One of the links in the post (i4u.com) asked people to send in a description of their dream mp3 player. Here's the (admittedly long-winded) email I sent them If someone knows a player that meets this description, I'd love to here about it.
(To be fair, flash cards are not essential. If they designed a 2 GB fixed flash player, I'd probably be happy with that as well. But HD is still too heavy and not rugged enough for serious exercise).
----
Hi. I'm writing to answer the question posed in your June 24 article regarding what would be included in my "dream" portable music player. Here's my version.
I primarily use my mp3 player to work-out. So the popular hard drive-based players are either too bulky, too heavy, or, most importantly, just too skip- and damage-prone for rigorous fitness activities. Thus, I want to design the ideal flash-based player for active use. However, the flash-based players currently out there geared for fitness lack several key features.
The first problem is memory format. Most flash-based players (like the Nike PSA) have a fixed amount of flash memory. With flash card technology, that's just an unnecessary limitation. Why would I want fixed storage when virtually unlimited storage is possible with just the addition of a card port? However, even among card-based players there is an incredible paucity of those that support CompactFlash. Even though this is the flash format of choice for the immensely popular Canon camera line, and is the cheapest flash format per MB, very, very few players (with the exception of the hard-to-find Nex line) support it. This puzzles me quite a bit. I own a Canon camera, and I want a flash MP3 player. Why would I want to invest in two different flash card formats? It seems that a manufacturer that shrewdly marketed the lower cost and ubiquity of CF for existing cams could take advantage of this.
CF is larger than other card formats, but it's still so small and light that its form factor really does not add bulk. Plus, it is now available in higher capacities (like 1 GB) than any other flash format, rivaling some hard drive players.
The second feature I would want in my player is playlist support. Especially when I'm listening to music for exercise, the songs I pick hugely impact my level of motivation and performance. I want to be able to choose on the fly the subset of tunes that fit the mood of the moment. No flash-based player I know of support m3u or other playlist formats. This is a HUGE drawback. On my Nex II player, I have to create new folders with songs dropped in the order I want to hear them every time I go work out. It's a pain. Plus, with flash capacities growing, I want to maintain a set organizational strategy for my music (like folders by artist and album) and not reorganize music every time I listen. The built-in song-flagging pseudo-playlist feature some of these players have is not a substitute for a standard, reusable playlist. This is a must.
The third feature I want my player to have is a quality digital FM tuner. Most gyms have TVs set up in front of exercise equipment (like stationary bikes, treadmills, etc.), broadcasting the audio portion on local FM bands. I want to be able enjoy this feature of my gym, as well listen to local stations from time to time. Another must for any gymrat.
Finally, the player must be ergonomically designed for use by someone who is exercising while using the player. That is, it should, foremost, come with a comfortable, washable, neoprene *armband* case that holds the player snugly. Tunebelt makes some great generic versions of such a case, but they are not tailored for particular players (iPod being an exception). Second, the player itself must have *large* controls, clearly discriminable by touch, and inuitively positioned so one can reach them on their arm while working out. A tiny stick-like player is useless while working out, as is something bouncing around on a lanyard around your nec
It's horrible journalism. CNN is running the Reuters story, which reads like a press release. "...capable of storing far more songs..." "...unseating Apple..." "...advanced compression technology..." "..legendary Walkman brand.." Peppered with proud, confident quotes from Sony executives.
It is literally not until the 17th paragraph--7th from the bottom--buried well in the lower third of the article that they mention ATRAC. And never do they present any observations, either from the reporter or analysts, that points out the obvious, glaring drawback that this is.
And often if your driving right, you will get good mileage, since making the most of your car and its potential is a very similar thing to how to get good mileage, conserving energy and so forth. Its not how powerful your car is, it's how you drive. A professional driver can roast a fool even when driving much less of a car then the fool.
Hmm. Care to tell us how? Because I always thought "making the most of your car and its potential" and getting "good mileage, conserving energy and so forth" were two opposing efforts. Most "performance" techniques tend to use a high revs through downshifting, engine braking, and even simultaneous braking/throttling (e.g. heel-toe braking), all of which can make you a more "potent" driver, but are fairly hard on the gas tank. On the other hand, mileage conserving techniques like maintaining constant velocity, slower accelerations, shifting into higher gears than normal (lower revs=less fuel consumption, but less power), and avoiding engine braking will all tend to rob you of performance.
