an extensive training set. The only difference (that I can see) between the two is that the Japanese model assumes the representational structure of the underlying cortical areas being recorded (i.e., the size of the receptive fields), whereas the Berkeley group trains a simple linear classifier.
Expect a few more of these classifier methods to come out in the next couple of years.
That's true, but advances in Optical Imaging might overcome the current imaging limitations.
But sci-fi aside, at least getting the decoding algorithms perfected will answer a ton of basic science questions about network dynamics in primary sensory and motor areas.
Not to see unnecessary patterns, but it's interesting how 21 (60%) of those are solid blue states in this election (as of Wed's polls at least), 6 (17%) are swing states and only 8 (23%) are red states. Hmmm... nothing suspicious there... the "real" America is safe.
For the sake of my own personal/professional bias, I'm glad to see/. focusing attention on more cognitive/human performance stories. However, these expectancy effects on sensory perception have been known for almost half a century by the terms "efference copy" or "corollary discharge." My personal favorite is the scientist who COMPLETELY paralyzed himself with tetrototoxin and found that when he tried to move his eyes, it he "saw" the room move accordingly (even though his eyes never moved a tick; see Matin et al. 1982).
The only thing really new in this paper is that they show that these expectations are integrated in a statistically-optimal (read "Bayes-optimal") way.
Bzzzt. Rush said that the Michael J Fox in the ad was so different than the Michael J Fox that he saw every week on Boston Legal that he thought Fox was "acting or off his medication". These words have meaning, you know, and you look like an ignorant sheep when you feign outrage based on a few words that Rush's political opponents cherry pick out of an entire monolog.
Okay... so another prize for "You've missed the point!". As mentioned in the thread above, he wasn't off his medications in the commercial. So Rush was wrong on both counts as he wasn't a) acting or b) off his medications. His symptoms were normal symptoms of people on his medications. I've seen it ALL THE TIME in PD patients. And I did listen to the WHOLE segment when it first came out (with and without video) so I'm not relying on a few words cherry picked by his opponents. The drug addled gas bag puts his foot in his mouth just fine without the help of others. Maybe you should actually listen to what he says and watch what he does sometimes.
Second, the quote excerpted above from Fox's bio says that he "manipulated" his medications by going off it in the congressional testimony. So I fail to see how him showing the true symptoms of his disease is being manipulative when giving congressional testimony on the nature of his disease. But then again, I'm not the one picking on someone with Parkinson's Disease or defending those who do.
"Well, thats not what Fox said about his congressional testimony. He wrote in his book that he made a deliberate choice to modify his medications before his appearance to give the most "startling" visual impression that he could (page 247 of his book "Lucky Man")."
Actually... that's not exactly what I remember. He said he deliberately chose to be on his medications so that people could see his dyskinesia. This is besides the point however, Rush explicitly accused him of exaggerating his symptoms and "acting" which Fox WAS NOT doing.
"I don't get to listen to Limbaugh's show more than a couple times a year, but I actually was listening the day he made these comments, and given the context, I think it is absurd to characterize anything he said as "making fun" of Fox."
I'm sure that listening might not have seemed so offensive as SEEING him make fun of Fox's symptoms in the video of the program. Watch the video and listen to the whole segment, and it's obvious that El Bimbo was a) Making fun of Fox's disease and b) accusing him of faking or exaggerating his disease for political gain.
So in line with the parent thread, why should Mr. Jobs help a bully when it will just facilitate his continued bullying?
Okay... so as someone who apparently knows dink about Parkinsons Disease, let me (a Ph.D in Neuroscience with an emphasis on Motor Control) fill you in on your ignorance there.
The jerky movement that Fox displayed came from the fact that HE WAS ON HIS MEDICATIONS! It's a symptom of being on LDOPA for too long. Most patients prefer the jerky actions to the locked in state they'd be in otherwise. Fox never admitted to going off his medications. If he had... he wouldn't have been moving very much at all. Rush still was an asshat for making fun of him. It's a plain and simple fact (you know... one of those things that that that tub of lard often neglects).
If so, then it seems like the best plan of attack is for everybody to search for every useless name. Then they'll be paying out the rear for useless domains that they throw away anyway. Of course, this is an utterly stupid idea if they get them for free. So which is it?
