Agree.
For a few years, almost anyone could create a filing system for whatever they were interested in or depended on. An online version would be dope.
(I see I called HyperTalk "HyperText". Oops...)
There is nothing fundamental about the major scale or triad, they didn't even exist 300 years ago, they are an invention of western culture. The author is not aware of previous work of Hindemith, who derived them from purely acoustic phenomena, or the advanced mathematical/musical theories of Mazzola. In other words, like most scientists who delve into art, they look at it as a trivial pursuit and are not diligent.
I don't see why the alleged fact that the major triad didn't exist 300 years ago implies that there is nothing fundamental about them. Even if the biological reasons for their sound perception are as claimed in this article, people would still have to discover that and start using it to create music.
Paradoxically, The power to make humans more moral could also be used to make them less. And since, in the beginning, we wouldn't be moral, these technologies would actually have the opposite effect!
Guess what, Foxconn makes boards for Linux boxes as well, blaming Sony and Apple for using Foxconn and ignoring that everybody else uses them as well is absurd.
Create a menu of tasks.
Dedicate yourself to making progress on at least one of them at any given time. If you like doing any of them choose then one you feel least adverse to. It doesn't matter how many tasks are in your menu, or which one you choose, just "no empty time".
> Instead, the scientists designed a very small, rather dense, playhouse. It looked just like a normal kid's playhouse, except that it was the exact dimensions of the average home fridge. Not only that, the house was equipped with an infrared camera on the top, which took videos of the kid while they were inside, while at the same time keeping it dark, like it would be in a fridge with the door shut.
It should also be noted that the scientists teamed up with a psychiatrist, a child psychologist, and the parents to agree on the length of time the child would be allowed to cry before they helped it out. Three minutes. [1]
Hmm, three minutes of discomfort in a dark playhouse doesn't seem quite as bad as drowning or being burned alive. Especially when you consider the deaths that might be avoided as a result of the research.
Please. As if no emotionally healthy kid ever spent more than three minutes alone in the dark, after waking from a nightmare for instance. And why the hell would they find out? A post-study review in which they are told "mommy and daddy hate your guts"?
It's not 3 minutes, it's 3 minutes after they're so emotionally worked up they're crying. Finding out that your parents heard you but just ignored you is going to make you trust them less. (How do you define "emotionally healthy"? I grew up in a really nice home but my brother and I still have some problems.)
Do you have children? Children cry as an expression of many things, because they can't express themselves in other ways yet. You make it sound like once children get to a state of crying, they must have endured a lot already, which is not true. Allowing children to cry for several minutes at a time before going to check up on them is a pedagogically sound and normal technique for teaching children to go to sleep by themselves, for example.
(two girls) Being upset in your familiar comfortable bed is a very different thing than accidentally trapping yourself in a tiny strange dark box and physically struggling to get out. Very different chemical things happening in your brain in those two situations.
Sure, I'm not saying parents have to come running every time or anything. The point is that letting a kid cry until he goes back to sleep is consistent. Locking your kid in a box to see what happens is not. How will the kid know next time he gets stuck, that it's not just another test? And since the kids are still learning how to communicate, adding a continuing doubt that maybe their parents understand them fine but have chosen to ignore them isn't going to help.
No, it's not bad because it's not bad. Granted, it's not a detailed argument - but I'm not very concerned about a 3 year old feeling helpless and alone for up to 3 minutes.
I don't see why it wouldn't, if the parents are fully informed and consent.
The children were not in any physical danger and were not harmed. I'm not aware of any research that shows that 3 minutes of panic for a 5 year old causes lasting psychological damage. Toddlers experience transient sobbing panic on a fairly regular basis for a variety of reasons. If they are comforted by supportive parents they are fine.
Since this study occurred in 1958, one could presumably find these kids today and see how they are doing. I'd wager that they are no worse-adjusted than would be expected of an average child of that era.
Someone was trying to solve a real problem in 1958. In fact, children still die in refrigerators. I imagine in 54 years, people will look back at some of the stuff we do as primitive and barbaric.
Seriously cool and scary technology. "many of the startups are going for "killer apps" first." he wrote this with no irony intended! I'm considering getting a degree in "bio-informatics"