Well, I understand your skepticism. And the way BrightHouse has been portrayed in the press certainly lends itself to alarmism. (Which, in fact, is ironic, because the press themselves are "manipulating" your emotions for the sake of sales/advertsising dollars/ratings through sensationalism).
You bring up issues of free will which are relevant, but far too complicated too address completely here (and, according to my philosopher colleagues, not likely to be resolved any time soon). But, your main point is that you disagree with the contention "that there is a substantial difference between subverting free will, and knowing apriori how someone will respond to an advertisement."
First, if this (and the remainder of your argument) are to be taken at face value, then any science that predicts any form of human behavior is robbing us of free will. That means all the social and behavioral sciences. Any science that seeks to articulate the systematic principles or heuristics that govern human behavior, are, on your account, subversive. I think you'll agree, that's not where you want to go. What the behavioral sciences describe are average behaviors, average responses, average choices. You sort of recognize our inability to cope with the complexity of the individual with your U-235 metaphor. This incapability of the behavioral sciences to precisely predict behavior means coping with a lot of uncertainty that must be quantified with inferential statistics.
But the second, more serious problem with this argument is that it misrepresents the intentions of BrightHouse and like-minded neuroeconomists. They ARE NOT interested in "predicting" how individuals will respond to particular ads, particular classes of ads, or particular marketing campaigns. They're just not. What they are interested in is elucidating what happens, psychologically and neurally, when we encounter choices we prefer, develop a preference, and exercise preference. They also want to know what conditions lend themselves to the development of preference. BrightHouse then wants to take these insights and inform corporations so that they change the way they communicate with us so that they are more consistent with the way we have evolved to be communicated with. They are not interested in generating more advertising, or more cleverly effective advertising, but changing the paradigm of advertising itself. Billboards litter our roads. Commercials interrupt our entertainment. We associate brands with eyesore and annoyance. The messages are disingenuous. The ploys are transparent. Why do we feel this way? What makes companies feel this is the best way to talk to us? Nobody actually likes it (ok, except for maybe the funny beer commercials), and it doesn't seem (on the surface) to be instrumental to forming a relationship with a brand. There are folks out there who will cross the road to get a Coke instead of a Pepsi, or pay more for a Ford then drive a Chevy. Why? Did the commercials work? Is it advertising success...or is it something different?
How do people want to learn about a brand? But first, what happens when people do learn about a brand? What drives their preferences?
There is an entirely separate discussion to be had about using science for subversive ends. For example, we are approaching the dawn of a time where methods (like neuroimaging, elecroencephalography, etc.) may provide remarkable insight into the private workings of people's minds. There are certainly issues with how to responsibly use this ability when it matures. But I actually don't think there will be a time when we discuss a set of images that are so powerful that they "compel" us to do something that we don't want to--i.e..the "ultimate" advertisement. We already know how to stimulate the most compelling parts of people's brains--the dopamine system. You give them cocaine. Unless advertisers start sending crack through the TV, I don't think people will ever be compulsively "addicted" to a brand. OK, I'm getting a little facetious, but I think the ability of advertisers to "manipulate" is fundamentally limited by our powers of intellect and self-control. What they CAN do, however, is piss us off a lot less. That'd be pretty compelling.
Someone please tell me how this is going to help me?
This is a fair question. I'm in one of the labs mentioned in this article, so I'll try giving it a shot.
Most basic research is often a number of steps removed from applicability. Most non-scientists do not think research is useful unless it has clear applicability. One could make the subtle argument that an increase in human knowledge, especially an increase in knowledge about ourselves, is an intrinsic good and elevates us as a society. I'm not going to make this argument alone, but I would like to throw it out as one "pre-emptive" rationale.
One could argue that that glue of human behavior is decision-making. Every voluntary action is preceded with a decision to make that action. The decisions we make determine much of the course of our lives, and the amalgam of decisions determine the course of society. It's therefore in our interest to undetstand the basis of decision making. That basis is a neural one, as the decisions you make are the result of an interplay of mechanisms in your head.
