You obviously aren't fluent in editorese--I am, which means I have to reread the summary in order to notice the errors everyone else mentions--I am someimtes then suprised that I could extract any meaning at all!:p
mp3s and videos are hard to backup because of the size, but for very important files (i.e..doc, PDF, Bookmarks, etc.) which are nevertheless faily small, i find the best solution is to have copies on both my Tablet and my desktop, synced via Vice Versa (I tried many programs and this is the only one i found that syncs as soon as changes are deteceted)
Re:Read "The Pianist's Talent"
on
The Expert Mind
·
· Score: 1
Why on earth would you want to move the Windows key elsewhere? It's one of the modifier keys along with Shift, Alt, and CTRL--that's why there's two of them so you can conduct whatever CTRL+ALT+SHIFT+WIN+PRINTSCREEN command you defined in your program of choice. (you wouldn't believe how many key commands people use in something like Cubase)
And I hope every knows about Windows' own shortcuts: WIN+E, WIN+D, WIN+M, WIN+R, WIN+BREAK, WIN+L
Anyone know how to get the Control panel shortcut working that's only supposed to work for some special MS keyboards? (i think it's WIN+C ??)
Re:Read "The Pianist's Talent"
on
The Expert Mind
·
· Score: 1
what does your "Inner Game" reference refer to? A search on amazon reveals MANY books with "inner game" in the title...
i'm pretty sure hearing loss happens mainly through damage to the cochlea, not the ear drum. that's certainly where titinnus happens (that's why it's a specific frequency)
Here at the unviersity of Toronto, we have free access to streaming audio from the "Naxos Music Library" (www.naxosmusiclibrary.com), although it's not well publicized outside of the music dept.. I use this service a lot--why? because it has.. *drumroll*.. music that is HARD to find on bitorrent, shareaza, etc.! i haven't gotten around to deciding on a method of ripping the streams however;-)
What you are describing is the "Whorfian Hypothesis"--that Language determines thought--You might be interested to know that Steven Pinker attacks this hypothesis as totally false in "The Language Instinct".
I once read a game review where the reviewer essentially said "This game is a terrible experience, but at least it's long!"
Do you know what a loser is? Someone who doesn't have to read that sentence again a second time to make sure they didn't misread it.
The problem isn't that games make you work for things, the problem is that the *only* thing that motivates the 'work' is the reward at the end of it--the work itself has little intrinsic value. As you say, if there are no later rewards, the game lacks direction. The 'work' in a game needs to have *both* intrinsic and instrumental value. You need an enjoyable journey to a good place, not a tedious one.
Re:All fun and no work...
on
Just Let Me Play!
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
In Psychology this is called "Justification of Effort."
In one study, one group of subjects was paid ~$10 to push a button repeatedly for ~20 mins. Another group was paid ~$20 to push the button for the same amount of time. Both groups were then asked how 'enjoyable' the button-pressing was. The group that was paid less rated the activity as more enjoyable. (The idea is that they think "Why was i pressing this button? i wasn't paid well, so it must have been enjoyable!)
I'm currently a student in the Cognitive Science & AI program at the University of Toronto--for those of you who aren't familiar with Cognitive Science, it's the "Interdisciplinary Study of Cognition" and involves studies in Computer Science, Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology.
I have to say that, rather than putting some philosophy into computer science departments, or vice versa, there should be more focus on establishing good Cognitive Science departments, where students are encoraged to find the right mix of these diciplines for themselves. Before Cognitive Science got started (in the 70s), many of these fields worked in total isolation, and repeated mistakes that had already been made in the other fields. Sadly, the amount of communication between departments is still insufficient, and many students are unaware of the relevance of other subjects to their major.
Here's a story about Computer Science and Philosophy:
I once attempted to form a logic chatroom on Dalnet (i'm now content to idle in #logic on freenode... perhaps it will become a real logic channel soon), because people in the math chatrooms kickban people who discuss philosophy of mathematics or logic, and people in the philosophy chatrooms are generally not academics and know zilch about logic, preferring to rant about abortion.
I advertised the channel in a Computer Science logic class I was in, and at one point someone showed up to 'compare answers' (*yawn*... suprise, suprise). Anyway, they asked me why I created the channel, and I explained what I explained above, and that Logic is a subject which is relevant to a wide variety of disicplines, such as Linguistics, Computer Science, Mathematics, Psychology, and Philosophy.
And he said, "Wait, what would Philosophers need Logic for?"......
I responded, "Uhh, Aristotle, the Philosopher, *invented* Logic."
And his response was "... You have too much free time..."......
