To investigate how the brain performs this sleight of hand, a team led by neuroscientist Giacomo Rizzolatti of the University of Parma in Italy recorded brain activity in two macaque monkeys. I wonder if the researchers' brains thought the tools they were using to measure the monkey's brain (to test the hypothesis that the monkey used the pliers as an extension of its body) was also an extension of their own bodies. If so, they could also hook up another machine to their own brains where that second machine could also then measure itself AND the first machine being considered by the researchers' brains as an extension of the researchers' bodies. The data would be absolute nonsense, but man, could that make for a good Charlie Kaufman screenplay.
Finally! Someone who seems to have actually read the linked article. The article is so ironically incoherent is it basically comical. It doesn't really seem like the right multi-stasking article for slashdot. I can't tell what the author is trying to do: 1) unintentionally writing a totally incoherent article about how odd and incoherent multi-asking makes you; 2) is consciously holding himself up in some amusing and "clever" way as the very problem he is describing ("hey, look at what happened to my formerly clear writing style after I started multi-tasking"); or 3) thinks he is actually writing a solid, but stylized, coherent article on his selected thesis thus playing the role of the tragic counter example ("if you stop multi-tasking, you too can be smart and coherent like me"). Unfortunately, he sounds like he is trying too desperately to do all at the same, which is really awkward. At least Neal Stephenson would make it clear (in his interesting, murky way) that he was being ironic.
Well stated. There is also a strange psychological element to "free" that I don't totally understand, but buy into -- no pun intended -- regularly myself (and I'm a "free content" kind of guy). If some product is offered substantially lower than what I mentally regard (albeit by market training) as a "fair price", I instantly become skeptical of the product. My first thought is "what is the catch?" or "this must be crap." This is something I bet most consumers do unconsciously, even other ardent "free content" slashdotters like myself. Reminds me a bit of the old "want to haggle?" bit from Life of Brian. But, in my experience, this is a real tacit effect in consumer transactions. I'm guessing it comes from the retail world where, in some ways, quality and price are often (not always!) strongly correlated; you frequently do get what you pay for and it is hard to shake this training.
Label-free production isn't a new thing -- we're probably at least a decade into the era where anybody could pick up the basic tools to produce an acceptable quality album for less than $3000, and really, that would have even bought you enough time in some conventional studios to have them do it. You make some great points. However, back in the 80s we did all sorts of label-free production on 2, 4, and 8 tracks (magnetic media) which we could distribute (in a grass roots sort of way) on our own with very modest budgets. I know what you are going to say: "but they all sounded like crap." But they really didn't sound that bad. Even in our living room, we put a lot of energy into the mechanics of placing microphones and other modest production details. The results were often quite good. I do some home recording now, using fancier gear than the 80s, so do appreciate your point that the average joe today can have almost the same sound quality as a pro studio. But those early tapes still sound surprisingly good (perhaps the ringing in my ears or nostalgia is masking the effect -- it is hard to tell the difference sometimes). Nevertheless, I maintain that label free music production has a fairly long history. A little TLC in production (and having reasonable material to begin with) goes a long way toward creating quality label-free products regardless of your gear .
Higgses...must be one of the ugliest plural forms I've recently encountered. The plural possessive in a Gollum accent is also quite a challenge: Higgseses'
*medic*
But there is an otherwise successful theoretical framework that predicts how gravity waves (if they exist) would be detected and LIGO is the amongst the first generation of detectors designed to probe that prediction. Its called "doing science." The alternative is just making stuff up and hoping it works -- and that's not what LIGO is doing. To the degree that you can "know" anything associated with an otherwise very successful theoretical framework, I think one can say confidently that LIGO can detect gravity waves of a certain type and amplitude generated within a certain distance of the detector.
You are right on, but you seem dismissive of the process, acting like this biological programming to protect the next iteration of your genes isn't important or powerful. Remember, by definition those are the genes who win and who are biologically successful. If you aren't implementing this programing yourself, you are in some sense a biological failure (no offense to you personally, I'm speaking from the point of view of a "selfish gene" -- for the record, I don't have any kids). Also, duping other to help protect your gene pool by getting them to think your own children are important is a very reasonably evolutionary strategy (perhaps even stable).