Many decisions we make are flawed. Decision-researchers (like Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman) have demonstrated that we often fail to make rational choices, and that these failures are systematic. This is counter to the standard economic model of decision-making which assumes that players in a market are rational actors seeking to maximize their interests. If this is not true, then standard economic models are not taking the realities of human psychology into account. In aggregate, these irrational choices and persistent failures to account for them may have massive impact on economies. We are now in a position to actually elucidate not only the systematicity of our irrationalities, but also their very basis in the brain: to understand actually what specialized neural subsystems color and bias our decisions. Hopefully, one future result will be a more accurate (if less precise) calculus of decision making.
The potential for clinical impact is also tremendous. One of the chief burdens of most psychopathologies is a profound impairment in decision-making. Schizophrenics, autistics, sociopaths, anxiety and OCD patients, attention-deficit patients, depressives...literally any psychopathology you name has as one hallmark a particular sort of failure in the decisions made by patients. The flaw may be different in each, of course: e.g., autistics fail to consider the mental state of others in making their choices, schizophrenics may perseverate on a type of decision, while phobics greatly overestimate the impact of a particular alternative in certain choices. Nevertheless, knowing just this has very limited chance for helping us come up with effective therapies. Unless we understand how the "normal" brain makes decisions (what systems, what mechanisms, what areas, what neurochemistry), we will have very little to say about how to fix it when things go wrong. As it is, much psychopharmacology is a guessing game. We know (often by serendipity) that certain drugs are effective in certain in clinical conditions, but for many we still have very, very little understanding as to why the drugs are effective or even how they work.
Finally, you say that this sort of research is ripe for abuse by advertisers. Well, all knowledge is subject to abuse. But, in point of fact, this sort of research could be a huge boon for both consumers and advertisers (or at least for corporations that adverstise) alike. Advertising is, on the whole, annoying to consumers (I call us "consumers" because we're in a commercial context here). The dominant model of advertising is saturation: The more impressions a brand makes on you, the better. This is a very simplisitic model that is grossly ignorant of human psychology and neuroscience. It is true that companies see an uptick in sales after an advertising "barrage," but this completely ignores the infringement and frustration most of us feel being bombarded with images and force-fed advertisin
Evolution IS exactly a beauty contest. The only way to propogate genes is to reproduce. The only way to reproduce is to attract a mate. The only way to attract mate is to exhibit traits the opposite sex favors.
In sharp contrast to your "how the geeks won at evolution" just-so story is the fact that women DO prefer lean, muscular men. Why? This was evolutionarily selected for, and clearly ought to have some advantage. You can argue that it's "cultural" but even then you have to ask "why?"...Why would culture value fit, muscular men? First, it's unlikely to be contemporary culture, as muscular men have been revered for all human civilization (look at Roman art, renaissance art, Michaelangelo's David, etc.). And if the answer is aesthetics rather than survival fitness, then why are we a species that values the aesthetics of physique?
I think overproduction of musculature has the evolutionary disadvantage you describe. It consumes an excess amount of calories. And, indeed, if you ask the average woman, most prefer lean, athletically muscular men as opposed to hulking body-building giants. Many find muscular overdevelopment unattractive and intimidating. HOWEVER, muscular fitness in moderation is attractive for a very obvious reason: Protection and defense. Fit men, from a evolutionary perspective, are more likely to defend the family against intruders and predators, and also likely to pass on those traits to offspring. It's that simple.
True, even the fittest man isn't likely to take down a tiger, but I think a stronger selection pressure is to be able take down other MEN. All men are smart enough to know to stay the hell from the tigers of the world.
I think the disadvantages of pronounced musculature are only true in the extreme.
And, one can argue all this evolutionary heritage is moot at this point. The ladies like the athletic guys (in terms of sexual appeal). But it's true that women's assessment of mate fitness is more complicated that men's, and other factors (fidelity, ability to provide, fathering style) come to play. It being buff doesn't hurt. Today.
Gnome get home! Gnome no roam! Last gnome home overthrown,
get owned!
Users groan: Gnome overblown! Biggest bloat known,
look like windows clone! Gnome throw bone Prize for code loan! "Hone tome
that is gnome;
No more piss and moan."
