I read nothing of problems presented which require both types of thinking. Common problems involving both like seating arrangements for a wedding or which family member to ask to borrow money could be used for this. In the test discussed in the article the participant is going to catch on to the pattern after a few questions and instinctively switch their thinking to an optimal mode. In my opinion the resulting brain activity they're reading isn't empathy/analytics, it's bound and unbound thought. Empathy isn't imagination. It's the experiences, memories, and emotions of oneself and everyone they've known recalled abstractly. Asking someone to answer "social question" without personal context not only unbounds the process, but simultaneously removes analysis. This is caused by a) the need for one to imagine the contextual characters necessary to fill in the gaps and b) the inherent throw-away nature of those virtual characters. It all sits in short-term memory.

Real empathy requires actual people to empathize with because it involves more than words. It includes body language and so many other factors. All that's been invoked here is structured imagination, and these questions would inherently exclude analytic thought in that test characters must be taken as-is. On the other side, analytic thought requires mental sandboxes. Analyzing a hypothetical question presents it's own sandbox which excludes imagination, and relies solely on ones training & short term memory. The fact that the subjects know they are being tested at all seems to be the originating flaw.

No information is gathered, rather the lifetime / distance of the qubit is extended. Since this caused the frequency of detection to change, I'm going to make an educated guess that the correction signal causes interference and/or destruction of a third channel which could be monitored for manipulation.

Blasphemy (as defined by the God of Moses, Jehovah) is defined as speaking against Him (i.e: Actively working against his active force / holy spirit.) Committing blasphemy requires belief in the God one blasphemes against. Calling one's God a liar is probably the best example of blasphemy I can give. In most Biblically based religions it is the only unforgivable sin. Note this is not because the blasphemer doesn't want to follow God, nor is it because he mistakenly believes in a false god. It is instead that he is actively attempting to dissuade others from or misinform them about God while knowing the truth. It can't be done on accident, and it can't be committed by a non-believer.

The best way I can describe this is to say this:
When you see a cube, you define it's boundaries in this universe by it's sides and edges,

In this theory primes, q 1 make up the "dimensions" if you will.

Want an easier explanation? The abc conjecture is a universal equation through which (seemingly) all other equations can be refactored to make them comparable and translatable. Great for number theorists and programmers, not sure who else will use it. Maybe physicists.

The appropriate url is displayed, data URIs serve a purpose. OP, this is ridiculous. Quit giving this guy a voice.

I fear we're getting too specific from the main topic. The question asks "Is the Rise of Skeuomorphic User Interfaces a Problem?", not "Where did Apple go wrong?". To answer OP's question, I feel it's a tool used both to integrate new users and ease long time users into new paradigms, so I think not.

This is true, but remember, those that don't want those styles generally know how to change settings to make them go away. I'm making a blatant assumption here, but those who do not know how to change the settings will generally like the imitation styles as compared to the purely-digital look. This was proven by many new users in many GUI's past. Looking too "technical" scares new users away.

While the contrast issue doesn't have much to do with this topic, the page swipe most certainly does. I can only account this to Apple's attempt to either maintain interfaces across devices (more of which are touch these days), or to further the use of their "Magic Mouse". While I do find this mouse very useful, page swipes like this are not very intuitive to me on a desktop. Clicking on a bookmark ribbon just seems worse. As I mentioned in my previous post, people are already fairly accustomed to calendar controls, not much to improve upon at this point.

In order for user interfaces to be able to move away from skeuomorphic techniques one has to consider the willingness of the audience. Web design has been a great test bed for this very things. For many years using anything beyond the base set of html controls + date pickers was considered largely pointless, as businesses needed interfaces that took very little training. As the web evolved into a more entertainment oriented place, technologies like DHTML, Flash, and Javascript allowed designers to experiment with things like sliders, switches, and different types of paging. Apple capitalized on this by taking the best new controls created and built them into the iPhone, which worked so well it gave designers a much larger base set to work with.

In short, introducing stripped down UI's or new controls tend not to succeed when they are forced or simply swapped in because they are "more efficient". They are versioned in for a reason, because people need time to adapt to change.

As for "useless areas or designs" such as torn edges or leather borders, this is all about aesthetic. It's doesn't take a scientist to understand that people like things to look appealing. In the same manner a gamer loves his graphics to look as realistic as possible, so does any other user who sees imitation materials on their screen. Well designed abstract or purely digital layouts can look very nice, but they do not invoke most people's sense of value and worth. Furthering skeuomorphic techniques allows designers the license to introduce other larger changes (like new controls) with little more cushioning than some UI customization.

Yup, you are absolutely right. None of them ever work. My perfect government is represented by Jesus and founded by Jehovah. I don't bash people over the head with it, but that's the only one that works in my eyes. I think that would qualify as a "Theocratic Kingdom" or something similar, and would possess the knowledge required. Failure of any other government is inevitable.

I don't say these things to force religion down their throats, just pointing out that your line of thinking aligns very much with mine, except the "Rule of Law" part. Jehovah's perfect system (as opposed to the Mosaic Law once implemented) runs on principles, not laws.

For the sake of everyone let's hope that it can come at /least/ as peacefully as the Arab Spring came about, preferably more so. I can understand how the Arab nations are tired of religiously based governments, and how religion has hurt them, but a completely turning ones back on it or alienating those who do still practice is not the answer. Religious or not, too much of the human population do have these interests to not consider them. The key lies in balancing everyone's needs, and that requires an environment where EVERY side can voice their interests without fear of bloodshed. Creating this environment has been historically impossible for the middle east.

If you look at my historical comments you'll find that it's far out of my scope to be arguing against theocratic governments, but I can say that communism isn't a bad thing. It CAN be implemented right, it just hasn't been done well so far.

I know the history here, and some how the current situation screams to be that the US would rather have a democratic Iran. I can't speak for the future, but things would be much better for everyone that way now.

Except for "Grands" biscuits. These are undoubtedly some of the best biscuits on Earth. And I welcome our pillowy doughboy overlord.

From the bottom of my heart I wish I could argue the opposing side of this comment. Unfortunately, this to has too much history to count against.