Guild discussion before a major raid as the team prepares to set their lander down on Titan:
Player1: 32.33--repeating of course--percentage of survival. Player 2: That's a lot better than we usually do. Player 3: Ok. Take'er down steady. Contact in 3, 2, --- Leroy: All right chums, let's do this with English Units! LEEROOOOY JENKINS! <lander strafes across the surface of Titan in a violent tumbling explosion, missing the landing zone by 62.137 km, killing everyone on the team> Player 1: Goddammit, Leeroy! Player 2: Leeroy, why do you do this shit? Leroy: It's not my fault. <awkward pause> At least I've got chicken.
You are pretty much assuming miracles can't happen. Sure, but with all due respect, you are shifting the burden of proof. Unless you are using a different definition of miracle than I used to, I'm not sure why I WOULD a priori assume miracles are possible. The burden of proof is not on me, but on the one claiming such extraordinary physical anomalies CAN happen. A person or a book just saying they happened in the past is not enough for me. If I told you I was a time traveler from the future, I'm pretty sure you would probably (rightfully) not believe me without substantial evidence to back up my claim. Even if I could provide some apparently convincing evidence, you would probably still remain skeptical assuming it was some kind of trick until I really made a very strong case. Your first reaction would almost certainly not be to assume I was correct then leisurely look for evidence to the contrary later on. My attitude towards miracles is similar. Someone who thinks miracles are possible, and who wants me to believe them, has to convince me using strong evidence. Of course, I could be wrong and supernatural miracles do happen. However, I am in no way obligated to assume they are possible since they are, practically by definition, outside of ordinary physical law and experience. I try and apply the same standards to things a lot less out-of-the-ordinary than miracles (most people do, actually). If someone does believe in miracles without evidence and miracles turn out to be true, they will basically be correct by sheer luck since they had no logical or reasonable reason to believe in them in the first place.
Sure, but there are degrees of coherence here. Just because no one has a completely consistent and coherent set of beliefs does not mean all sets of personal beliefs are equally coherent. For example, someone who believes in a virgin birth and a resurrection, but who is also a engineer or scientist trained to look at evidence, probably has a lot more cognitive dissonance and partitioning going on in their brain than the typical person. Similarly, a scientist who at least attempts to adopt only beliefs which can be supported directly with physical evidence may not totally succeed because non-evidence-based beliefs are often required in daily life to simply function. Nevertheless, they probably have a reasonably consistent world view with a lot less superlative fluff to fill in their knowledge gaps.
This is a great line of inquiry and I certainly enjoy reading about such things, but wasn't the technical end of this "what if" scenario mapped out pretty extensively back in the 90s when the extrasolar planets started being detected? I'd be surprised if researchers are only just now getting around to asking cute generic "how could we directly detect earth-like planets by thinking like an alien measuring earth" brainstorming questions.
The Mac platform, they argue, is more secure because there are fewer attacks against OS X than Windows-based systems. Sure, at the moment, anyway. I'm sure we'll see a jump in general OSX-oriented attacks in proportion to the number of machines the US military decides to use. It will definitely increase the OS X attack cross section. Nevertheless, it still sounds like a good strategy on their part to diversify.
...to 4,568 million years ago, within a range of about 2,080,000 years.
Similarly, I've discovered my birthday to be defined as subsequent to July. At a glance it might seem like a crude measurement, but its really about 4 parts in 10000, which is really quite good. This would be like knowing your birthday to within 4 hours during the year (better than I know my own birthday off the top of my head, to be honest).
I wonder if there have ever been any research on whether self proclaimed audiophiles REALLY have magical hearing. I personally suspect they are just hearing the sub-harmonics of poorly anchored dental work (or other loose elements in their skull).
It's hard to find a specific program, and when you are looking for a program to do a specific task, you have no idea how to find it. So true. Like many windows users in their day, I simply resort to cluttering up my desktop with aliases to all the programs I use. It is super disorganized, but is still easier to navigate than the dreaded Start Menu. I regularly use windows, mac, and linux -- but mac is by far the easiest and must fun to deal with on a daily basis.
update: 12/17 20:09 by SM One of the school officials was nice enough to contact us and let us know this is a hoax. If you are planning on calling the school please refrain from doing so, I'm sure they have had enough excitement for one day. From the school letter: Recently, a file was uploaded to the Internet purporting to be a copy of a letter from Big Spring High School to a student regarding a two hour detention. The uploaded letter was an altered version of a detention letter sent to a student. Unfortunately, privacy concerns prevent the School District from giving a full explanation of the nature and source of the letter's alteration at this time. The Big Spring School District does have confirmation that the discipline letter was altered Hoax disciple letter: "...had a program launched called Firefox.exe..."