The laser isn't suppose to hurt the person, it's only designed to momentarily ionize the air so that the subsequent electric arc follows a path to the target. The arc is what does the hurting.
Feelin' inspired. Here's another one off the Magical Myth-Busting Tour album. (CHORUS) Let me shake you down, cuz we're going to Strong arm the deals. Statistics not real. Leave nothing in your bankaccount Strong arm our deals forever.
Lying is easy with code closed. Misrepresenting all we steal. It's getting hard to sue someone, but it all works out SCO does our dirty work for cheap
(CHORUS)
No BSD is in our code-tree I mean not that you'd ever know That is you can't, you know, see the API but it's all right And if it's not, well that's too bad.
(CHORUS)
Platform lock-in makes you feel queasy But you know we know you'll join our team You think "dot-NET" will be "dot-NO" cuz it's all wrong But that's how we play monopoly
Scroll up Scroll up for myth-busting tour. Scroll up Scroll up for the myth busting tour. Scroll up (AND THAT'S AN INTIMATION) Scroll up for myth-busting tour. Scroll up (HEED OUR INTIMIDATION) Scroll up for the myth busting tour. The magical myth busting tour is waiting to take your pay Waiting to take your pay
Scroll up Scroll up for myth-busting tour. Scroll up Scroll up for the myth busting tour. Scroll up (WE'VE GOT LOTS OF FUD TO BREED) Scroll up for myth-busting tour. Scroll up (COME AND BASK IN OUR GREED) Scroll up for the myth busting tour. The magical myth busting tour is waiting to take your pay Hoping to take your pay
Scroll up Scroll up for myth-busting tour. Scroll up Scroll up for the myth busting tour. Scroll up (AND THAT'S AN INTIMATION) Scroll up for myth-busting tour. Scroll up (HEED OUR INTIMIDATION) Scroll up for the myth busting tour. The magical myth busting tour is waiting to take your pay On your servers we'd like to stay The magical myth busting tour is dying to make *nix go away Dying to make it go away, keep you at bay
Yeah gee I dunno, perhaps continue the lot in life as 'starving artists' who truely love producing their art and would do it no matter what they got paid?
You mean exactly what most of them get after signing with a label?
Except that nigritude actually has to do with blackness (at least the color), whereas the more vulgar sounding "niggardly" has nothing to do with color or race. However, contrast the neologism negritude which is about blackness in racial terms.
Just because this appears to be more physical than cerebral doesn't mean that the person is not a nerd. [...] A nerd doesn't have to be a computer geek. I think nerds have a passion for whatever they are doing.
Wow. These guys in my high school, they were really, really passionate about football and beating the shit out of us guys that were passionate about computers. They must've been the biggest nerds I ever knew!
Exactly. This is, like, all athletic and--how you say?--"outsidish?" no, no. i mean, "out of the doors?" oh yes, "outdoorsy." i do not know of this out of the doors activities of which they write...what with the..the...the sweating. And the exerting.
(and before some pumped up jock wannabe tries to make me seriously believe a true nerd can also be mr. macho athlete guy, lemme say a) we're all very proud of you and b) please go crow on some less nerdly site. you are far too cool for us.)
Also, companies like to time new releases with liquidation of current stock. They know few people are gonna buy the old model once they hear about the new one coming out (as you point out), but the real bitch is that it leaves them with a surplus of old stock they can't move and then have to eat a loss discounting it. This is why sometimes new products are ready to go months before a company wants to officially announce them. When you have tiny margin and a small market share like Apple, this is a big problem. (Apple also has kinda crappy inventory control, which exacerbates this problem. They routinely come up in short-supply after a new product launch, or overstocked near the end of a product cycle).
Slashdot Mirror
One of the links in the post (i4u.com) asked people to send in a description of their dream mp3 player. Here's the (admittedly long-winded) email I sent them If someone knows a player that meets this description, I'd love to here about it.
(To be fair, flash cards are not essential. If they designed a 2 GB fixed flash player, I'd probably be happy with that as well. But HD is still too heavy and not rugged enough for serious exercise).
----
Hi. I'm writing to answer the question posed in your June 24 article regarding what would be included in my "dream" portable music player. Here's my version.
