oPerrin

I think this can only be addressed by stating it clearly and upfront. "Automated cars will kill people. They will kill people every year. The only thing they have going for them is that every year they will kill 10 times less people than people driven cars. Life is dangerous, and it's your choice."

Car makers initially fought putting seatbelts in cars because it made them look dangerous. Now seat belts fracture thousands of ribs a year and are required by law. Both initial fear and actual danger were over come due to the massive demonstrable benefit of the technology.

Unfortunately decimals seem to be harder for computers than people :)

http://screencast.com/t/ZjUwOWRl

Let me save you the trouble. This guy is a crackpot who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Though if you've ever been persuaded by an article extolling the virtues of homeopathy, you might be of the right mindset to enjoy this article.

An interesting point from the wikipedia articles: One version of the theory, that the nemesis star is a brown dwarf, should be testable in the next year or so. The WISE mission is launching in just over 33 days, and its year long mission will detect any brown dwarf stars within 2-3 parsecs of us, which is within the suggested range for nemesis.

http://wise.ssl.berkeley.edu/

Can you tell us how you found this tutor? Did you interview multiple people? And finally how much did this kind of tutoring cost?

I'd like to share a couple gems that psychology has actually produced:

1. One of the most important skills for success is the ability to distract yourself from immediate desires.

Delaying gratification, by looking away, thinking about something else is THE skill behind "self-control."

2. Expertise is developed in a very stable pattern of external motivation, mentoring, and consistent deliberate practice.

That means 1. Surround yourself with people who are doing what you want to do 2. Find someone to TEACH you how to do what you want to do and 3. Spend 30 mins a day rising to 2 hours a day over the course of a year or two on the target of your expertise. (Spending more time on the things you suck at than the easy bits) 10k hours later you'll be an expert.

Sources provided if needed!

Were you able to accomplish this transition while maintaining a relationship? (Genuinely curious, no insult, slight or negative implication intended)

Can someone from mint.com confirm these figures? Surveys are fine but I trust transactional records more. The figures don't seem far off as I compare to my mint.com breakdown, but I'd like a more comprehensive and modern approach to this data collection.

I lost my wallet last night. Thanks for the thought HN but a little too late.

Old hat. The reverse is actually more interesting! The representation of the brain is reflected in body parts. People think about the brain as being the seat of neuroplasticity but your limbs are actually learning patterns, as are your ears, your eyes. Anywhere there are neurons there is learning and memory. This means that 1. sometimes reaction is faster than transmission to and from the brain could allow for and 2. often input is filtered and enhanced before it gets to the brain based on previous experience.

While it's cool to think that we "become one" with our tools, until they can also form a part of this distributed memory grid they will always feel subtly wrong, clumsy, and foreign.

It's not done yet. Contribute!

As always these articles are wonderful to read. I think the hardest thing for people without depression to conceptualize is the crushing weight of insignificant tasks. How picking up a single sock becomes a literal impossibility. How the implications of acting, in any way, are like trying to assume every single associated burden simultaneously.

Perfectly in tune with On Intelligence - go read it if you found this article insightful.

Creature creator only. Torrent of same available at usual places.

There are some fairly strong reinforcement schedules which can create motivation, however they rely on one of two things.

1. The desire for the reinforcer never wanes.

or

2. The reward continually increases in value.

The first is brutal, the second unsustainable.

Highly internally motivated people can also be described as continually discontent. They fall into the first category.

Highly externally motivated people are often lazy in repose and obsessive/addictive in play.

-Ian

Why would I want to? I share my network and my neighbors share theirs. I get to help provide the kind of ubiquitus wifi I want everywhere and get connection redundancy while I'm at it. "steal?" that's just paranoid propaganda.

I seem to be an outlier. I need about 10 hours but can easily enjoy 12.

I enjoyed this piece, now whenever I find a loophole in a law that I can exploit for my own benefit I can blame the law! I'm not a bad person, it's a bad law! Along with the invisible hand of Adam Smith, I was basically bitchslapped into maximizing my profit at the cost of the needy, the disabled, and those damn woodpeckers. Won't someone feel bad for poor (rich) little (rotund) old me?

No.

From my background in Physics:

Qubits decohere at anything like room temperature.

From my background in Neuroscience:

100 trillion connections is sufficient for all cognition.

Unfortunately, understanding why this claim is absurd takes a fairly strong background in both sciences. Rather than ask you to take my word for it however, I suggest you pick up a copy of they Feynman lectures and Principles of Neural Science. Read them both and we can then all have a good laugh at quantum-as-thought.

-Ian

From the name I assumed I would get more points for being creative with my flying.

Here's my idea: Sky write with their trails and get uber bonuses for making certain shapes.

Make a star out of smoke, it flashes solid and you get invulnerability for a few moments. That kind of thing.

-Ian

This falls into a class of technologies which can be described thus: It would be awesome if it worked but probably won't.

On 15 search queries which I regularly perform on Google Scholar (e.g. QED, fMRI, Feynman, Jeff Hawkins etc.) I got zero useful results. The one hit on Feynman for example was a false positive.

While I really enjoyed their UI and watching the transcript follow along with the speech (play a video to see this happen) the accuracy was so low on all the key concept terms that I can't imagine how it would be useful at this level.

Sounds like you read: "On Intelligence" - if so, cool, if not do so. Then do this:

break CAPTCHA

There are plenty of people who will pay for that, and a successful implementation of Hawkins/George system will be able to do so.