Original discipline letter: "...was browsing slashdot with Firefox."
Ah, now we are getting to the nub of it. But, of course, as we all know, this is actually perfect training for the real world.
being a responsible whistleblower and a fud engine. Wikileaks seem to ride that line pretty damn closely sometimes. I wonder if wikileaks has ever edited their own wikipedia page?
From TFA:
This is the American government speaking to the American people and to the world through Wikipedia, not identifying itself and often speaking about itself in the third person If a wikipedia edit comes from an IP address from Guantanamo Bay, does it necessarily follow that the edit is "American government speaking to the American people?" I'm not so sure. It seems like most of these edits didn't fall within wikipedia's guidelines anyway and would be quickly reverted or changed by any one of thousands of other rabid editors on wikipedia. For this reason, wikipedia is not a good propaganda engine. But if the information provided from Guantanamo fits within the wikipedia guidelines (some of then changes actually did) then fair is fair.
The mathematical study of this process could be potentially quite interesting, analogous to the study of critical points and phase transitions in statistical physics. By systematically studying the rise and decline of stable structures in online communities like guilds it could give some insight into a real life version of psychohistory. Indeed, these online groups are microcosms for the real world, but where certain parameters could be controlled and studied. Unfortunately, this article has nothing to do with that and simply seems to be a personal lament about how sometimes online guilds fall apart. It is a bummer for many-a-gamer, but not exactly groundbreaking stuff here.
Time scales are a problem, but so is power. Although we have been broadcasting radio and TV signals from earth for a while, the signal power at any meaningful distance scale is really, really small. From wikipedia (in turn summarized from the SETI FAQ): "SETI estimates, for instance, that with a radio telescope as sensitive as the Arecibo Observatory, Earth's television and radio broadcasts would only be detectable at distances up to 0.3 light years. Clearly detecting an Earth type civilization at great distances is difficult." Keep in mind that 0.3 light years isn't even out of the Oort cloud of our own solar system. For this reason, the idea that all of our embarrassing TV and radio shows will be our first ambassadors to the stars is a little far fetched. In the movie Contact, Sagan uses this for good dramatic effect to imply that the 1936 games in Berlin would be the first meaningful signal detected by aliens from earth.
Although the guy in the article doesn't eliminate the time scale problem, he is at least directing his signals at targets using rather high signal power. If anything is out there to here is, it will be via a mechanism like this.
We've already violated the prime directive by sending porn and rock music into space with the Voyager and Pioneer messages respectively. Should an advanced alien civilization find and decode the Pioneer golden record, their biggest worry would be to be sued by the RIAA for illegally downloading Johnny B. Goode.
Slashdot Mirror
Finally! Someone who seems to have actually read the linked article. The article is so ironically incoherent is it basically comical. It doesn't really seem like the right multi-stasking article for slashdot. I can't tell what the author is trying to do: 1) unintentionally writing a totally incoherent article about how odd and incoherent multi-asking makes you; 2) is consciously holding himself up in some amusing and "clever" way as the very problem he is describing ("hey, look at what happened to my formerly clear writing style after I started multi-tasking"); or 3) thinks he is actually writing a solid, but stylized, coherent article on his selected thesis thus playing the role of the tragic counter example ("if you stop multi-tasking, you too can be smart and coherent like me"). Unfortunately, he sounds like he is trying too desperately to do all at the same, which is really awkward. At least Neal Stephenson would make it clear (in his interesting, murky way) that he was being ironic.
Well stated. There is also a strange psychological element to "free" that I don't totally understand, but buy into -- no pun intended -- regularly myself (and I'm a "free content" kind of guy). If some product is offered substantially lower than what I mentally regard (albeit by market training) as a "fair price", I instantly become skeptical of the product. My first thought is "what is the catch?" or "this must be crap." This is something I bet most consumers do unconsciously, even other ardent "free content" slashdotters like myself. Reminds me a bit of the old "want to haggle?" bit from Life of Brian. But, in my experience, this is a real tacit effect in consumer transactions. I'm guessing it comes from the retail world where, in some ways, quality and price are often (not always!) strongly correlated; you frequently do get what you pay for and it is hard to shake this training.
*medic*
But there is an otherwise successful theoretical framework that predicts how gravity waves (if they exist) would be detected and LIGO is the amongst the first generation of detectors designed to probe that prediction. Its called "doing science." The alternative is just making stuff up and hoping it works -- and that's not what LIGO is doing. To the degree that you can "know" anything associated with an otherwise very successful theoretical framework, I think one can say confidently that LIGO can detect gravity waves of a certain type and amplitude generated within a certain distance of the detector.
