Because Boost can't roam off its (i.e. Sprint's) network. So if you happen to live (or travel to/through) any of the vast regions without Sprint network coverage, you're out of luck and get no signal.
Anywhere in this map (http://www.boostmobile.com/coverage/#?map=cdma ) that isn't dark green gets no service on Boost (or Virgin Mobile for that matter).
Both companies advertise it as "no roaming charges" but this is simply because they don't offer any roaming at all. You're either on Sprint's network, or your phone doesn't work.
Actually they didn't use a separate control group, or switch the sides of the phones. Here's the relevant bit from the actual paper:
All participants had 2 scans performed on separate days using PET with 18FDG injection under resting conditions. For both scans 2 cell phones, one placed on the left ear and one on the right, were used to avoid confounding effects from the expectation of a signal from the side of the brain at which the cell phone was located. For one of the days both cell phones were deactivated (“off” condition). For the other day the right cell phone was on (activated but muted to avoid confounding from auditory stimulation) and the left cell phone was off (“on” condition). For the on condition the cell phone was receiving a call (from a recorded text), although the sound was muted. The order of conditions was randomly assigned, and participants were blinded to the condition. The mean time between the first and the second study was 5 (SD, 3) days.
Subjects had a phone at each ear, but only the right phone was ever on. They were scanned twice, once with the right phone on and once with both phones off. The order for whether they were scanned first in the "on" or "off" condition was randomized.
I've never struggled with reading the font in a typical physical book, so the claim is still a bit ridiculous.
I don't think most people are using ereaders to read electronic versions of things that they would previously have read handwritten. They're reading an electronic version of a book that is in a (most likely) similar complexity font to the printed book, so it isn't making it much (if any) easier to read on the ereader.
Not sure either... that was exactly my first thought upon reading the title as well. Luckily it's just a really bad summary title, the article itself doesn't make the same mistake.
Actually it is just a theory. Unfortunately, the general (i.e. non-scientific) population generally misinterprets that word in regards to scientific theories. In science, a theory like the theory of evolution is something that has been extensively supported by the collected observed evidence. It's not necessarily 100% accurate, but it explains the evidence. If conflicting or new evidence becomes available, the theory would need to be modified to explain it, or scrapped for a better theory that can explain all the collected evidence. No better scientific theory has come along to supplant evolution. Creationism is not a valid scientific theory because there is NO observable evidence to support it.
Actually Netflix does get special versions of many (most in my experience) DVDs. The DVDs are not the same disc cover image as retail versions -- they're usually just a simple gray background with the movie title/etc, many of them even specifically have "Rental" included directly on the disc image. Like this: http://mike.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/everythingisilluminated.jpg
Then you haven't watched the right DVDs. I've only used Netflix for about 4 months so far and at least 25% of the movies I get have previews that cannot be skipped with any button on my DVD remote.
Yes responses were indicated by one type of mental imagery, no responses by another, so yes and no were both distinguishable from "no answer."
The scanning was done in a fashion that is typical of fMRI studies in that an active condition was alternated with a rest condition. In fMRI it's essentially impossible to get a meaningful activation without contrasting two different conditions, in this case Answer with Relax, so the "activation" that is measured is a comparison between the answer and relax conditions. If a subject just had continuous spurious activation in the target brain region: 1) it wouldn't have been identified in the localizer task (described briefly below) and 2) it wouldn't show up as a differential activation between the Answer and Relax periods.
The subjects first underwent a "localizer" task to determine what particular region of the motor cortex to use for their responses. They alternated periods of mental imagery (imagining playing tennis, and imagining navigating through a familiar city) with relax. This identified the regions that would later be used to indicate Yes or No responses (one type of imagery for yes, the other for no).
OP never said there were only 23 surveys sent out, he just said that 4 out of 23 was a better return rate. Maybe there were 230 surveys sent out and less than 40 were returned, just as an example. Also, just over 17% isn't really "almost 25%."
Actually, according to one article, the developer has specifically said it's not a time of flight camera. In the comments for http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527426.800-microsofts-bodysensing-buttonbusting-controller.html the author quotes Kipman (the lead Natal developer) as saying: ""Our IR does not pulse and it is not based on a TOF system (which usually pulses). Our light source is constant much like you would expect a projection system to work in a conference room."
Actually, the voodoo correlations paper is actually talking about performing correlations between the signals we get from fMRI scans (you can read the actual paper instead of the somewhat misleading article here), and other measurements or scores. This doesn't do that at all. This is about the danger of false positives in fMRI imaging, because of the large number of statistical tests that are done across the brain. The majority of peer reviewed published fMRI papers do some type of multiple comparisons correction to attempt to adjust for this problem.
