Not to mention that China or Russia tend to build cool stuff and then only build a handful of them. I don't see either country churning out 100-200 of their next gen stealth fighters each.

Uhh....bullshit. They haven't flown in combat yet (because there has been no need for strict air-to-air combat since they came in service), but they are a part of the air defense system and have intercepted russian bombers near the arctic.

Are you talking about Israelis and Palestians, or Star Wars and Star Trek Fans?

Actually, if you think about Jobs in the 70s and 80s, he DID make something available to the masses that previously had been stuck in universities and corporations. I also make this comparison because of their marketing abilities, and because he didn't personally design the most famous things his company made.

I thought Henry Ford was the best comparison, to be honest.

I'm not a linguist, but I do know from being in the cognitive sciences that language involves syntax, grammar, etc. Dogs can learn words to respond to commands (or get excited about a treat or a walk) but it isn't the same as having a conversation with them.

Fair enough, the summary presented on the MIT news website was quite misleading. Your abstract clearly indicates that this is not the case. However, having read some of your other work (FFA/FFG debate, a PNAS review from a year or so ago about functional specificity) I wasn't prone to question the summary as it fits with the view of brain functioning that I read about in said articles, and a view that I disagree with in a more general sense. My apologies if my previous criticism came across as ad hominem, I don't give slashdot posts the same kind of attention (tone, etc) that I would give an email or other communication because they are, as you would say, idle.

I've read plenty of other research (check out the fusiform gyrus/face area debates) and perhaps erroneously jumped to the conclusion that this was a bit of that history repeating.

There is something odd about research out of MIT. They seem to really like the idea that there are parts of the brain that innately do one specific thing (well, at least Nancy Kanwisher does, and she is on this paper). It is pretty much ridiculous to argue that we have have a unique reading area of the brain since it is something the human race hasn't been doing that long. It wouldn't surprise me if the same brain regions are used in most people to read, but it is very odd to assume that one brain region would basically be useless or taken over by other regions for a large number of humans. Functional specificity makes sense for motor cortex and primary sensory receiving areas, but not something as high level as reading.

They communicate, but they don't actually use language. Also, it is hard to point out clear analogues in primate brains, much less other mammals or birds.

It does now. This problem has been taken care of in the last few years.

To be fair, did they actually call it "ass cancer"?

I read that last sentence in my head as the Emperor.

Such battle stations are banned by treaty already. They would be really easy to shoot down (target moving in a routine and predictable orbit), and are kind of unnecessary when you have ICBMs.

I think you mean "if you are a university, you can pay the coaches more money and hire more adjuncts instead of tenure track faculty." There is a difference between a university wanting money to support staff, get new equipment, etc, and a company that is accountable to shareholders. Big difference. Look at non-profit vs. for-profit universities, for a start.

It does reduce how you run things, you know, not having shareholders to worry about. Just look at how for-profit vs non-profit universities work, for starters.