You are right on, but you seem dismissive of the process, acting like this biological programming to protect the next iteration of your genes isn't important or powerful. Remember, by definition those are the genes who win and who are biologically successful. If you aren't implementing this programing yourself, you are in some sense a biological failure (no offense to you personally, I'm speaking from the point of view of a "selfish gene" -- for the record, I don't have any kids). Also, duping other to help protect your gene pool by getting them to think your own children are important is a very reasonably evolutionary strategy (perhaps even stable).
2^31 is the max amount of copper, not gold.
I think the "oo" trumps the "k" in this case.
Sure, but there are degrees of coherence here. Just because no one has a completely consistent and coherent set of beliefs does not mean all sets of personal beliefs are equally coherent. For example, someone who believes in a virgin birth and a resurrection, but who is also a engineer or scientist trained to look at evidence, probably has a lot more cognitive dissonance and partitioning going on in their brain than the typical person. Similarly, a scientist who at least attempts to adopt only beliefs which can be supported directly with physical evidence may not totally succeed because non-evidence-based beliefs are often required in daily life to simply function. Nevertheless, they probably have a reasonably consistent world view with a lot less superlative fluff to fill in their knowledge gaps.
Ouch. That's what happens to your html skills when you view too many myspace pages in one day.
This is a great line of inquiry and I certainly enjoy reading about such things, but wasn't the technical end of this "what if" scenario mapped out pretty extensively back in the 90s when the extrasolar planets started being detected? I'd be surprised if researchers are only just now getting around to asking cute generic "how could we directly detect earth-like planets by thinking like an alien measuring earth" brainstorming questions.
Similarly, I've discovered my birthday to be defined as subsequent to July.
At a glance it might seem like a crude measurement, but its really about 4 parts in 10000, which is really quite good. This would be like knowing your birthday to within 4 hours during the year (better than I know my own birthday off the top of my head, to be honest).
Original discipline letter: "...was browsing slashdot with Firefox."
Ah, now we are getting to the nub of it. But, of course, as we all know, this is actually perfect training for the real world.
This is the American government speaking to the American people and to the world through Wikipedia, not identifying itself and often speaking about itself in the third person If a wikipedia edit comes from an IP address from Guantanamo Bay, does it necessarily follow that the edit is "American government speaking to the American people?" I'm not so sure. It seems like most of these edits didn't fall within wikipedia's guidelines anyway and would be quickly reverted or changed by any one of thousands of other rabid editors on wikipedia. For this reason, wikipedia is not a good propaganda engine. But if the information provided from Guantanamo fits within the wikipedia guidelines (some of then changes actually did) then fair is fair.From TFA:
The mathematical study of this process could be potentially quite interesting, analogous to the study of critical points and phase transitions in statistical physics. By systematically studying the rise and decline of stable structures in online communities like guilds it could give some insight into a real life version of psychohistory. Indeed, these online groups are microcosms for the real world, but where certain parameters could be controlled and studied. Unfortunately, this article has nothing to do with that and simply seems to be a personal lament about how sometimes online guilds fall apart. It is a bummer for many-a-gamer, but not exactly groundbreaking stuff here.
Time scales are a problem, but so is power. Although we have been broadcasting radio and TV signals from earth for a while, the signal power at any meaningful distance scale is really, really small. From wikipedia (in turn summarized from the SETI FAQ): "SETI estimates, for instance, that with a radio telescope as sensitive as the Arecibo Observatory, Earth's television and radio broadcasts would only be detectable at distances up to 0.3 light years. Clearly detecting an Earth type civilization at great distances is difficult." Keep in mind that 0.3 light years isn't even out of the Oort cloud of our own solar system. For this reason, the idea that all of our embarrassing TV and radio shows will be our first ambassadors to the stars is a little far fetched. In the movie Contact, Sagan uses this for good dramatic effect to imply that the 1936 games in Berlin would be the first meaningful signal detected by aliens from earth. Although the guy in the article doesn't eliminate the time scale problem, he is at least directing his signals at targets using rather high signal power. If anything is out there to here is, it will be via a mechanism like this.
We've already violated the prime directive by sending porn and rock music into space with the Voyager and Pioneer messages respectively. Should an advanced alien civilization find and decode the Pioneer golden record, their biggest worry would be to be sued by the RIAA for illegally downloading Johnny B. Goode.