This theocratic/ideological intervention into science by policy wanks and political hacks has some pretty serious consequences. As an active scientist I see science losing an important cultural war in the US. Yes WE all know the ideosyncratic difference between a "law" and a "theory" but to a vast majority of the public the gap between these 2 ideas seems huge. So in important debates like ID vs. evolution, the side of science and reason gets muddled because of minor differences in the connotation of the word "theory"
I know all of us cringed at the idea of studying linguistics and rhetoric, but they are important tools to have in order to have others understand your position. We need to change our lexicon if we are going to win this argument.
I think this is completely missing the point. Pinker argues against the most pure form of the Sapir-Worf hypothesis (e.g. language affects the principle components of color vision), which everybody but hard-core linguists would say is wrong by now.
However, it's not unrealistic to assume that because much of our "perceptual" experience is reconstructed and not based solely on visual input (e.g. there's way too much incoming information to be able to build our perceptual experience purely on the mountain of information coming from the retina), this reconstruction could be modified by higher level phenomenon like language.
This is just one of many examples out there that what we see in the mind's-eye is not necessarily what we get from the real world.
Seeing may be believing, but it ain't exactly the truth.
Anyone who's tracked the neocons currently in power know that this has been their goal for years. Their manifesto through the Project for the New American Century stated explicitly the internet and media as one of the theaters of engagement for asserting American dominance around the globe and at home. Sounds like something explicitly out of their document Rebuilding America's Defenses (http://www.newamericancentury.org/defensenational security.htm).
Slashdot Mirror
it sure is with our current USPTO... so long as you have the money to patent your flatulences!
...so I might be wrong. But even if they did have the foresight in 2003 to describe the exact technology of Podcasting (as executed in iTunes) before there was prior art for the idea, doesn't existing patented technology utilizing their structure (i.e. iTunes) nullify their claim? Or does the fact that they applied BEFORE there was prior art give them a "first-come-first-serve" access to the patent?
Either way, I assume we've got ourselves a cute little patent-troll baby developing here.
They should go after all those horrible, illegal grade school teachers who read books out loud to their classes! Don't they know that's an unlicensed derivative work! Just goes to show how crime-ridden our schools are these days.
Hmmm.. I've got 13 peer reviewed Neuroscience publications under my name, 1 book chapter in press, 2 articles in submission (one to Nature Neuroscience and one to Neuron), and several published and unpublished custom-written toolboxes for analyzing brain imaging data. I guess my Ph.D from UC Berkeley also ads to my geek-credit.
That said, Critchon was trained as a clinician through and through, not scientist. From what I can find, most of his non-fiction work in peer-reviewed journals is a review or meta-analysis. So he might have dabbled in programming and such (to give him some geek cred), I think he knew only the gist of the science he used in his popular works. He was by no means an expert.
Andromeda Strain wasn't written by a geek! It was written by a cheeky medical doctor who (like all clinicians) thinks he knows science, but really just knows how to read abstracts. No way a true geek would create Jeff Goldblum's horrifically bad mathematician character in Jurassic Park!
Both methods require an extensive training set. The only difference (that I can see) between the two is that the Japanese model assumes the representational structure of the underlying cortical areas being recorded (i.e., the size of the receptive fields), whereas the Berkeley group trains a simple linear classifier. Expect a few more of these classifier methods to come out in the next couple of years.
That's true, but advances in Optical Imaging might overcome the current imaging limitations. But sci-fi aside, at least getting the decoding algorithms perfected will answer a ton of basic science questions about network dynamics in primary sensory and motor areas.
A Berkeley group has already reported this in Nature using similar methods: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7185/abs/nature06713.html)
Not to see unnecessary patterns, but it's interesting how 21 (60%) of those are solid blue states in this election (as of Wed's polls at least), 6 (17%) are swing states and only 8 (23%) are red states. Hmmm... nothing suspicious there... the "real" America is safe.
For the sake of my own personal/professional bias, I'm glad to see /. focusing attention on more cognitive/human performance stories. However, these expectancy effects on sensory perception have been known for almost half a century by the terms "efference copy" or "corollary discharge." My personal favorite is the scientist who COMPLETELY paralyzed himself with tetrototoxin and found that when he tried to move his eyes, it he "saw" the room move accordingly (even though his eyes never moved a tick; see Matin et al. 1982).
The only thing really new in this paper is that they show that these expectations are integrated in a statistically-optimal (read "Bayes-optimal") way.
