Results are also greater if a male and female work together, but same-sex pairs produce no significant results. Pairs of the opposite sex who are romantically involved produce the best results -- often seven times greater than when the same individuals are tested alone. Brenda Dunne, a developmental psychologist and the lab's manager, said the results in such cases often reflect the two gender styles. The effects are bigger, in keeping with what the female alone would tend to produce, but more on target, in keeping with what the male alone would produce.
Most science has tended to avoid such researches or consider it as not serious or not significant. But it is finally getting worth something. Get ready to control your devices just by thinking you can do it.
Nice article, but this time I felt like there was something odd in it. So I sent a comment to Orlowski about it. Here it is :
I always appreciate reading you on El Reg. This time it was interresting again. But I don't think you have a large view enough of the copyright subject here. I agree that the Creative Common will not solve anything. Indeed, it's a pose. But the GPL was a pose as well until it got massively used and makes sense thanks to Linux.
IMO, the central point is the question about rewarding : "And why the reluctance to think about social agreements that reward the gifted people who give us such pleasure?"
That's where the art world probably has gone too far and the geek world fail to do it. The answer is probably in the middle. But that means you assume that :
- there are gifted people
- this gift belongs to them as a property
While I agree on the first one, I don't on the second one. But it's more a philosophical debate of wether we are part of nature or we own nature. And it seems the techno world actually think that we are part of nature and not as a property. That seems counter-intuitive when you compare it to the art world... And in that perspective, the idea is not to market a gift but to create the conditions for it to be "commonly" used by as much people as possible.
Until this is really debated I don't think anything will change. And the techno vs art war will be on.
This article is actually a series of interviews of people who are thinking about the future and the way the changes work. All interresting people which a somehow clear (and not so nice) view on the coming future :
Yet we face an enormous crisis because the most central and important aspect of globalization—its economy—is currently being organized in a manner that so gravely violates the fundamental principles by which healthy living systems are organized that it threatens the demise of our whole civilization.
This would mean understanding how nature evolves—not just how to maintain it, but deeply understanding that the nature of nature is to evolve.
An interresting article on the promises of technology on the biological field. As usual, Kurzweil has a great insight and clear view of what the future may be.
There's a robotic design for red blood cells by Rob Freitas which he calls respirocytes. A conservative analysis of that indicates that if you replace ten percent of your red blood cells with these devices you could do an Olympic sprint for 15 minutes without taking a breath, or sit at the bottom of your pool for four hours.
The United Nations are now aware of the radical changes that may happen soon due to technology. It seems they base their predictions on Kurzweil's law of accelerating returns.
The report argues that because the factors that caused the acceleration of S&T are themselves accelerating, the rate of change in the past 25 years will appear slow compared to the rate of change in the next 25 years.
Another experience that tend to prove the mind is weak. That even truth can be biased by social pressure. They don't mention if it's a conscious process or not...
It suggests that information from other people may color our perception at a very deep level.
But if people are made aware of their vulnerability, they may be able to avoid conforming to social pressure when it is not in their self-interest.