I primarily use my mp3 player to work-out. So the popular hard drive-based players are either too bulky, too heavy, or, most importantly, just too skip- and damage-prone for rigorous fitness activities. Thus, I want to design the ideal flash-based player for active use. However, the flash-based players currently out there geared for fitness lack several key features.
The first problem is memory format. Most flash-based players (like the Nike PSA) have a fixed amount of flash memory. With flash card technology, that's just an unnecessary limitation. Why would I want fixed storage when virtually unlimited storage is possible with just the addition of a card port? However, even among card-based players there is an incredible paucity of those that support CompactFlash. Even though this is the flash format of choice for the immensely popular Canon camera line, and is the cheapest flash format per MB, very, very few players (with the exception of the hard-to-find Nex line) support it. This puzzles me quite a bit. I own a Canon camera, and I want a flash MP3 player. Why would I want to invest in two different flash card formats? It seems that a manufacturer that shrewdly marketed the lower cost and ubiquity of CF for existing cams could take advantage of this.
CF is larger than other card formats, but it's still so small and light that its form factor really does not add bulk. Plus, it is now available in higher capacities (like 1 GB) than any other flash format, rivaling some hard drive players.
The second feature I would want in my player is playlist support. Especially when I'm listening to music for exercise, the songs I pick hugely impact my level of motivation and performance. I want to be able to choose on the fly the subset of tunes that fit the mood of the moment. No flash-based player I know of support m3u or other playlist formats. This is a HUGE drawback. On my Nex II player, I have to create new folders with songs dropped in the order I want to hear them every time I go work out. It's a pain. Plus, with flash capacities growing, I want to maintain a set organizational strategy for my music (like folders by artist and album) and not reorganize music every time I listen. The built-in song-flagging pseudo-playlist feature some of these players have is not a substitute for a standard, reusable playlist. This is a must.
The third feature I want my player to have is a quality digital FM tuner. Most gyms have TVs set up in front of exercise equipment (like stationary bikes, treadmills, etc.), broadcasting the audio portion on local FM bands. I want to be able enjoy this feature of my gym, as well listen to local stations from time to time. Another must for any gymrat.
Finally, the player must be ergonomically designed for use by someone who is exercising while using the player. That is, it should, foremost, come with a comfortable, washable, neoprene *armband* case that holds the player snugly. Tunebelt makes some great generic versions of such a case, but they are not tailored for particular players (iPod being an exception). Second, the player itself must have *large* controls, clearly discriminable by touch, and inuitively positioned so one can reach them on their arm while working out. A tiny stick-like player is useless while working out, as is something bouncing around on a lanyard around your nec
Didn't Dell ALREADY have Linux offerings here in the U.S. a few years agon, but then got throttled by MS?
It's horrible journalism. CNN is running the Reuters story, which reads like a press release. "...capable of storing far more songs..." "...unseating Apple..." "...advanced compression technology..." "..legendary Walkman brand.." Peppered with proud, confident quotes from Sony executives.
It is literally not until the 17th paragraph--7th from the bottom--buried well in the lower third of the article that they mention ATRAC. And never do they present any observations, either from the reporter or analysts, that points out the obvious, glaring drawback that this is.
And often if your driving right, you will get good mileage, since making the most of your car and its potential is a very similar thing to how to get good mileage, conserving energy and so forth. Its not how powerful your car is, it's how you drive. A professional driver can roast a fool even when driving much less of a car then the fool.
Hmm. Care to tell us how? Because I always thought "making the most of your car and its potential" and getting "good mileage, conserving energy and so forth" were two opposing efforts. Most "performance" techniques tend to use a high revs through downshifting, engine braking, and even simultaneous braking/throttling (e.g. heel-toe braking), all of which can make you a more "potent" driver, but are fairly hard on the gas tank. On the other hand, mileage conserving techniques like maintaining constant velocity, slower accelerations, shifting into higher gears than normal (lower revs=less fuel consumption, but less power), and avoiding engine braking will all tend to rob you of performance.
Well, I understand your skepticism. And the way BrightHouse has been portrayed in the press certainly lends itself to alarmism. (Which, in fact, is ironic, because the press themselves are "manipulating" your emotions for the sake of sales/advertsising dollars/ratings through sensationalism).
