Perhaps I'm only showing a lack of understanding by saying this, but as I recall from biology class, any trait that operates as a matter of degrees essentially has to have multiple genes to make it so.
Take skin color, for example. If it was a literally "black-or-white" matter (notwithstanding the politics of it, of course...), it would have one gene that decides the color of a person (dark or light, with nothing in-between), and each option would be either dominant or recessive. Since there are many, many variations on skin color, this is accomplished by many, many switches that, themselves being essentially binary (like all gene switches, as I recall), are turned on or off in a very large number of potential combinations, thereby producing a large variety of skin colors.
If intelligence were just one gene, then a person would be simply "smart" or "not smart," right? So, if I'm not utterly wrong about something, these "clever" scientists have only succeeded in proving the blatantly obvious--which is basically what I would expect from most scientists who study the "black box" we call the brain.
Maybe in century or so, someone will have actual, definitive evidence on how the brain truly works, but so long as "experts" think Rorschach tests, electrocution, addictive and damaging psychiatric drugs, and straight jackets are at all clever (all of which are still in use, in point of fact), we may as well just call most of the "great discoveries" in brain "science" (it doesn't yet deserve the term, IMHO) what they are: assumptions, rudimentary observations, and kludges. Sure, people come up with lots of stuff that works (to some degree, at least), but I have yet to hear anyone saying with confidence, "this is definitely HOW AND WHY it works." They're all monkeys with keyboards, as I see it.
So, am I the only one wondering just how there's any guarantee whatsoever that these "descriptions" represent full disclosure and complete accuracy? How about this:
China: We got your NSA admin login(s) through a botnet we planted in the USA, which eventually made it into your office. (Reality: we have a mole in your office who installed surveillance devices and then told us all the logins he could determine.) We then upload lots of spy/malware and own (all) your base. USA: We use our custom-made antivirus software (AKA Norton Antivirus or some other junk, probably) to scour our system of all your malware. (Reality: you really just found our honeypot. Now your attack computers are being used to feed malware into your systems. By the way, the mole is a double agent.)
I guess I can't see how these exercises are reliably going to be used for anything but PR/propaganda and disinformation. It's obvious that each government sees the other as a potential threat (why would they even be worried about all this if not?), so it would be mind-bogglingly stupid for either side to explain exactly how the attacks will be done, and how incoming attacks would be countered. It's on the same level of "stupid" as giving the enemy complete briefings on our troop dispositions and armaments. So, I imagine that all that's really going on is something like:
USA: We attack your stuff. China: We defend against your attacks, then counterattack. USA: We defend against your attacks, then counterattack.... [several million tax dollars later] USA: That was productive. We're friends, now, right? China: Of course, we are. Let's shake hands in front of the cameras. You'll lower your firewalls, now, right? USA: Not a chance. You? China: Dream on.
Update: I've submitted that link as a story. If anyone cares to moderate it into an accepted story, it should now be available for such. The words Ketamine, Riluzole, and Scopolamine are in the title, so it should be fairly easy to find.
tirefire, No, Scopolamine isn't the only glutamate-enhancing drug; both Ketamine and Riluzole do the same thing. My doctor and I settled on Scopolamine because its side effects are less than those of the other drugs. I understand that the Ketamine has been administered as an IV drip, but I don't know how fast or how often. The impression I got from the article and my doctor is that it wasn't very safe, the way it had to be done--which indicates to me that it's a pretty large dose, or at least large enough to cause nasty side effects and possibly addiction. I don't know what kind of treatment schedule was used for ketamine (though the article might say; I can't remember off the top of my head). It's very possible that the patients didn't get much long-term relief from it, but the article's thrust seemed to suggest at least a little lasting relief. The other two drugs were better about that, as I understand it (perhaps because they're safer to administer regularly).
The level of Scopolamine I'm on--1 1.5mg patch that lasts 3 days--is nowhere near enough to cause hallucinogenic effects in me. Some people have reported drowsiness (which I occasionally get, but since it removes my chronic fatigue from depression, I still come out ahead), and others have reported rare instances of psychotic episodes or mania. Those episodes, to my knowledge, only occurred in people who had mania and psychosis due to their illnesses, though, and not reliably. My doctor advised me to note carefully any such symptoms, should I develop them, but he said it mainly because this drug hasn't been used much for depression, and is, as such, largely untested for side effects relating to mental illness.
Do you know what plants contain scopolamine? That would be exceedingly useful to know, so that those who can't afford the pharmaceutical version can try an herbal remedy (that's more effective than St. John's Wort...). There is a danger of overdose, as you mentioned--hallucinations, mania, deliriousness, etc.--when too much is used, so I don't know how safe it would be to suggest self-medicating with it; but if the amount in the plant is very small, it might be very difficult to overdose with the herbal version.
I'll submit this story as suggested. Thanks for the encouragement, tirefire and AC; I very much hope that new treatments like this one will help as many people as possible. (As a side note, if you, personally, have a doctor who needs to consult with another professional about this before prescribing such a treatment, feel free to PM me and I'll see about getting my doctor to share some anonomized data.)
I'd probably write this in a private message, but since you've (understandably) posted as anonymous, and since others might benefit from this information, I'll post it openly. Private messages are welcome, should someone wish to contact me.
Before I continue, though, I have to ask something: I hope that those who read this will respect just how debilitatingly painful clinical depression (i.e. based on bad brain chemistry) is, and also how sensitive a topic it is, both to those who have it, and to those who don't understand it, and treat depressed people like garbage as a result. Truly, I can't imagine a more excruciating torture than having one's own brain be in constant, unbearable pain (in severe cases like mine, it goes beyond depression, into an intangible agony of the mind; and also manifests as severe, measurable physical symptoms). I honestly can't bring myself to wish such torment on any person or creature--no matter how evil. It can and does literally drive people insane, and in the face of this, I have a knowledgeable respect for those who decide that it's simply not worth living through any more such torture; those who haven't been tormented in such an ungodly way (yes, I do mean to imply theological conflict) can't even begin to understand the topic of depressive suicide, so I encourage you not to comment on it; simple kindness would be much more believable and meaningful. (I'm writing now about a possible solution, so please wait on such thoughts if you're having them.) I ask that any replies to this be respectful and not flippant/humorous. Thanks.