I doubt the people that it fooled were really trying to figure out. If you look at the winning entries for the Loebner Prize every year, they're pretty obvious as non-human. The 2008 winner managed to fool 3 out of 12 judges -- and honestly I'm not even sure how it managed that. We haven't yet gotten to the point that a computer program can reliably appear human to careful observation, even using trickery.
http://www.elbot.com/
Sure it'd be great if you could turn your sunglasses into a permanent HUD that gives you information as you want or need it, but the backed programming would be colossal and everyone would have to carry something probably on par with a desktop computer in power to handle the interfacing. I don't think current generation phones and PDAs could handle it.
That's fine since the current generation glasses are bulky and not good for mainstream use. By the time the display equipment gets to a point where it's easy to use, comfortable, and doesn't overly strain the eyes, handheld hardware will probably be strong enough for the heavy lifting.
That depends entirely on what industry you're using to measure the standard. I've worked as staff at several universities and they've all provided roughly 20-25 days plus 5-10 holidays per year, and separate sick time.
I haven't used an iPhone or iPod Touch for more than a few seconds, but are there touch commands that don't provide feedback? I mean, if you're scrolling, or zooming an image or whatnot immediate visual feedback is provided and ongoing while you're performing the command, which would seem to contradict the patents claim:
"No immediate visual feedback is provided as a command pattern is traced"
Have you ever swapped a propane tank at a gas station? The replacement tank is usually dirty, beat up, and not actually filled to capacity. I gave up doing that a long time ago and just pay a little extra to take my tank in to be refilled. I would never consider just swapping out something as expensive as the batteries in an electric car at a gas station.
Well, you could try going to the citations from that "three paragraph" article which are at the bottom of page 2 and include articles in Science News and Discover magazine about the find.
And the Washington Post has updated to include comments from Symantec
Dave Cole, senior director of product management at Symantec, said the PIFTS file was part of a "diagnostics patch" shipped to Norton customers on Monday evening. The purpose of the update, Cole said, was to help determine how many customers would need to be migrated to newer versions of its software as more Windows users upgrade to Windows 7.
"We have to make sure before we migrate users to a new product that we can see what kind of load we can expect on our servers, and which customers are going to have to be moved up to the latest version of our product," Cole said.
As to why Symantec has been deleting posts about this from their user forum, Cole said the company noticed that minutes after the update went out hundreds of new users began registering on the forum, leaving inane and sometimes abusive comments.
"We want to be out there in the community, but by the same token, if we see abuse we will shut it down pretty quickly," Cole said. "There was no attempt at secrecy here, but people were spamming the forum and making it unusable to everyone."
In Symantec's defense, when I first heard about this earlier this morning, I noted privately to a couple of folks that some of the comments being left on the Symantec forum bore many of the hallmarks of "4Chan," (a.k.a. "anonymous"), a virtual community that thrives on playing practical jokes and causing trouble online. The summary about this incident posted to News-for-nerds site Slashdot this morning links to a key 4Chan forum.
Of course, the problem with that justification for deletion being that 4chan spamming didn't start until sometime overnight or this morning. Hours earlier several completely legitimate question threads had been deleted with no explanation.
And after a quick check, it is indeed a side effect of some compilation, so nothing about the file really appears virusy anymore. The only suspicious points remaining are why the Norton mods were so eager to remove mention of it from their forums last night.
Slashdot Mirror
Because Boost can't roam off its (i.e. Sprint's) network. So if you happen to live (or travel to/through) any of the vast regions without Sprint network coverage, you're out of luck and get no signal. Anywhere in this map (http://www.boostmobile.com/coverage/#?map=cdma ) that isn't dark green gets no service on Boost (or Virgin Mobile for that matter). Both companies advertise it as "no roaming charges" but this is simply because they don't offer any roaming at all. You're either on Sprint's network, or your phone doesn't work.
I don't think you know what Godwin's Law is...
Subjects had a phone at each ear, but only the right phone was ever on. They were scanned twice, once with the right phone on and once with both phones off. The order for whether they were scanned first in the "on" or "off" condition was randomized.
I've never struggled with reading the font in a typical physical book, so the claim is still a bit ridiculous. I don't think most people are using ereaders to read electronic versions of things that they would previously have read handwritten. They're reading an electronic version of a book that is in a (most likely) similar complexity font to the printed book, so it isn't making it much (if any) easier to read on the ereader.
Not sure either... that was exactly my first thought upon reading the title as well. Luckily it's just a really bad summary title, the article itself doesn't make the same mistake.
Actually it is just a theory. Unfortunately, the general (i.e. non-scientific) population generally misinterprets that word in regards to scientific theories. In science, a theory like the theory of evolution is something that has been extensively supported by the collected observed evidence. It's not necessarily 100% accurate, but it explains the evidence. If conflicting or new evidence becomes available, the theory would need to be modified to explain it, or scrapped for a better theory that can explain all the collected evidence. No better scientific theory has come along to supplant evolution. Creationism is not a valid scientific theory because there is NO observable evidence to support it.