.the "ultimate" advertisement. We already know how to stimulate the most compelling parts of people's brains--the dopamine system. You give them cocaine. Unless advertisers start sending crack through the TV, I don't think people will ever be compulsively "addicted" to a brand. OK, I'm getting a little facetious, but I think the ability of advertisers to "manipulate" is fundamentally limited by our powers of intellect and self-control. What they CAN do, however, is piss us off a lot less. That'd be pretty compelling.
You bring up issues of free will which are relevant, but far too complicated too address completely here (and, according to my philosopher colleagues, not likely to be resolved any time soon). But, your main point is that you disagree with the contention "that there is a substantial difference between subverting free will, and knowing apriori how someone will respond to an advertisement."
First, if this (and the remainder of your argument) are to be taken at face value, then any science that predicts any form of human behavior is robbing us of free will. That means all the social and behavioral sciences. Any science that seeks to articulate the systematic principles or heuristics that govern human behavior, are, on your account, subversive. I think you'll agree, that's not where you want to go. What the behavioral sciences describe are average behaviors, average responses, average choices. You sort of recognize our inability to cope with the complexity of the individual with your U-235 metaphor. This incapability of the behavioral sciences to precisely predict behavior means coping with a lot of uncertainty that must be quantified with inferential statistics.
But the second, more serious problem with this argument is that it misrepresents the intentions of BrightHouse and like-minded neuroeconomists. They ARE NOT interested in "predicting" how individuals will respond to particular ads, particular classes of ads, or particular marketing campaigns. They're just not. What they are interested in is elucidating what happens, psychologically and neurally, when we encounter choices we prefer, develop a preference, and exercise preference. They also want to know what conditions lend themselves to the development of preference. BrightHouse then wants to take these insights and inform corporations so that they change the way they communicate with us so that they are more consistent with the way we have evolved to be communicated with. They are not interested in generating more advertising, or more cleverly effective advertising, but changing the paradigm of advertising itself. Billboards litter our roads. Commercials interrupt our entertainment. We associate brands with eyesore and annoyance. The messages are disingenuous. The ploys are transparent. Why do we feel this way? What makes companies feel this is the best way to talk to us? Nobody actually likes it (ok, except for maybe the funny beer commercials), and it doesn't seem (on the surface) to be instrumental to forming a relationship with a brand. There are folks out there who will cross the road to get a Coke instead of a Pepsi, or pay more for a Ford then drive a Chevy. Why? Did the commercials work? Is it advertising success...or is it something different?
How do people want to learn about a brand? But first, what happens when people do learn about a brand? What drives their preferences?
There is an entirely separate discussion to be had about using science for subversive ends. For example, we are approaching the dawn of a time where methods (like neuroimaging, elecroencephalography, etc.) may provide remarkable insight into the private workings of people's minds. There are certainly issues with how to responsibly use this ability when it matures. But I actually don't think there will be a time when we discuss a set of images that are so powerful that they "compel" us to do something that we don't want to--i.e.
Someone please tell me how this is going to help me?
This is a fair question. I'm in one of the labs mentioned in this article, so I'll try giving it a shot.
Most basic research is often a number of steps removed from applicability. Most non-scientists do not think research is useful unless it has clear applicability. One could make the subtle argument that an increase in human knowledge, especially an increase in knowledge about ourselves, is an intrinsic good and elevates us as a society. I'm not going to make this argument alone, but I would like to throw it out as one "pre-emptive" rationale.
One could argue that that glue of human behavior is decision-making. Every voluntary action is preceded with a decision to make that action. The decisions we make determine much of the course of our lives, and the amalgam of decisions determine the course of society. It's therefore in our interest to undetstand the basis of decision making. That basis is a neural one, as the decisions you make are the result of an interplay of mechanisms in your head.
Many decisions we make are flawed. Decision-researchers (like Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman) have demonstrated that we often fail to make rational choices, and that these failures are systematic. This is counter to the standard economic model of decision-making which assumes that players in a market are rational actors seeking to maximize their interests. If this is not true, then standard economic models are not taking the realities of human psychology into account. In aggregate, these irrational choices and persistent failures to account for them may have massive impact on economies. We are now in a position to actually elucidate not only the systematicity of our irrationalities, but also their very basis in the brain: to understand actually what specialized neural subsystems color and bias our decisions. Hopefully, one future result will be a more accurate (if less precise) calculus of decision making.