I've recently found an unconventional treatment that has helped my severe depression (featuring suicidal ideation), after having thought (for good reason) that nothing was going to work. First, so that you can better determine if this is something worth looking into, I'll give you an abbreviated list of things I've tried, without success. In almost every case, the medicines and treatments worked after about a month of use, then stopped working, then made my depression worse than it otherwise would have been. Notably, I also suffer from anxiety, physical pain (muscles, joints, skin), and ADD (among others). The most sensible diagnosis I've gotten is fibromyalgia, and it's reached a disabling state. (Of course, fibromyalgia is largely used as a diagnosis that really means "we have no idea what's causing all this.") Here's a list of failures, and example name brands (what DOES work is below them):
Tri-cyclic anti-depressants (Amitriptyline/Tryptomer) SSRIs (Prozac) Benzodiazepines (Xanax) (for anxiety) (Atypical) antipsychotics (Abilify) (in conjunction with other meds, to enhance them) Anticonvulsants (Lamotrigine/Lamictal) (for enhancing effects, as above) Lithium (used to treat [type 2] bipolar disorder and mood swings) SNRIs (Cymbalta) NRIs (Strattera) (for ADD, and as an enhancer) NDRIs (Bupropion/Wellbutrin) (for ADD, and as an antidepressant, and as an enhancer) Amphetamines (Adderal; this was exceptionally bad, especially in conjunction with Wellbutrin; it caused a psychotic panic attack) (for ADD and chronic fatigue) Azapirones (Buspirone) (for anxiety) Electro-convulsive therapy (A.K.A. ECT)
The treatment that I finally discovered, and convinced my doctor to do some research on (i.e. look up as much info as possible) involves increasing the amount of glutamate in the brain--which is now thought to be a more "direct" influence on depression than seratonin, etc.--at least in the "tough" cases. This was discovered as a result of some doctors noticing the use of the street drug, Ketamine, for self-treatment of depression. (Ketamine has some serious/dangerous side effects, of course.) During trials, it was discovered that Ketamine (pain reliever), as well as Riluzole (used to treat Lou Gehrig's disease) and Scopolamine (for motion sickness and surgical nausea) were extremely effective in treating those with severe, "tough" cases of depression. Of the three, Scopolamine (as a transdermal
"As an added benefit, documenting your code makes it possible for people who didn't write the program to use it."
Yes, this seems obvious, but it's not. It's a Zen koan. Really. It's a well-known fact that koans are more fun to write and think about than documentation.
Google's always been awful about not checking its ads for malware, so I see this as no big surprise. In my experience, the text links at the top of my Gmail page have been about 95% scam and malware sites, akin to the stuff I find in my spam box. (I've since installed a browser extension to disable such ads.) Google has thus shown a previous utter disregard for ensuring the sanitation of their profit centers, so I fully expect this new "app store" (no, I don't care that it's called "Google Play;" I'll call a spade a spade, thank you very much) will be much the same until Google gets sued or some such. (In other news, I seem to recall them being sued in Australia or the EU for their fraudulent ads.)
I hope we've learned a few things over the last several decades about just how much we can trust the word of a business, when it may, at some point, decide that it's more profitable to break some promises. I doubt we've learned thoroughly enough, but here's hoping...
I'm not sure if anyone else has taken note of this, but this paradox has been seriously re-visited concerning modern technology in the fairly recent past, near the beginning of the rise of computers in the 20th century.
When sewing machines, vacuum cleaners, toasters, microwave ovens, frozen meals, etc. became popular and readily available in the 1950s, the overwhelming assumption was that homemaking women would suddenly find themselves bored, and with nothing to do. The assumption was that the great efficiency with which housekeeping tasks could now be done would mean that the women would do what they always did in 1/2 the time, then spend the rest of the time without anything to do. What actually happened, however, was exactly the opposite.
Suddenly, the level of housekeeping that was expected went way up! The homemakers didn't do their normal duties and then stop; they made the homes more spotless and perfect than had ever been practical before, thanks to these wonderful new technologies. Now, instead of being bored, homemakers were running themselves ragged (partly at the behest of others and the new culture of perfection).
This is exactly what's been happening to everyone over the past 20 years or so, thanks to computing. It makes us work harder and faster, and runs us ragged. Likewise, increased efficiency means increased demand (since my work will undoubtedly require support from some other person, business, or industry--such as webhosting or tech support), so for every person/business/industry that does more, somebody else also has to do more. It's not just our computer hardware that's about to hit a wall; the stamina of human beings is already nearly there. (Parts of Asia have had some major problems with this in the last 20 years, what with kids going bald from stress, workers committing suicide because they can't meet demand, etc.) I strongly suspect that this increased pace of life is also a major contributor to the increasing pandemic of mental health disease (more research required to verify).
While this technological "wall" is certainly something to take notice of, it's really just a "second fiddle" to how we, as biological creatures of limited capacity, will soon find ourselves saying (at the behest of our minds and bodies), "enough!" Personally, I look forward to that particular outbreak of common sense. While I love computers and the marvels they make possible, I absolutely hate how we've allowed our technology to rule us, instead of the other way around.
The Commission for Shakespearean Literature thanks Aix-Marseille University for its contribution towards re-creating some of Shakespeare's lost works. We look forward to your effort in producing a line of typographical input devices, such as would be more ergonomically suitable for this work.
Please accept this anti-lice shampoo as a token of our gratitude.