Actually Netflix does get special versions of many (most in my experience) DVDs. The DVDs are not the same disc cover image as retail versions -- they're usually just a simple gray background with the movie title/etc, many of them even specifically have "Rental" included directly on the disc image. Like this: http://mike.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/everythingisilluminated.jpg
Then you haven't watched the right DVDs. I've only used Netflix for about 4 months so far and at least 25% of the movies I get have previews that cannot be skipped with any button on my DVD remote.
Yeah, except their alumni forwarding emails also end in .edu
Yes responses were indicated by one type of mental imagery, no responses by another, so yes and no were both distinguishable from "no answer."
The scanning was done in a fashion that is typical of fMRI studies in that an active condition was alternated with a rest condition. In fMRI it's essentially impossible to get a meaningful activation without contrasting two different conditions, in this case Answer with Relax, so the "activation" that is measured is a comparison between the answer and relax conditions. If a subject just had continuous spurious activation in the target brain region: 1) it wouldn't have been identified in the localizer task (described briefly below) and 2) it wouldn't show up as a differential activation between the Answer and Relax periods.
The subjects first underwent a "localizer" task to determine what particular region of the motor cortex to use for their responses. They alternated periods of mental imagery (imagining playing tennis, and imagining navigating through a familiar city) with relax. This identified the regions that would later be used to indicate Yes or No responses (one type of imagery for yes, the other for no).
OP never said there were only 23 surveys sent out, he just said that 4 out of 23 was a better return rate. Maybe there were 230 surveys sent out and less than 40 were returned, just as an example. Also, just over 17% isn't really "almost 25%."
Actually, according to one article, the developer has specifically said it's not a time of flight camera. In the comments for http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527426.800-microsofts-bodysensing-buttonbusting-controller.html the author quotes Kipman (the lead Natal developer) as saying: ""Our IR does not pulse and it is not based on a TOF system (which usually pulses). Our light source is constant much like you would expect a projection system to work in a conference room."
Actually, the voodoo correlations paper is actually talking about performing correlations between the signals we get from fMRI scans (you can read the actual paper instead of the somewhat misleading article here), and other measurements or scores. This doesn't do that at all. This is about the danger of false positives in fMRI imaging, because of the large number of statistical tests that are done across the brain. The majority of peer reviewed published fMRI papers do some type of multiple comparisons correction to attempt to adjust for this problem.
I doubt the people that it fooled were really trying to figure out. If you look at the winning entries for the Loebner Prize every year, they're pretty obvious as non-human. The 2008 winner managed to fool 3 out of 12 judges -- and honestly I'm not even sure how it managed that. We haven't yet gotten to the point that a computer program can reliably appear human to careful observation, even using trickery. http://www.elbot.com/
Sure it'd be great if you could turn your sunglasses into a permanent HUD that gives you information as you want or need it, but the backed programming would be colossal and everyone would have to carry something probably on par with a desktop computer in power to handle the interfacing. I don't think current generation phones and PDAs could handle it.
That's fine since the current generation glasses are bulky and not good for mainstream use. By the time the display equipment gets to a point where it's easy to use, comfortable, and doesn't overly strain the eyes, handheld hardware will probably be strong enough for the heavy lifting.
sorry... meant to say 15-20 plus 5-10 holidays. 25 is my total between vacation and holiday days per year.
That depends entirely on what industry you're using to measure the standard. I've worked as staff at several universities and they've all provided roughly 20-25 days plus 5-10 holidays per year, and separate sick time.
I haven't used an iPhone or iPod Touch for more than a few seconds, but are there touch commands that don't provide feedback? I mean, if you're scrolling, or zooming an image or whatnot immediate visual feedback is provided and ongoing while you're performing the command, which would seem to contradict the patents claim: "No immediate visual feedback is provided as a command pattern is traced"
Have you ever swapped a propane tank at a gas station? The replacement tank is usually dirty, beat up, and not actually filled to capacity. I gave up doing that a long time ago and just pay a little extra to take my tank in to be refilled. I would never consider just swapping out something as expensive as the batteries in an electric car at a gas station.
How about the summary title:
"MIT Electric Car May Outperform Rival Gas Models"
Anyone who is actually interested may want to check out one response paper to the Vul Voodoo Correlations paper which points out a number of problems that Vul himself has in his analysis. http://www.scn.ucla.edu/pdf/LiebermanBerkmanWager(invitedreply).pdf
Well, you could try going to the citations from that "three paragraph" article which are at the bottom of page 2 and include articles in Science News and Discover magazine about the find.
That's odd. I'm viewing in firefox 2 and have none of the problems others have mentioned regarding side scrolling, misplaced images, or visible code.
Of course, the problem with that justification for deletion being that 4chan spamming didn't start until sometime overnight or this morning. Hours earlier several completely legitimate question threads had been deleted with no explanation.
And after a quick check, it is indeed a side effect of some compilation, so nothing about the file really appears virusy anymore. The only suspicious points remaining are why the Norton mods were so eager to remove mention of it from their forums last night.