Make of this what you will, but my best analysis is that knowing about Java is work, but knowing about Aristotle is a passtime, because only the former will get you a job at Google? *sigh*
So yes, I'd love to see Computer Scientists forced to do some Philosophy;-)
Yes, i realize these 'natural' foods have been changing over time, but these have been gradual changes, and not sudden, qualitative, and therefore less predictable changes brought about by the introduction of a new compound, such as trans-fats, or MSG.
Years ago, Scientists thought trans-fats would be a healthy replacement for saturated fats, but they turned out to be substantially less healthy, because we didn't evolve in their presence, and consequently, the blood-brain barrier can't keep them out of the brain. (Which is a bad thing because they're a neurotoxin...)
Anyway, this sort of unpredictable effect wouldn't have occured with 'natural' foods.
As compared to the ridiculously small amount of chemicals that accumulate in "organic" food, perhaps? Everything material is "chemical", all matter is composed of chemical elements. It's ridiculous to assume that a chemical compound is automatically suspect of being dangerous if it was produced in a human factory instead of a plant or animal in nature.
Think of all the extremely toxic chemical compounds found in nature: snakes, spiders, scorpions, mushrooms, salmonella, botulism, anthrax. Think of curare, strychnine, nicotine, nature produces many toxins that are more dangerous than the most mortal chemical weapon of mass destruction man has invented.
This misses the point--there *is* an argument in favour of eating 'natural' foods: The effects of *anything* on the Human Body can be somewhat unpredictable. "Natural" foods are the ones that have been consumed by people for many, many generations, so that, if they *do* cause health problems, they won't cause any novel, unfamiliar health problems.
It's true that some 'natural foods' might nevertheless be bad for us--but we can assume that these communities would elminate any foods for which they had *evidence* that they were bad foods, so that, if we choose from natural foods, at least our chances are improved of eating healthy foods--we benefit from the trial and error of many generations of people eating food.
You're calling building a space elevator trivial? Damn, what do you consider hard?
Solving a problem that hasn't already been solved by someone else in the past, or which can't be solved by a simple analogy to an already solved problem.
your comments don't really apply to convertible models. the point is that pen input opens up additional possibilities, such as quick entry of mathematics and musical notation.
Slashdot Mirror
You could beat this easily with a dump-truck full of floppy disks... ok maybe DVDs...
You obviously aren't fluent in editorese--I am, which means I have to reread the summary in order to notice the errors everyone else mentions--I am someimtes then suprised that I could extract any meaning at all! :p
you mean you've never played SimEarth? It's the obvious comparison to Google Earth! ;-)
I've said it before: these figures can make sense if some of the work was duplicated. I.e. if 5% of the work got done twice.
Not to mention that the figures are qualified as approximations, and the estimates may come from different sources for each figure.
I would like to congratulate Slashdot on another impartial headline.
mp3s and videos are hard to backup because of the size, but for very important files (i.e. .doc, PDF, Bookmarks, etc.) which are nevertheless faily small, i find the best solution is to have copies on both my Tablet and my desktop, synced via Vice Versa (I tried many programs and this is the only one i found that syncs as soon as changes are deteceted)
www.innergame.com appears to be a cyber-squatter?
Yau said:
50% Hamilton
25% Perelman
30% Yau & Co.
=
105%
Clearly, 5% of the work was done twice...
Why on earth would you want to move the Windows key elsewhere? It's one of the modifier keys along with Shift, Alt, and CTRL--that's why there's two of them so you can conduct whatever CTRL+ALT+SHIFT+WIN+PRINTSCREEN command you defined in your program of choice. (you wouldn't believe how many key commands people use in something like Cubase)
And I hope every knows about Windows' own shortcuts: WIN+E, WIN+D, WIN+M, WIN+R, WIN+BREAK, WIN+L
Anyone know how to get the Control panel shortcut working that's only supposed to work for some special MS keyboards? (i think it's WIN+C ??)
what does your "Inner Game" reference refer to? A search on amazon reveals MANY books with "inner game" in the title...
Maybe they were underage? :)
That's cherries.
That's overage...
i'm pretty sure hearing loss happens mainly through damage to the cochlea, not the ear drum. that's certainly where titinnus happens (that's why it's a specific frequency)
Here at the unviersity of Toronto, we have free access to streaming audio from the "Naxos Music Library" (www.naxosmusiclibrary.com), although it's not well publicized outside of the music dept.. I use this service a lot--why? because it has.. *drumroll*.. music that is HARD to find on bitorrent, shareaza, etc.! i haven't gotten around to deciding on a method of ripping the streams however ;-)
What you are describing is the "Whorfian Hypothesis"--that Language determines thought--You might be interested to know that Steven Pinker attacks this hypothesis as totally false in "The Language Instinct".
to come up with "A massive body that reflects more radient engergy than it generates".
Correction, it took them seven years to nearly agree on that definition... Discovering ideas is usually easier than justifying them.