Even as a white supremacist would get this jury hung (probably by way of arguing against an innocent verdict, against any reason, I think), it's just as likely that what I'll term a "non-white supremacist" will do the same thing. In fact, given the current political climate, I think it's much more likely. I'm sure it's utterly socially/politically incorrect to claim that a person of color can be just as racist as a KKK member (perhaps with less leverage in the lynching department, but with more leverage in the getting-hired-without-credentials department), but in my experience, it's extremely common; they just have less sway among traditionalists, and more among non-traditionalists. I really hate that this sounds like I'm agreeing with hate-mongering jerks like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, but monkeys speaking into a microphone will eventually say something intelligent--if only by (semi-)random chance.
It's really tempting to post this as Anonymous Coward, but for now, I choose to delude myself into thinking that most people will respect my ticking-off extremists from both "sides of the isle."
Anyway, while I'm certain that Zimmerman does, in fact, need to be tried for murder (of some degree), I see this, like some of you seem to, as the start of the next OJ Simpson trial. Hopefully this'll be shorter and a little less idiotic.
I think that this whole discussion could be summarized with those words; since there's no (legal) accountability, it's all up to how much you care to risk, and how much you trust the folks receiving your money.
The instructions above (in the parent comment), from the site, are quite apt, of course, so if you aren't going to fund an already-established-and-reputable project, they're probably the best you'll do for a "guarantee" of sorts.
In the very least, it's been proven (as well as anything with regard to video games, I suppose) that playing games that involve stressful and/or traumatic situations desensitizes the players to such situations. It's been noted by military professionals (I don't remember where I saw the quote) that they've had problems with soldiers wanting to just charge out and "Call of Duty" the bad guys--which is, of course, likely to end badly.
On the other hand, teaching medics to handle seeing lots of blood/death/danger without freaking out is (ostensibly, anyway) a rather useful thing to accomplish. This is likely to result in a more rational thought process while in the tense situation, rather than relying on the "wildcard" of whether a first responder will be able to keep his cool, based on personality and past experiences, alone. In more common terms, it'll probably make "green recruits" essentially less "green."
OK, I see. Thanks for the clarification. (Why post such an intelligent remark as Anonymous Coward?) This being an issue concerned only with shared resources seems to make the lack of concurrent interaction less of an issue, but as with your family/bathroom analogy, it will (predictably) become a major problem as the number of cores/processors in a system continues to increase.
So, while I yet wonder why this hasn't already been thought-of and solved, I can see that it hasn't been a place that a (typically short-sighted) company would have invested much R&D into, as of yet. I wonder if some independent technology firm has already come up with a solution that will soon be purchased by Intel or AMD. I see another patent battle coming...
Intelligent people that actually have the wisdom to see things as they are do not fit well in this world, they are too rare. Intelligent ones are already rare, but typically lack that wisdom. Still, there are niches out there. It just takes a bit longer to find them and may take a bit of luck. Just don't do anything conventional unless you can compensate strongly with something you like doing. It may kill you otherwise.
gweihir, I can't agree more about this (especially about the difference between, and rare combination of, extraordinary wisdom and intelligence). Though it probably sounds arrogant or similar to say as much, the description above is the camp that I perpetually find myself in. I've spent most of my professional life in the abyssal industry of computer repair (because I was really, really good at it, and because it/used to be/ my hobby), until the continual stress and under-appreciation of the industry (plus the rampant incompetence of most therein) drove my otherwise somewhat manageable fibromyalgia into a disabling state. Now, regrettably, I'm stuck either starving or accepting Social Security benefits.:-(
I know (as much as anyone can) that I can offer a lot to this world in the areas of combining disciplines (philosophy, psychology, sociology, science/technology, writing/language, etc.), but the processes required to offer such a contribution involve asinine academia (which I lost patience and respect for mid-way through college), and the "sycophantic meritocracy" (i.e. those who best stroke the ego of the boss get promoted) of the business world--neither of which are anywhere near apt platforms for launching visionary ideas in anything but the extremely short(-sighted) term. If I could find a platform to learn and present ideas to an intelligent and powerful audience, things would probably be very different for me.
Of course, I might also simply be deluded.:-)
In any case, I've put a lot of thought into the broken hierarchical model of discovery/innovation (i.e. one thing builds directly upon its parent, and in no case does somebody venture into truly uncharted territory with a brilliant epiphany), as well as the normal means of funding it, and have developed the opinion that so long as academia and business, in their current incarnations, are permitted to drive the evolution of humanity (in practical terms, not biological ones--at least, not directly), we're doomed to perpetual mediocrity and governance by buffoons.
It's pretty well known that Thomas Edison (a personal hero to me) said some insightful things about invention:
"Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration."
and
(perhaps quoting another) "Necessity is the mother of invention."
Thus, one must first find a problem that needs solving, grasp hold of that imp called, "inspiration," and expend a lot of effort making that inspiration happen. I find that our (that is, current society's) process of innovation is road-blocked...
1) At finding necessity. Most truly essential things have already been invented. Those that don't yet exist are locked in debate over whether they're needed. (Air pollution and energy concerns are examples of majorly roadblocked areas of study, for this and other reasons.) 2) At finding inspiration. If we rely exclusively upon previous discoveries to give us new and brilliant ones, it'll take a VERY long time to get to anything that remotely qualifies as "brilliant." Both Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein (another personal hero) were both flunked from (elementary) school for asking too many questions and thinking about the material in non-standard ways. I see this as evidence of an enduring systemic problem. Additionally, Thomas Edison (and perhaps, to a lesser degree, Albert Einstein) were plagued by spotty employment, owing to the propensity to "insult" their respective "superiors" and spurn the established way of doing things. 3) At a
I don't know if air pollution normally exists as a department, but it did at UC Riverside until about 1995, with my father was the department head.
You're probably correct to suspect that there's more to the story; I can't honestly say that I know the whole story, because I was only 13 at the time (though I've been told a fair bit about it). I can note, however, that my father was getting regular media attention on PBS and various news networks--which may or may not have had anything to do with it. If this was, indeed, a strictly political maneuver (shutting down the department), then this would be added incentive; if not, then it may not be relevant at all. Knowing my father (and my own, similar temperament), he was probably vocal in support of his work/findings (particularly anything of unusually large implications or usefulness), and I sincerely doubt that he would have been any less vocal if it happened to tick-off somebody powerful. Since then, his findings have resulted in cases being brought to the US Federal Supreme Court (whereat they won favorable verdicts), simply because he refused to let his findings "slide." (Please note that such cases were the results of his work, not the intent thereof.)
