From what I understand about echolocation in humans is that it doesn't suffice to detect holes in the ground. So if you follow a blind man who can echolocate, you are still likely to fall into a pit.
You read the DailyMail article and get the impression that the jury is out on this; "It's official". You read the skepchick article and get the impression that this is bad science done to prove an assumption with all kinds of methodological problems. You read the actual paper without any expectations and you see that this was a "preliminary" study on the possibility of a link between cell-phone radiation and transcranial stimulation of the bee brain, which is plausible.
The research does seem to show a link between high SAR values and "worker piping" in Bees. Where Skepchick says that the research is flawed because "the author put cell phones on top of an actual hive." The paper itself says: "the conditions employed in the present experiments have biological significance, since the sum of the SAR values from the two mobile phone handsets were always below the 2- W/kg maximal value recommended for this frequency (I.C.N.I.R.P 1998)." and recommends "For future experiments, in complement to the present original study and in order to reach more “natural” conditions, mobile phone apparatuses should be placed at various increasing distances away from the hives."
The experiment is non-conclusive, except that radiation from our cell-phones affects Bee behavior, that much is concluded. Whereas Skepchick's last word is: "Bees are in trouble, but there is nothing here to indicate that your cell phone is the culprit."
Some of us start with what we want to see, and end up there too. I strongly advise getting the news from the horse's mouth.
I had a snapping turtle for almost 20 years. He was always a problem; jumping out of his water bowl. We used a wash basin for his pond at first. He never succeeded escaping an aquarium but my mother thought he'd be happier if he had somewhere to sit out of the water. She was probably right, but when she made a pond for him in her back yard he disappeared and we never saw him again.
So actually this could be the difference between causal-chain determinism and what's called block-universe determinism. In Causal-Chain determinism time is assumed to flow from past to future, whereby the future is determined by the past. In Block-Universe determinism there is a vertical causation that extends to the limits of the present moment. The identity of each 'thing' within the present moment is caused or dependent on every thing else. Block-Universe determinism conceives of causality as a co-operative enterprise between everything that is currently in existence.
The best way I can illustrate is to take a rubber balloon and blow it up. Now that I have an expanded rubber balloon I'm going to ask, what is causing the shape of the balloon? And, is that cause acting on the balloon from somewhere in the past? Or is the air in the balloon and the tendency of the balloon to collapse co-acting on each other to form the shape of the balloon in real-time, in the present moment? Or does the air and balloon variously react to each other in a serial time sequence as causal-chain determinism would suggest?
The universe wouldn't exist without someone to say "That is the 'universe'". Existence is bound up in our phenomenal experience of it. Yet, we are it. Without reality feeding back on itself in the form of perceptual agents, there would be no definition, no identity and thus no existence.
This looks very familiar. I have no novel ideas though. My first thought was a tamping iron used for packing gun-powder, my second thought was a club of some sort. I was superseded by early birds. All is good. Check out Phineas Gage.
I lived on the 6th floor of an apartment building in Victoria, B.C. and one night I failed to lock the door after coming home (with my father). Later that night a drunk man stumbled through the door and made a mad dash for the bathroom where he began vomitting. My father and I were confused and alarmed and asked the man what he was doing. Well, the man looked at us equally alarmed and confused and shouted "What are you doing in my apartment?"
Strange, but we sorted out the confusion, the man went home to another building down the street and that was the end of it. I suppose we could have called the cops...
This is where contingency theorists proffer that the contingency of one's own self-worth provides the motive for biased thinking. If one had nothing to guard against, defend, or prove with respect to one's self-worth, then they won't think prejudicially about it. It's when the self is implicated in the situation that our thinking becomes distorted around the self.
See: The Totalitarian Ego; Fabrication and Revision of Personal History
That isn't really the difference is it? Isn't it the difference between RISC and CISC architecture? Are GPUs real parallel processing circuits or do they just us thread handling, like CPUs, to time-share their resources?
From what I understand, the advantage of RISC over CISC is in it's computational speed, but CISC provides more flexibility which is why CISC is used for Central Processing Units and RISC is used for more specialied processing tasks, such as the North and South Bridge, the GPU and the chip inside your toaster.
Thread handling techniques differ from real parallelism in that with thread handling only one task is ever performed at the same time, much like the first robot operated by Adam and Jamie. Except that robot only has one task to perform, if it drew two pictures and shared it's processing time between them, that would reflect thread handling. Parallelism is an aspect of multiprocessor computers, but even that is a psuedo-parallelism as all the instructions must filter through a time-sharing processor first that allocates portions of the task to other processing units. Much like some networking protocols.
This is vastly different than the parallel processing which happens in the brain, which is more akin to the second robot in Adam and Jamie's presentation. I could be wrong though, it's been a while since I studied computer processing technologies.
The research does seem to show a link between high SAR values and "worker piping" in Bees. Where Skepchick says that the research is flawed because "the author put cell phones on top of an actual hive." The paper itself says: "the conditions employed in the
present experiments have biological significance,
since the sum of the SAR values from the two
mobile phone handsets were always below the 2-
W/kg maximal value recommended for this frequency
(I.C.N.I.R.P 1998)." and recommends "For future experiments, in complement
to the present original study and in order to reach
more “natural” conditions, mobile phone apparatuses
should be placed at various increasing
distances away from the hives."
http://www.kokopelli.asso.fr/documentation/favre.pdf
The experiment is non-conclusive, except that radiation from our cell-phones affects Bee behavior, that much is concluded. Whereas Skepchick's last word is: "Bees are in trouble, but there is nothing here to indicate that your cell phone is the culprit."
Some of us start with what we want to see, and end up there too. I strongly advise getting the news from the horse's mouth.
Stop me before I start making sense. Large/Black
Stop me before I start making sense. Large/Black
Stop me before I start making sense. Large/Black
The best way I can illustrate is to take a rubber balloon and blow it up. Now that I have an expanded rubber balloon I'm going to ask, what is causing the shape of the balloon? And, is that cause acting on the balloon from somewhere in the past? Or is the air in the balloon and the tendency of the balloon to collapse co-acting on each other to form the shape of the balloon in real-time, in the present moment? Or does the air and balloon variously react to each other in a serial time sequence as causal-chain determinism would suggest?
Human Nature / http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55hnobrDtYk&feature=related
Revolver (alternate ending) / http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNM1GhSQ8rY&feature=related
Samsara / http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAHBPgZyGHU&feature=related
Strange, but we sorted out the confusion, the man went home to another building down the street and that was the end of it. I suppose we could have called the cops...
See: The Totalitarian Ego; Fabrication and Revision of Personal History
From what I understand, the advantage of RISC over CISC is in it's computational speed, but CISC provides more flexibility which is why CISC is used for Central Processing Units and RISC is used for more specialied processing tasks, such as the North and South Bridge, the GPU and the chip inside your toaster.
Thread handling techniques differ from real parallelism in that with thread handling only one task is ever performed at the same time, much like the first robot operated by Adam and Jamie. Except that robot only has one task to perform, if it drew two pictures and shared it's processing time between them, that would reflect thread handling. Parallelism is an aspect of multiprocessor computers, but even that is a psuedo-parallelism as all the instructions must filter through a time-sharing processor first that allocates portions of the task to other processing units. Much like some networking protocols.
This is vastly different than the parallel processing which happens in the brain, which is more akin to the second robot in Adam and Jamie's presentation. I could be wrong though, it's been a while since I studied computer processing technologies.