The potential for clinical impact is also tremendous. One of the chief burdens of most psychopathologies is a profound impairment in decision-making. Schizophrenics, autistics, sociopaths, anxiety and OCD patients, attention-deficit patients, depressives...literally any psychopathology you name has as one hallmark a particular sort of failure in the decisions made by patients. The flaw may be different in each, of course: e.g., autistics fail to consider the mental state of others in making their choices, schizophrenics may perseverate on a type of decision, while phobics greatly overestimate the impact of a particular alternative in certain choices. Nevertheless, knowing just this has very limited chance for helping us come up with effective therapies. Unless we understand how the "normal" brain makes decisions (what systems, what mechanisms, what areas, what neurochemistry), we will have very little to say about how to fix it when things go wrong. As it is, much psychopharmacology is a guessing game. We know (often by serendipity) that certain drugs are effective in certain in clinical conditions, but for many we still have very, very little understanding as to why the drugs are effective or even how they work.
Finally, you say that this sort of research is ripe for abuse by advertisers. Well, all knowledge is subject to abuse. But, in point of fact, this sort of research could be a huge boon for both consumers and advertisers (or at least for corporations that adverstise) alike. Advertising is, on the whole, annoying to consumers (I call us "consumers" because we're in a commercial context here). The dominant model of advertising is saturation: The more impressions a brand makes on you, the better. This is a very simplisitic model that is grossly ignorant of human psychology and neuroscience. It is true that companies see an uptick in sales after an advertising "barrage," but this completely ignores the infringement and frustration most of us feel being bombarded with images and force-fed advertisin
so maybe there's luck that an emigrated Yank could score a roll... Here's hoping, at any rate.
Maybe you've just got to have a real hunger for it...
(where's -1: Groan, right?)
Evolution IS exactly a beauty contest. The only way to propogate genes is to reproduce. The only way to reproduce is to attract a mate. The only way to attract mate is to exhibit traits the opposite sex favors.
In sharp contrast to your "how the geeks won at evolution" just-so story is the fact that women DO prefer lean, muscular men. Why? This was evolutionarily selected for, and clearly ought to have some advantage. You can argue that it's "cultural" but even then you have to ask "why?"...Why would culture value fit, muscular men? First, it's unlikely to be contemporary culture, as muscular men have been revered for all human civilization (look at Roman art, renaissance art, Michaelangelo's David, etc.). And if the answer is aesthetics rather than survival fitness, then why are we a species that values the aesthetics of physique?
I think overproduction of musculature has the evolutionary disadvantage you describe. It consumes an excess amount of calories. And, indeed, if you ask the average woman, most prefer lean, athletically muscular men as opposed to hulking body-building giants. Many find muscular overdevelopment unattractive and intimidating. HOWEVER, muscular fitness in moderation is attractive for a very obvious reason: Protection and defense. Fit men, from a evolutionary perspective, are more likely to defend the family against intruders and predators, and also likely to pass on those traits to offspring. It's that simple.
True, even the fittest man isn't likely to take down a tiger, but I think a stronger selection pressure is to be able take down other MEN. All men are smart enough to know to stay the hell from the tigers of the world.
I think the disadvantages of pronounced musculature are only true in the extreme.
And, one can argue all this evolutionary heritage is moot at this point. The ladies like the athletic guys (in terms of sexual appeal). But it's true that women's assessment of mate fitness is more complicated that men's, and other factors (fidelity, ability to provide, fathering style) come to play. It being buff doesn't hurt. Today.
Psst, thenextpresident is left handed.
Yeah, but it's his right hand that's the awkward geek.
why are you talking to your right hand?
Gnome get home!
Gnome no roam!
Last gnome home overthrown,
get owned!
Users groan:
Gnome overblown!
Biggest bloat known,
look like windows clone!
Gnome throw bone
Prize for code loan!
"Hone tome
that is gnome;
No more piss and moan."
Props, my brother, props.
The laser isn't suppose to hurt the person, it's only designed to momentarily ionize the air so that the subsequent electric arc follows a path to the target. The arc is what does the hurting.
Feelin' inspired. Here's another one off the Magical Myth-Busting Tour album.