Beetle B. is correct in his assumption that he was not fired (and I think that you're correct to assume that he had tenure); the department was shut-down. I've always wondered if they've since re-formed some kind of air pollution research group, and it would seem that they have since (according to the parent comment). This, of course, supports the notion that the closure of the department was strictly political, rather than meritorious.
I admit that despite being a technical user, I was not aware that only 2 chips are allowed to "talk" at a given time. I had (erroneously, it would seem) assumed that in order for a 3+-core chip to be fully useful, such a switch/router would have to already be in place.
So, have Intel, AMD, and others simply tricked us into thinking that a 3+-core chip can actively use all its cores at once (as is the natural assumption), or am I misinterpreting something? If they have, why on earth didn't they include a "router" in the original designs? It seems entirely too obvious for the eggheads in R&D to have missed (or so one would think, anyway). I'm sure there are technical hurdles to overcome, but unless that can be managed, what is really the point of many-core CPUs that can't have all cores acting at once?
I went looking on the 'Net for a link to my favorite paper airplane design, so that I could post it here. To my mild surprise, I couldn't find one. Since this is a rather unusual paper airplane that I learned to make at my local elementary school (about 20 years ago--does that make me old?), I decided that I should preserve it in a blog post for posterity.
Below is a link to the post, with pictures of the various steps, as well as the finished product. It should be noted that this planes is not good for distance, but rather for really neat flying patterns. I hope you enjoy it.
While I can't provide much specific information, I can tell you some general advice.
Background: My father is an internationally prominent plant scientist and former air pollution researcher. He's also worked at several universities in important positions (department head, etc.). One things that he's mentioned repeatedly (if not often) is the fanatical importance that most scientists and university personnel seem to place upon what's "accepted." Bluntly, this is a pretty blatant problem of inflated egos (endemic to universities and such, in general), but highly educated people are also quite good at pretending they're being rational, rather than emotional about decision-making. The essence of the problem is that if you come up with an idea that's contrary to the current "status quot" belief, and if you promote it shamelessly (as you should), you'll prick the egos of others and be ostracized, criticized, and (if possible) discredited. Furthermore, the success of a scientist seems to be about 40% skill/talent and about 60% political adeptness. Of course, an ethical and self-aware scientist will put away his pride and fear and publish good work regardless of what others think--and sometimes that will pay off in the end. Below is how it might do so.
I can't provide specific examples of theory-based conflict off the top of my head, but I can illustrate the power of politics (i.e. university politics, scientific community politics, etc.) in science by noting that because my father was able to obtain more grant money than his superiors at UC Riverside, the university decided to close down the department that he headed: the air pollution research department. Of course, this meant a prolonged job hunt and a big move for my dad and his family (including me). (UC Riverside's leaders thereby got rid of the "troublemaker.") If you aren't aware, Riverside is about 60 miles outside of LA and obviously has air quality problems to rival nearly anywhere else. A lesson to be learned from this is that no matter how good a scientist you are, and no matter how good you are at procuring what you need to do good work, ultimately it's the ego of those who provide you with land, labor, and capital that will determine how successful you are. Therefore, it's proven extremely important to foster good will amongst those who can help you do good science. The ethical way to do this (as far as it's been demonstrated to me) is to use your science to help people with real-world problems as much as possible, and show others that helping you is in THEIR best interests.
My dad now works as a farm adviser (associated with UC Davis), and it's proven very useful to go out of his way to help his "client base" (farmers, primarily) see the value of what he does by helping them to increase their production, and thereby their personal wealth. Essentially, it's good to do a good job, but it's better to "go the extra mile" to bring your good work to those who can make profitable use of it. This strategy has seen my father summoned (from the US where he lives) to China, Italy, Chile, Brasil, Uruguay, Japan, and probably others that I don't recall. By inventing means to help farmers grow their crops cheaper and more reliably (including new methods of testing for nitrogen levels without a mass spectrometer), he's made himself indispensable to the industries and institutions (universities, etc.) that he serves. It hasn't made him "rich," but it has given him job security and a good living for his family.
So, the bottom line here is something like:
Do the best possible work you can, but make sure it's actively helping people who need it. That way, when you annoy the scientific community or your academic "superiors," you'll already have people to guard against you being politically maneuvered out of position, since losing you will also cost them money and other resources. Science for the sake of science is good and useful (eventually), but in order to keep it up, you have to provide others with very good reason to help you keep at it.
Who says they have to use visible light? A UV laser would be especially nasty, both because you can't see it, and because even the non-focused "bleed off" will be deadly to living organisms (depending on the type of UV, presumably). I don't know whether this is an ideal frequency for avoiding refraction, etc., but just going to wickedlasers.com will demonstrate that higher-frequency lasers can be darned powerful. Of course, if high-frequency isn't the way to go, you could go infra-red, instead.
This could be "traced" by specially-designed sensor hardware (i.e. that can see outside the human-visible spectrum), but you'd still have to have these sensors pointed in every conceivable direction of incoming attack in order for them to be truly effective. Of course, anything sensitive enough to trace such a laser without being directly hit will get utterly fried if a hit does happen nearby (even if it's not a hit to the sensors, themselves).
Overall, I think that with a little cleverness, it'll be highly impractical to trace a laser "blast" much better than one traces phosphorous-burning bullets now.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I'm only showing a lack of understanding by saying this, but as I recall from biology class, any trait that operates as a matter of degrees essentially has to have multiple genes to make it so.
Take skin color, for example. If it was a literally "black-or-white" matter (notwithstanding the politics of it, of course...), it would have one gene that decides the color of a person (dark or light, with nothing in-between), and each option would be either dominant or recessive. Since there are many, many variations on skin color, this is accomplished by many, many switches that, themselves being essentially binary (like all gene switches, as I recall), are turned on or off in a very large number of potential combinations, thereby producing a large variety of skin colors.