Bzzzt. Rush said that the Michael J Fox in the ad was so different than the Michael J Fox that he saw every week on Boston Legal that he thought Fox was "acting or off his medication". These words have meaning, you know, and you look like an ignorant sheep when you feign outrage based on a few words that Rush's political opponents cherry pick out of an entire monolog.
Okay... so another prize for "You've missed the point!". As mentioned in the thread above, he wasn't off his medications in the commercial. So Rush was wrong on both counts as he wasn't a) acting or b) off his medications. His symptoms were normal symptoms of people on his medications. I've seen it ALL THE TIME in PD patients. And I did listen to the WHOLE segment when it first came out (with and without video) so I'm not relying on a few words cherry picked by his opponents. The drug addled gas bag puts his foot in his mouth just fine without the help of others. Maybe you should actually listen to what he says and watch what he does sometimes.
Second, the quote excerpted above from Fox's bio says that he "manipulated" his medications by going off it in the congressional testimony. So I fail to see how him showing the true symptoms of his disease is being manipulative when giving congressional testimony on the nature of his disease. But then again, I'm not the one picking on someone with Parkinson's Disease or defending those who do.
"Well, thats not what Fox said about his congressional testimony. He wrote in his book that he made a deliberate choice to modify his medications before his appearance to give the most "startling" visual impression that he could (page 247 of his book "Lucky Man")."
Actually... that's not exactly what I remember. He said he deliberately chose to be on his medications so that people could see his dyskinesia. This is besides the point however, Rush explicitly accused him of exaggerating his symptoms and "acting" which Fox WAS NOT doing.
"I don't get to listen to Limbaugh's show more than a couple times a year, but I actually was listening the day he made these comments, and given the context, I think it is absurd to characterize anything he said as "making fun" of Fox."
I'm sure that listening might not have seemed so offensive as SEEING him make fun of Fox's symptoms in the video of the program. Watch the video and listen to the whole segment, and it's obvious that El Bimbo was a) Making fun of Fox's disease and b) accusing him of faking or exaggerating his disease for political gain.
So in line with the parent thread, why should Mr. Jobs help a bully when it will just facilitate his continued bullying?
Okay... so as someone who apparently knows dink about Parkinsons Disease, let me (a Ph.D in Neuroscience with an emphasis on Motor Control) fill you in on your ignorance there. The jerky movement that Fox displayed came from the fact that HE WAS ON HIS MEDICATIONS! It's a symptom of being on LDOPA for too long. Most patients prefer the jerky actions to the locked in state they'd be in otherwise. Fox never admitted to going off his medications. If he had... he wouldn't have been moving very much at all. Rush still was an asshat for making fun of him. It's a plain and simple fact (you know... one of those things that that that tub of lard often neglects).
If so, then it seems like the best plan of attack is for everybody to search for every useless name. Then they'll be paying out the rear for useless domains that they throw away anyway. Of course, this is an utterly stupid idea if they get them for free. So which is it?
This theocratic/ideological intervention into science by policy wanks and political hacks has some pretty serious consequences. As an active scientist I see science losing an important cultural war in the US. Yes WE all know the ideosyncratic difference between a "law" and a "theory" but to a vast majority of the public the gap between these 2 ideas seems huge. So in important debates like ID vs. evolution, the side of science and reason gets muddled because of minor differences in the connotation of the word "theory"
I know all of us cringed at the idea of studying linguistics and rhetoric, but they are important tools to have in order to have others understand your position. We need to change our lexicon if we are going to win this argument.
I think this is completely missing the point. Pinker argues against the most pure form of the Sapir-Worf hypothesis (e.g. language affects the principle components of color vision), which everybody but hard-core linguists would say is wrong by now. However, it's not unrealistic to assume that because much of our "perceptual" experience is reconstructed and not based solely on visual input (e.g. there's way too much incoming information to be able to build our perceptual experience purely on the mountain of information coming from the retina), this reconstruction could be modified by higher level phenomenon like language. This is just one of many examples out there that what we see in the mind's-eye is not necessarily what we get from the real world. Seeing may be believing, but it ain't exactly the truth.
Anyone who's tracked the neocons currently in power know that this has been their goal for years. Their manifesto through the Project for the New American Century stated explicitly the internet and media as one of the theaters of engagement for asserting American dominance around the globe and at home. Sounds like something explicitly out of their document Rebuilding America's Defenses (http://www.newamericancentury.org/defensenational security.htm).