(CHORUS)
Let me shake you down, cuz we're going to
Strong arm the deals.
Statistics not real.
Leave nothing in your bankaccount
Strong arm our deals forever.
Lying is easy with code closed.
Misrepresenting all we steal.
It's getting hard to sue someone, but it all works out
SCO does our dirty work for cheap
(CHORUS)
No BSD is in our code-tree
I mean not that you'd ever know
That is you can't, you know, see the API but it's all right
And if it's not, well that's too bad.
(CHORUS)
Platform lock-in makes you feel queasy
But you know we know you'll join our team
You think "dot-NET" will be "dot-NO" cuz it's all wrong
But that's how we play monopoly
(CHORUS)
Scroll up, scroll up, write this way!
Scroll up
Scroll up for myth-busting tour.
Scroll up
Scroll up for the myth busting tour.
Scroll up (AND THAT'S AN INTIMATION)
Scroll up for myth-busting tour.
Scroll up (HEED OUR INTIMIDATION)
Scroll up for the myth busting tour.
The magical myth busting tour is waiting to take your pay
Waiting to take your pay
Scroll up
Scroll up for myth-busting tour.
Scroll up
Scroll up for the myth busting tour.
Scroll up (WE'VE GOT LOTS OF FUD TO BREED)
Scroll up for myth-busting tour.
Scroll up (COME AND BASK IN OUR GREED)
Scroll up for the myth busting tour.
The magical myth busting tour is waiting to take your pay
Hoping to take your pay
Scroll up
Scroll up for myth-busting tour.
Scroll up
Scroll up for the myth busting tour.
Scroll up (AND THAT'S AN INTIMATION)
Scroll up for myth-busting tour.
Scroll up (HEED OUR INTIMIDATION)
Scroll up for the myth busting tour.
The magical myth busting tour is waiting to take your pay
On your servers we'd like to stay
The magical myth busting tour is dying to make *nix go away
Dying to make it go away, keep you at bay
Yeah gee I dunno, perhaps continue the lot in life as 'starving artists' who truely love producing their art and would do it no matter what they got paid?
You mean exactly what most of them get after signing with a label?
Except that nigritude actually has to do with blackness (at least the color), whereas the more vulgar sounding "niggardly" has nothing to do with color or race. However, contrast the neologism negritude which is about blackness in racial terms.
is an interesting take on this. Cheesyish with some pretty decent science. Nano uses symbiosis with bacteria to bootstrap the replication process.
Just because this appears to be more physical than cerebral doesn't mean that the person is not a nerd. [...]
A nerd doesn't have to be a computer geek. I think nerds have a passion for whatever they are doing.
Wow. These guys in my high school, they were really, really passionate about football and beating the shit out of us guys that were passionate about computers. They must've been the biggest nerds I ever knew!
Exactly. This is, like, all athletic and--how you say?--"outsidish?" no, no. i mean, "out of the doors?" oh yes, "outdoorsy." i do not know of this out of the doors activities of which they write...what with the..the...the sweating. And the exerting.
(and before some pumped up jock wannabe tries to make me seriously believe a true nerd can also be mr. macho athlete guy, lemme say a) we're all very proud of you and b) please go crow on some less nerdly site. you are far too cool for us.)
Also, companies like to time new releases with liquidation of current stock. They know few people are gonna buy the old model once they hear about the new one coming out (as you point out), but the real bitch is that it leaves them with a surplus of old stock they can't move and then have to eat a loss discounting it. This is why sometimes new products are ready to go months before a company wants to officially announce them. When you have tiny margin and a small market share like Apple, this is a big problem. (Apple also has kinda crappy inventory control, which exacerbates this problem. They routinely come up in short-supply after a new product launch, or overstocked near the end of a product cycle).
MONK-5, definitely.
Mantra-Oriented Nexus of Knowledge
(or more clumsily, and less PC: Multiple Oriental Neural Kontainers)
(or or or this one: Mystically Ordained Network Keepers)
(wow..they don't stop: My Own Nepalese Kid)
In Soviet Russia, penises enlarge you!
Hmm...For women, I think this is true the world over.
Everyone knows it's not the size of the duck, it's how much smack in the quack. Er..or the freak in the beak?