If intelligence were just one gene, then a person would be simply "smart" or "not smart," right? So, if I'm not utterly wrong about something, these "clever" scientists have only succeeded in proving the blatantly obvious--which is basically what I would expect from most scientists who study the "black box" we call the brain.
Maybe in century or so, someone will have actual, definitive evidence on how the brain truly works, but so long as "experts" think Rorschach tests, electrocution, addictive and damaging psychiatric drugs, and straight jackets are at all clever (all of which are still in use, in point of fact), we may as well just call most of the "great discoveries" in brain "science" (it doesn't yet deserve the term, IMHO) what they are: assumptions, rudimentary observations, and kludges. Sure, people come up with lots of stuff that works (to some degree, at least), but I have yet to hear anyone saying with confidence, "this is definitely HOW AND WHY it works." They're all monkeys with keyboards, as I see it.
So, am I the only one wondering just how there's any guarantee whatsoever that these "descriptions" represent full disclosure and complete accuracy? How about this:
China: We got your NSA admin login(s) through a botnet we planted in the USA, which eventually made it into your office. (Reality: we have a mole in your office who installed surveillance devices and then told us all the logins he could determine.) We then upload lots of spy/malware and own (all) your base.
USA: We use our custom-made antivirus software (AKA Norton Antivirus or some other junk, probably) to scour our system of all your malware. (Reality: you really just found our honeypot. Now your attack computers are being used to feed malware into your systems. By the way, the mole is a double agent.)
I guess I can't see how these exercises are reliably going to be used for anything but PR/propaganda and disinformation. It's obvious that each government sees the other as a potential threat (why would they even be worried about all this if not?), so it would be mind-bogglingly stupid for either side to explain exactly how the attacks will be done, and how incoming attacks would be countered. It's on the same level of "stupid" as giving the enemy complete briefings on our troop dispositions and armaments. So, I imagine that all that's really going on is something like:
USA: We attack your stuff. ...
China: We defend against your attacks, then counterattack.
USA: We defend against your attacks, then counterattack.
[several million tax dollars later]
USA: That was productive. We're friends, now, right?
China: Of course, we are. Let's shake hands in front of the cameras. You'll lower your firewalls, now, right?
USA: Not a chance. You?
China: Dream on.
Does anyone else see how obtuse this seems?
Update: I've submitted that link as a story. If anyone cares to moderate it into an accepted story, it should now be available for such. The words Ketamine, Riluzole, and Scopolamine are in the title, so it should be fairly easy to find.
Thanks again for the suggestion.
tirefire,
No, Scopolamine isn't the only glutamate-enhancing drug; both Ketamine and Riluzole do the same thing. My doctor and I settled on Scopolamine because its side effects are less than those of the other drugs. I understand that the Ketamine has been administered as an IV drip, but I don't know how fast or how often. The impression I got from the article and my doctor is that it wasn't very safe, the way it had to be done--which indicates to me that it's a pretty large dose, or at least large enough to cause nasty side effects and possibly addiction. I don't know what kind of treatment schedule was used for ketamine (though the article might say; I can't remember off the top of my head). It's very possible that the patients didn't get much long-term relief from it, but the article's thrust seemed to suggest at least a little lasting relief. The other two drugs were better about that, as I understand it (perhaps because they're safer to administer regularly).
The level of Scopolamine I'm on--1 1.5mg patch that lasts 3 days--is nowhere near enough to cause hallucinogenic effects in me. Some people have reported drowsiness (which I occasionally get, but since it removes my chronic fatigue from depression, I still come out ahead), and others have reported rare instances of psychotic episodes or mania. Those episodes, to my knowledge, only occurred in people who had mania and psychosis due to their illnesses, though, and not reliably. My doctor advised me to note carefully any such symptoms, should I develop them, but he said it mainly because this drug hasn't been used much for depression, and is, as such, largely untested for side effects relating to mental illness.
Do you know what plants contain scopolamine? That would be exceedingly useful to know, so that those who can't afford the pharmaceutical version can try an herbal remedy (that's more effective than St. John's Wort...). There is a danger of overdose, as you mentioned--hallucinations, mania, deliriousness, etc.--when too much is used, so I don't know how safe it would be to suggest self-medicating with it; but if the amount in the plant is very small, it might be very difficult to overdose with the herbal version.
I'll submit this story as suggested. Thanks for the encouragement, tirefire and AC; I very much hope that new treatments like this one will help as many people as possible. (As a side note, if you, personally, have a doctor who needs to consult with another professional about this before prescribing such a treatment, feel free to PM me and I'll see about getting my doctor to share some anonomized data.)
I'd probably write this in a private message, but since you've (understandably) posted as anonymous, and since others might benefit from this information, I'll post it openly. Private messages are welcome, should someone wish to contact me.
Before I continue, though, I have to ask something: I hope that those who read this will respect just how debilitatingly painful clinical depression (i.e. based on bad brain chemistry) is, and also how sensitive a topic it is, both to those who have it, and to those who don't understand it, and treat depressed people like garbage as a result. Truly, I can't imagine a more excruciating torture than having one's own brain be in constant, unbearable pain (in severe cases like mine, it goes beyond depression, into an intangible agony of the mind; and also manifests as severe, measurable physical symptoms). I honestly can't bring myself to wish such torment on any person or creature--no matter how evil. It can and does literally drive people insane, and in the face of this, I have a knowledgeable respect for those who decide that it's simply not worth living through any more such torture; those who haven't been tormented in such an ungodly way (yes, I do mean to imply theological conflict) can't even begin to understand the topic of depressive suicide, so I encourage you not to comment on it; simple kindness would be much more believable and meaningful. (I'm writing now about a possible solution, so please wait on such thoughts if you're having them.) I ask that any replies to this be respectful and not flippant/humorous. Thanks.
