The thing about RSS is that it's a lot easier to check a whole heap of sites with the click of one button than it is to keep accessing each one individually. Ergo, people check sites more often, and bandwidth consumption is higher. Presumably above a certain threshold of users, more bandwidth is being consumed by the frequent checks than was used on sporadic non-RSS checks.
This is what businesses do: they attempt to gain control of as many markets as possible, and it's becoming clear that blogging is a new market. Argue against the quality of the software, point out that Microsoft seems to be lacking in innovative new ideas, argue that people really shouldn't try to make money from the internet, claim that customers might get better products by having companies specialise in providing only a few really good services rather than having fingers in thousands of pies, but don't bitch against Microsoft for doing what profit-making companies try to do, which is be involved in whole markets as the best way to get rid of competition and therefore the best way to make money.
if users know it's based on Firefox.
How many users will bother to only toggle into IE mode to get at certain sites? They'll just leave it in IE mode all the time (or not even be aware it's a special mode), get crap-full of viruses, and assume Firefox is no more secure than IE. If they only know it as Netscape they'll assume Netscape is as bad as IE, and they'll be less likely to believe hype about non-IE browsers as more secure. The only hope is if they don't associate Netscape and Firefox and just assume it's Netscape being as crap as it used to.
Do you never think when asked to tell the truth? This was a simple test where people knew what was true and what was false. What if you're asked to recall details of an incident 6 months ago? Are you not piecing together information, reconstructing the memory from other snippets you know, retrieving long-buried information? While it may be true that fMRI can detect lies, I'm sceptical of the "common sense" explanation that you have to work more to lie.
Furthermore, what about people who believe they have some guilt, but actually don't, say in the case of a death where they're not sure about suicide or murder. Do not the nearest and dearest of a suicide often blame themselves? What if they're asked whether they were responsible for their loved one's death? They might answer yes, even if they were not responsible in the case in question. You can pick holes in that example, but the point is that the whole issue becomes messy when one recalls that people have beliefs and interpretations of situations, and that will significantly affect their answers.
Additional point: I have 6 gmail invites, but out of all my email contacts, I can't think of anyone who would need one. I bet I'm not the only one in that position either, as on mailing lists and bulletin boards I keep seeing people say "I have Gmail invites to give away". If they knew anybody who would like one, wouldn't they have invited them already?
Business model aside, isn't the market pretty well saturated? I have a university address which uses my real name and is my rl address. When I graduate I get a grad address which will probably take on the same functionality.
I have a yahoo account which I've held for the last five years with which I sign up to things that I reasonably trust but don't want to use my real name for. In particular I use it for newsletters.
Then I have a dozen or so throw away accounts created for just one purpose, or for companies I don't trust at all.
I don't *need* another account, and I have no reason to switch. I have a Gmail account, but no use for it. Yes, the searching would be quite nice, and so would decent spam filtering, but it's not enough to sway me off the other two.
Most novices online will use their service-provided address. Maybe Gmail will grab their webmail accounts when they spread out, but these are less likely to be primary addresses. Most people who've been around a few months already have plenty of email addresses, and from my experience it takes a heck of a good reason to change.
In short, the way I see it there are six questions you can ask about stuff that happens: Who, what, where, when, how and why. The first five are the domain of science. The last is not, because it requires that there are alternative possibilities, and as we all know, nature doesn't cheat.
You can ask "why", but you have to limit what you will consider as an answer. As I understand it, science is founded on the question "why?". You observe some facts, and then you ask why they should be true:
Why, if I drop this book does it fall to the ground?
Why do children often look like their parents?
Why, if I combine x with y does it go bang?
You then come up with some hypotheses which people argue about and test and, if you're lucky, accept as facts. Then you ask "why" to those facts. Each set of "facts" represents an underlying truth.
In fact, the scientific method is most frequently a test of a hypothesised answer to "why". Yes, studies will often deal with a "when" or "who", but this is part of establishing our set of facts to explain.
Not a video game, but the MMORPG Kingdom of loathing does pretty well for humour. Although there are plenty of other attractions, I suspect that's the main thing for most beginning players.
Yes, but Pinker and Chomsky disagree on various areas in linguistics. Furthermore, there are many other cognitive scientists doing work on language which Chomsky dismisses as "mistaken in principle" or doesn't bother to mention.
You have a point.:) And some of his stuff is NOT for the layman. I think "Ideas and Ideals" is a good general introduction.
I'm not sure - remember that for Chomsky it's not a question of innate predispositions for certain language structures but instead that we are hardwired with certain principles and parameters, at least with regard to syntax. Furthermore, it is argued that it is acquired through a domain specific process. In Chomskyan grammar statistics aren't important - it's key trigger experiences which tell you what is underlyingly there that matter.