I once read a game review where the reviewer essentially said "This game is a terrible experience, but at least it's long!" Do you know what a loser is? Someone who doesn't have to read that sentence again a second time to make sure they didn't misread it.
The problem isn't that games make you work for things, the problem is that the *only* thing that motivates the 'work' is the reward at the end of it--the work itself has little intrinsic value. As you say, if there are no later rewards, the game lacks direction. The 'work' in a game needs to have *both* intrinsic and instrumental value. You need an enjoyable journey to a good place, not a tedious one.
In Psychology this is called "Justification of Effort."
In one study, one group of subjects was paid ~$10 to push a button repeatedly for ~20 mins. Another group was paid ~$20 to push the button for the same amount of time. Both groups were then asked how 'enjoyable' the button-pressing was. The group that was paid less rated the activity as more enjoyable. (The idea is that they think "Why was i pressing this button? i wasn't paid well, so it must have been enjoyable!)
I'm currently a student in the Cognitive Science & AI program at the University of Toronto--for those of you who aren't familiar with Cognitive Science, it's the "Interdisciplinary Study of Cognition" and involves studies in Computer Science, Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology.
... ...
... ...
;-)
I have to say that, rather than putting some philosophy into computer science departments, or vice versa, there should be more focus on establishing good Cognitive Science departments, where students are encoraged to find the right mix of these diciplines for themselves. Before Cognitive Science got started (in the 70s), many of these fields worked in total isolation, and repeated mistakes that had already been made in the other fields. Sadly, the amount of communication between departments is still insufficient, and many students are unaware of the relevance of other subjects to their major.
Here's a story about Computer Science and Philosophy:
I once attempted to form a logic chatroom on Dalnet (i'm now content to idle in #logic on freenode... perhaps it will become a real logic channel soon), because people in the math chatrooms kickban people who discuss philosophy of mathematics or logic, and people in the philosophy chatrooms are generally not academics and know zilch about logic, preferring to rant about abortion.
I advertised the channel in a Computer Science logic class I was in, and at one point someone showed up to 'compare answers' (*yawn*... suprise, suprise). Anyway, they asked me why I created the channel, and I explained what I explained above, and that Logic is a subject which is relevant to a wide variety of disicplines, such as Linguistics, Computer Science, Mathematics, Psychology, and Philosophy.
And he said, "Wait, what would Philosophers need Logic for?"
I responded, "Uhh, Aristotle, the Philosopher, *invented* Logic."
And his response was "... You have too much free time..."
Make of this what you will, but my best analysis is that knowing about Java is work, but knowing about Aristotle is a passtime, because only the former will get you a job at Google? *sigh*
So yes, I'd love to see Computer Scientists forced to do some Philosophy
Yes, i realize these 'natural' foods have been changing over time, but these have been gradual changes, and not sudden, qualitative, and therefore less predictable changes brought about by the introduction of a new compound, such as trans-fats, or MSG.
Years ago, Scientists thought trans-fats would be a healthy replacement for saturated fats, but they turned out to be substantially less healthy, because we didn't evolve in their presence, and consequently, the blood-brain barrier can't keep them out of the brain. (Which is a bad thing because they're a neurotoxin...)
Anyway, this sort of unpredictable effect wouldn't have occured with 'natural' foods.
As compared to the ridiculously small amount of chemicals that accumulate in "organic" food, perhaps? Everything material is "chemical", all matter is composed of chemical elements. It's ridiculous to assume that a chemical compound is automatically suspect of being dangerous if it was produced in a human factory instead of a plant or animal in nature.
Think of all the extremely toxic chemical compounds found in nature: snakes, spiders, scorpions, mushrooms, salmonella, botulism, anthrax. Think of curare, strychnine, nicotine, nature produces many toxins that are more dangerous than the most mortal chemical weapon of mass destruction man has invented.
This misses the point--there *is* an argument in favour of eating 'natural' foods: The effects of *anything* on the Human Body can be somewhat unpredictable. "Natural" foods are the ones that have been consumed by people for many, many generations, so that, if they *do* cause health problems, they won't cause any novel, unfamiliar health problems.
It's true that some 'natural foods' might nevertheless be bad for us--but we can assume that these communities would elminate any foods for which they had *evidence* that they were bad foods, so that, if we choose from natural foods, at least our chances are improved of eating healthy foods--we benefit from the trial and error of many generations of people eating food.
actually, it's in a fairly old novel called "A Separate Peace"
Solving a problem that hasn't already been solved by someone else in the past, or which can't be solved by a simple analogy to an already solved problem.
your comments don't really apply to convertible models. the point is that pen input opens up additional possibilities, such as quick entry of mathematics and musical notation.
now we can use the machine to find out if "This sentence is false!" is a lie!