I've recently found an unconventional treatment that has helped my severe depression (featuring suicidal ideation), after having thought (for good reason) that nothing was going to work. First, so that you can better determine if this is something worth looking into, I'll give you an abbreviated list of things I've tried, without success. In almost every case, the medicines and treatments worked after about a month of use, then stopped working, then made my depression worse than it otherwise would have been. Notably, I also suffer from anxiety, physical pain (muscles, joints, skin), and ADD (among others). The most sensible diagnosis I've gotten is fibromyalgia, and it's reached a disabling state. (Of course, fibromyalgia is largely used as a diagnosis that really means "we have no idea what's causing all this.") Here's a list of failures, and example name brands (what DOES work is below them):
Tri-cyclic anti-depressants (Amitriptyline/Tryptomer)
SSRIs (Prozac)
Benzodiazepines (Xanax) (for anxiety)
(Atypical) antipsychotics (Abilify) (in conjunction with other meds, to enhance them)
Anticonvulsants (Lamotrigine/Lamictal) (for enhancing effects, as above)
Lithium (used to treat [type 2] bipolar disorder and mood swings)
SNRIs (Cymbalta)
NRIs (Strattera) (for ADD, and as an enhancer)
NDRIs (Bupropion/Wellbutrin) (for ADD, and as an antidepressant, and as an enhancer)
Amphetamines (Adderal; this was exceptionally bad, especially in conjunction with Wellbutrin; it caused a psychotic panic attack) (for ADD and chronic fatigue)
Azapirones (Buspirone) (for anxiety)
Electro-convulsive therapy (A.K.A. ECT)
The treatment that I finally discovered, and convinced my doctor to do some research on (i.e. look up as much info as possible) involves increasing the amount of glutamate in the brain--which is now thought to be a more "direct" influence on depression than seratonin, etc.--at least in the "tough" cases. This was discovered as a result of some doctors noticing the use of the street drug, Ketamine, for self-treatment of depression. (Ketamine has some serious/dangerous side effects, of course.) During trials, it was discovered that Ketamine (pain reliever), as well as Riluzole (used to treat Lou Gehrig's disease) and Scopolamine (for motion sickness and surgical nausea) were extremely effective in treating those with severe, "tough" cases of depression. Of the three, Scopolamine (as a transdermal
"As an added benefit, documenting your code makes it possible for people who didn't write the program to use it."
Yes, this seems obvious, but it's not. It's a Zen koan. Really. It's a well-known fact that koans are more fun to write and think about than documentation.
Dance with the pinch pine blossom.
Article summarised: "Thinking about what you write produces better results than not."
Someone mod up parent. :-)
Google's always been awful about not checking its ads for malware, so I see this as no big surprise. In my experience, the text links at the top of my Gmail page have been about 95% scam and malware sites, akin to the stuff I find in my spam box. (I've since installed a browser extension to disable such ads.) Google has thus shown a previous utter disregard for ensuring the sanitation of their profit centers, so I fully expect this new "app store" (no, I don't care that it's called "Google Play;" I'll call a spade a spade, thank you very much) will be much the same until Google gets sued or some such. (In other news, I seem to recall them being sued in Australia or the EU for their fraudulent ads.)
I hope we've learned a few things over the last several decades about just how much we can trust the word of a business, when it may, at some point, decide that it's more profitable to break some promises. I doubt we've learned thoroughly enough, but here's hoping...
I'm not sure if anyone else has taken note of this, but this paradox has been seriously re-visited concerning modern technology in the fairly recent past, near the beginning of the rise of computers in the 20th century.
When sewing machines, vacuum cleaners, toasters, microwave ovens, frozen meals, etc. became popular and readily available in the 1950s, the overwhelming assumption was that homemaking women would suddenly find themselves bored, and with nothing to do. The assumption was that the great efficiency with which housekeeping tasks could now be done would mean that the women would do what they always did in 1/2 the time, then spend the rest of the time without anything to do. What actually happened, however, was exactly the opposite.
Suddenly, the level of housekeeping that was expected went way up! The homemakers didn't do their normal duties and then stop; they made the homes more spotless and perfect than had ever been practical before, thanks to these wonderful new technologies. Now, instead of being bored, homemakers were running themselves ragged (partly at the behest of others and the new culture of perfection).
This is exactly what's been happening to everyone over the past 20 years or so, thanks to computing. It makes us work harder and faster, and runs us ragged. Likewise, increased efficiency means increased demand (since my work will undoubtedly require support from some other person, business, or industry--such as webhosting or tech support), so for every person/business/industry that does more, somebody else also has to do more. It's not just our computer hardware that's about to hit a wall; the stamina of human beings is already nearly there. (Parts of Asia have had some major problems with this in the last 20 years, what with kids going bald from stress, workers committing suicide because they can't meet demand, etc.) I strongly suspect that this increased pace of life is also a major contributor to the increasing pandemic of mental health disease (more research required to verify).
While this technological "wall" is certainly something to take notice of, it's really just a "second fiddle" to how we, as biological creatures of limited capacity, will soon find ourselves saying (at the behest of our minds and bodies), "enough!" Personally, I look forward to that particular outbreak of common sense. While I love computers and the marvels they make possible, I absolutely hate how we've allowed our technology to rule us, instead of the other way around.
Since when does a conservative news outlet FIRE it's racists? The recent trend is to give them lots of money and publicity.
The Commission for Shakespearean Literature thanks Aix-Marseille University for its contribution towards re-creating some of Shakespeare's lost works. We look forward to your effort in producing a line of typographical input devices, such as would be more ergonomically suitable for this work.
Please accept this anti-lice shampoo as a token of our gratitude.
Even as a white supremacist would get this jury hung (probably by way of arguing against an innocent verdict, against any reason, I think), it's just as likely that what I'll term a "non-white supremacist" will do the same thing. In fact, given the current political climate, I think it's much more likely. I'm sure it's utterly socially/politically incorrect to claim that a person of color can be just as racist as a KKK member (perhaps with less leverage in the lynching department, but with more leverage in the getting-hired-without-credentials department), but in my experience, it's extremely common; they just have less sway among traditionalists, and more among non-traditionalists. I really hate that this sounds like I'm agreeing with hate-mongering jerks like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, but monkeys speaking into a microphone will eventually say something intelligent--if only by (semi-)random chance.