Now Kuhl is talking about phonology which is significantly different from syntax, but her article is all about statistics. Furthermore, it's a domain independent learning process with no hardwiring necessary. At most you'd be dealing with an innate disposition to pay attention to certain types of sensory input.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing about RSS is that it's a lot easier to check a whole heap of sites with the click of one button than it is to keep accessing each one individually. Ergo, people check sites more often, and bandwidth consumption is higher. Presumably above a certain threshold of users, more bandwidth is being consumed by the frequent checks than was used on sporadic non-RSS checks.
This is what businesses do: they attempt to gain control of as many markets as possible, and it's becoming clear that blogging is a new market. Argue against the quality of the software, point out that Microsoft seems to be lacking in innovative new ideas, argue that people really shouldn't try to make money from the internet, claim that customers might get better products by having companies specialise in providing only a few really good services rather than having fingers in thousands of pies, but don't bitch against Microsoft for doing what profit-making companies try to do, which is be involved in whole markets as the best way to get rid of competition and therefore the best way to make money.
if users know it's based on Firefox. How many users will bother to only toggle into IE mode to get at certain sites? They'll just leave it in IE mode all the time (or not even be aware it's a special mode), get crap-full of viruses, and assume Firefox is no more secure than IE. If they only know it as Netscape they'll assume Netscape is as bad as IE, and they'll be less likely to believe hype about non-IE browsers as more secure. The only hope is if they don't associate Netscape and Firefox and just assume it's Netscape being as crap as it used to.
Do you never think when asked to tell the truth? This was a simple test where people knew what was true and what was false. What if you're asked to recall details of an incident 6 months ago? Are you not piecing together information, reconstructing the memory from other snippets you know, retrieving long-buried information? While it may be true that fMRI can detect lies, I'm sceptical of the "common sense" explanation that you have to work more to lie. Furthermore, what about people who believe they have some guilt, but actually don't, say in the case of a death where they're not sure about suicide or murder. Do not the nearest and dearest of a suicide often blame themselves? What if they're asked whether they were responsible for their loved one's death? They might answer yes, even if they were not responsible in the case in question. You can pick holes in that example, but the point is that the whole issue becomes messy when one recalls that people have beliefs and interpretations of situations, and that will significantly affect their answers.
I actually like this, since when it works right, it saves me skimming through thirteen items to find the one I use all the time.
Additional point: I have 6 gmail invites, but out of all my email contacts, I can't think of anyone who would need one. I bet I'm not the only one in that position either, as on mailing lists and bulletin boards I keep seeing people say "I have Gmail invites to give away". If they knew anybody who would like one, wouldn't they have invited them already?
Business model aside, isn't the market pretty well saturated? I have a university address which uses my real name and is my rl address. When I graduate I get a grad address which will probably take on the same functionality. I have a yahoo account which I've held for the last five years with which I sign up to things that I reasonably trust but don't want to use my real name for. In particular I use it for newsletters. Then I have a dozen or so throw away accounts created for just one purpose, or for companies I don't trust at all. I don't *need* another account, and I have no reason to switch. I have a Gmail account, but no use for it. Yes, the searching would be quite nice, and so would decent spam filtering, but it's not enough to sway me off the other two. Most novices online will use their service-provided address. Maybe Gmail will grab their webmail accounts when they spread out, but these are less likely to be primary addresses. Most people who've been around a few months already have plenty of email addresses, and from my experience it takes a heck of a good reason to change.
Why, if I drop this book does it fall to the ground?
Why do children often look like their parents?
Why, if I combine x with y does it go bang?
You then come up with some hypotheses which people argue about and test and, if you're lucky, accept as facts. Then you ask "why" to those facts. Each set of "facts" represents an underlying truth.
In fact, the scientific method is most frequently a test of a hypothesised answer to "why". Yes, studies will often deal with a "when" or "who", but this is part of establishing our set of facts to explain.
Not a video game, but the MMORPG Kingdom of loathing does pretty well for humour. Although there are plenty of other attractions, I suspect that's the main thing for most beginning players.
Yes, but Pinker and Chomsky disagree on various areas in linguistics. Furthermore, there are many other cognitive scientists doing work on language which Chomsky dismisses as "mistaken in principle" or doesn't bother to mention.
You have a point. :) And some of his stuff is NOT for the layman. I think "Ideas and Ideals" is a good general introduction.
I'm not sure - remember that for Chomsky it's not a question of innate predispositions for certain language structures but instead that we are hardwired with certain principles and parameters, at least with regard to syntax. Furthermore, it is argued that it is acquired through a domain specific process. In Chomskyan grammar statistics aren't important - it's key trigger experiences which tell you what is underlyingly there that matter.
Now Kuhl is talking about phonology which is significantly different from syntax, but her article is all about statistics. Furthermore, it's a domain independent learning process with no hardwiring necessary. At most you'd be dealing with an innate disposition to pay attention to certain types of sensory input.