It's really tempting to post this as Anonymous Coward, but for now, I choose to delude myself into thinking that most people will respect my ticking-off extremists from both "sides of the isle."
Anyway, while I'm certain that Zimmerman does, in fact, need to be tried for murder (of some degree), I see this, like some of you seem to, as the start of the next OJ Simpson trial. Hopefully this'll be shorter and a little less idiotic.
*runs for cover*
...caveat emptor.
I think that this whole discussion could be summarized with those words; since there's no (legal) accountability, it's all up to how much you care to risk, and how much you trust the folks receiving your money.
The instructions above (in the parent comment), from the site, are quite apt, of course, so if you aren't going to fund an already-established-and-reputable project, they're probably the best you'll do for a "guarantee" of sorts.
In the very least, it's been proven (as well as anything with regard to video games, I suppose) that playing games that involve stressful and/or traumatic situations desensitizes the players to such situations. It's been noted by military professionals (I don't remember where I saw the quote) that they've had problems with soldiers wanting to just charge out and "Call of Duty" the bad guys--which is, of course, likely to end badly.
On the other hand, teaching medics to handle seeing lots of blood/death/danger without freaking out is (ostensibly, anyway) a rather useful thing to accomplish. This is likely to result in a more rational thought process while in the tense situation, rather than relying on the "wildcard" of whether a first responder will be able to keep his cool, based on personality and past experiences, alone. In more common terms, it'll probably make "green recruits" essentially less "green."
Thanks for the enlightening "sip from the fire hose," Forever Wondering. I appreciate the explanation.
OK, I see. Thanks for the clarification. (Why post such an intelligent remark as Anonymous Coward?) This being an issue concerned only with shared resources seems to make the lack of concurrent interaction less of an issue, but as with your family/bathroom analogy, it will (predictably) become a major problem as the number of cores/processors in a system continues to increase.
So, while I yet wonder why this hasn't already been thought-of and solved, I can see that it hasn't been a place that a (typically short-sighted) company would have invested much R&D into, as of yet. I wonder if some independent technology firm has already come up with a solution that will soon be purchased by Intel or AMD. I see another patent battle coming...
Intelligent people that actually have the wisdom to see things as they are do not fit well in this world, they are too rare. Intelligent ones are already rare, but typically lack that wisdom. Still, there are niches out there. It just takes a bit longer to find them and may take a bit of luck. Just don't do anything conventional unless you can compensate strongly with something you like doing. It may kill you otherwise.
gweihir, I can't agree more about this (especially about the difference between, and rare combination of, extraordinary wisdom and intelligence). Though it probably sounds arrogant or similar to say as much, the description above is the camp that I perpetually find myself in. I've spent most of my professional life in the abyssal industry of computer repair (because I was really, really good at it, and because it /used to be/ my hobby), until the continual stress and under-appreciation of the industry (plus the rampant incompetence of most therein) drove my otherwise somewhat manageable fibromyalgia into a disabling state. Now, regrettably, I'm stuck either starving or accepting Social Security benefits. :-(
I know (as much as anyone can) that I can offer a lot to this world in the areas of combining disciplines (philosophy, psychology, sociology, science/technology, writing/language, etc.), but the processes required to offer such a contribution involve asinine academia (which I lost patience and respect for mid-way through college), and the "sycophantic meritocracy" (i.e. those who best stroke the ego of the boss get promoted) of the business world--neither of which are anywhere near apt platforms for launching visionary ideas in anything but the extremely short(-sighted) term. If I could find a platform to learn and present ideas to an intelligent and powerful audience, things would probably be very different for me.
Of course, I might also simply be deluded. :-)
In any case, I've put a lot of thought into the broken hierarchical model of discovery/innovation (i.e. one thing builds directly upon its parent, and in no case does somebody venture into truly uncharted territory with a brilliant epiphany), as well as the normal means of funding it, and have developed the opinion that so long as academia and business, in their current incarnations, are permitted to drive the evolution of humanity (in practical terms, not biological ones--at least, not directly), we're doomed to perpetual mediocrity and governance by buffoons.
It's pretty well known that Thomas Edison (a personal hero to me) said some insightful things about invention:
"Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration."
and
(perhaps quoting another) "Necessity is the mother of invention."
Thus, one must first find a problem that needs solving, grasp hold of that imp called, "inspiration," and expend a lot of effort making that inspiration happen. I find that our (that is, current society's) process of innovation is road-blocked...
1) At finding necessity. Most truly essential things have already been invented. Those that don't yet exist are locked in debate over whether they're needed. (Air pollution and energy concerns are examples of majorly roadblocked areas of study, for this and other reasons.)
2) At finding inspiration. If we rely exclusively upon previous discoveries to give us new and brilliant ones, it'll take a VERY long time to get to anything that remotely qualifies as "brilliant." Both Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein (another personal hero) were both flunked from (elementary) school for asking too many questions and thinking about the material in non-standard ways. I see this as evidence of an enduring systemic problem. Additionally, Thomas Edison (and perhaps, to a lesser degree, Albert Einstein) were plagued by spotty employment, owing to the propensity to "insult" their respective "superiors" and spurn the established way of doing things.
3) At a
I don't know if air pollution normally exists as a department, but it did at UC Riverside until about 1995, with my father was the department head.
You're probably correct to suspect that there's more to the story; I can't honestly say that I know the whole story, because I was only 13 at the time (though I've been told a fair bit about it). I can note, however, that my father was getting regular media attention on PBS and various news networks--which may or may not have had anything to do with it. If this was, indeed, a strictly political maneuver (shutting down the department), then this would be added incentive; if not, then it may not be relevant at all. Knowing my father (and my own, similar temperament), he was probably vocal in support of his work/findings (particularly anything of unusually large implications or usefulness), and I sincerely doubt that he would have been any less vocal if it happened to tick-off somebody powerful. Since then, his findings have resulted in cases being brought to the US Federal Supreme Court (whereat they won favorable verdicts), simply because he refused to let his findings "slide." (Please note that such cases were the results of his work, not the intent thereof.)
Beetle B. is correct in his assumption that he was not fired (and I think that you're correct to assume that he had tenure); the department was shut-down. I've always wondered if they've since re-formed some kind of air pollution research group, and it would seem that they have since (according to the parent comment). This, of course, supports the notion that the closure of the department was strictly political, rather than meritorious.
I admit that despite being a technical user, I was not aware that only 2 chips are allowed to "talk" at a given time. I had (erroneously, it would seem) assumed that in order for a 3+-core chip to be fully useful, such a switch/router would have to already be in place.
So, have Intel, AMD, and others simply tricked us into thinking that a 3+-core chip can actively use all its cores at once (as is the natural assumption), or am I misinterpreting something? If they have, why on earth didn't they include a "router" in the original designs? It seems entirely too obvious for the eggheads in R&D to have missed (or so one would think, anyway). I'm sure there are technical hurdles to overcome, but unless that can be managed, what is really the point of many-core CPUs that can't have all cores acting at once?
I went looking on the 'Net for a link to my favorite paper airplane design, so that I could post it here. To my mild surprise, I couldn't find one. Since this is a rather unusual paper airplane that I learned to make at my local elementary school (about 20 years ago--does that make me old?), I decided that I should preserve it in a blog post for posterity.
Below is a link to the post, with pictures of the various steps, as well as the finished product. It should be noted that this planes is not good for distance, but rather for really neat flying patterns. I hope you enjoy it.
http://danemutters.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/cool-paper-airplane-design/
This is one of the best things I have read in a long time.
I cannot possibly endorse this more.
Thanks! Every once in a while I say something useful, it seems. ;-)
While I can't provide much specific information, I can tell you some general advice.
Background: My father is an internationally prominent plant scientist and former air pollution researcher. He's also worked at several universities in important positions (department head, etc.). One things that he's mentioned repeatedly (if not often) is the fanatical importance that most scientists and university personnel seem to place upon what's "accepted." Bluntly, this is a pretty blatant problem of inflated egos (endemic to universities and such, in general), but highly educated people are also quite good at pretending they're being rational, rather than emotional about decision-making. The essence of the problem is that if you come up with an idea that's contrary to the current "status quot" belief, and if you promote it shamelessly (as you should), you'll prick the egos of others and be ostracized, criticized, and (if possible) discredited. Furthermore, the success of a scientist seems to be about 40% skill/talent and about 60% political adeptness. Of course, an ethical and self-aware scientist will put away his pride and fear and publish good work regardless of what others think--and sometimes that will pay off in the end. Below is how it might do so.
I can't provide specific examples of theory-based conflict off the top of my head, but I can illustrate the power of politics (i.e. university politics, scientific community politics, etc.) in science by noting that because my father was able to obtain more grant money than his superiors at UC Riverside, the university decided to close down the department that he headed: the air pollution research department. Of course, this meant a prolonged job hunt and a big move for my dad and his family (including me). (UC Riverside's leaders thereby got rid of the "troublemaker.") If you aren't aware, Riverside is about 60 miles outside of LA and obviously has air quality problems to rival nearly anywhere else. A lesson to be learned from this is that no matter how good a scientist you are, and no matter how good you are at procuring what you need to do good work, ultimately it's the ego of those who provide you with land, labor, and capital that will determine how successful you are. Therefore, it's proven extremely important to foster good will amongst those who can help you do good science. The ethical way to do this (as far as it's been demonstrated to me) is to use your science to help people with real-world problems as much as possible, and show others that helping you is in THEIR best interests.
My dad now works as a farm adviser (associated with UC Davis), and it's proven very useful to go out of his way to help his "client base" (farmers, primarily) see the value of what he does by helping them to increase their production, and thereby their personal wealth. Essentially, it's good to do a good job, but it's better to "go the extra mile" to bring your good work to those who can make profitable use of it. This strategy has seen my father summoned (from the US where he lives) to China, Italy, Chile, Brasil, Uruguay, Japan, and probably others that I don't recall. By inventing means to help farmers grow their crops cheaper and more reliably (including new methods of testing for nitrogen levels without a mass spectrometer), he's made himself indispensable to the industries and institutions (universities, etc.) that he serves. It hasn't made him "rich," but it has given him job security and a good living for his family.
So, the bottom line here is something like:
Do the best possible work you can, but make sure it's actively helping people who need it. That way, when you annoy the scientific community or your academic "superiors," you'll already have people to guard against you being politically maneuvered out of position, since losing you will also cost them money and other resources. Science for the sake of science is good and useful (eventually), but in order to keep it up, you have to provide others with very good reason to help you keep at it.
I hope that helps.
--Dane
So...if you make inflammatory comments against fraudsters, does that mean you're...(wait for it)
Trolling for phishers? Would that now be considered poaching?
Who says they have to use visible light? A UV laser would be especially nasty, both because you can't see it, and because even the non-focused "bleed off" will be deadly to living organisms (depending on the type of UV, presumably). I don't know whether this is an ideal frequency for avoiding refraction, etc., but just going to wickedlasers.com will demonstrate that higher-frequency lasers can be darned powerful. Of course, if high-frequency isn't the way to go, you could go infra-red, instead.
This could be "traced" by specially-designed sensor hardware (i.e. that can see outside the human-visible spectrum), but you'd still have to have these sensors pointed in every conceivable direction of incoming attack in order for them to be truly effective. Of course, anything sensitive enough to trace such a laser without being directly hit will get utterly fried if a hit does happen nearby (even if it's not a hit to the sensors, themselves).
Overall, I think that with a little cleverness, it'll be highly impractical to trace a laser "blast" much better than one traces phosphorous-burning bullets now.