Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I Don't Understand the Conclusion (Score 1) 138

by AnalogBrain (#43023603) Attached to: Terminator Sparrows?
From the abstract:

As predicted, subjects responded more aggressively to the mount during wing waving trials than during stationary trials. A second experiment demonstrated that this effect cannot be attributed simply to increased attention to movement. Less expectedly, subjects did not alter their own display behavior in response to wing waving as compared to a static mount. We conclude that the wing wave display in the context of singing is a signal that functions in male–male aggressive communication.

I guess that means the birds were more aggressive when the robosparrow was flapping it's wings, but didn't necessarily signal this with their own wing flapping. I assume they have other ways of showing aggression, like pecking its head off. This wasn't well summarized in the article.

Comment: Re:Experimenter as a variable (Score 1) 315

by AnalogBrain (#39388559) Attached to: Psychic Ability Claim Doesn't Hold Up In New Scientific Experiments
When proponents of ESP/PK talk about the 'experimenter effect,' they're considering the possibility that a skeptic can inadvertently disrupt an experiment with their own psychic abilities based on their expected outcome. In that case both the skeptic getting a negative effect and a believer getting a positive effect can be seen as evidence of psychic powers. Bem doesn't directly mention this in the article, but it's not clear that he's talking traditional experimenter's bias either.

Comment: Not actually creating mass right? (Score 1) 184

by AnalogBrain (#33987952) Attached to: Physicists Say Graphene Could Create Mass
So, if I'm understanding correctly, when when electrons move along a 2d surface, one doesn't have to account for their mass. When they are forced to move along one dimension, their masses have to be taken into account. We're not actually creating mass, but mass now has to be factored into the electron behavior. Is this because they're more likely to collide, or are at least close enough that mass/gravity becomes a factor? Is this even close to a lay-understanding of what's going on?

Comment: CEOs usually encouraged to use "instincts" (Score 1) 213

by AnalogBrain (#33598548) Attached to: Study Shows Testosterone is Bad For High-Stakes Decisions
I always wince when I hear about CEOs or traders being highly compensated because they have good "instincts." It seems like we're rewarding people who make the most aggressive, risky decisions and then simply luck out. In a large enough systems we'll always have some people succeeding with this kind of decision-making. Once they're in a position of power they are just as likely to make mistakes (past luck being no indicator of future luck), but by then they're in a system where rewards and bonuses are barely tied to performance.

Comment: Is this really unique to tech? (Score 2, Interesting) 135

by AnalogBrain (#33480972) Attached to: Leaders Aren't Being Made At Tech Firms
How does this really compare to companies that are not considered "High-tech?" Are those companies spending a lot more money and time on training management, or is it just that most MBA-type programs are geared towards that type of management role?
I know several retired engineers who became managers in companies that invested in their training throughout their career. I'd be curious to see statistics on how that's changed over the years. It could be that high-tech companies are just more likely to reflect modern business practices. Perhaps those companies are more likely to feel the effects of hiring people from a "pure management" background because managing complex engineering projects is, you know, complicated.

Comment: Re:Citation Needed (Score 2, Interesting) 1139

by AnalogBrain (#33301076) Attached to: Is a US High-Speed Railway Economically Feasible?
From the paper:
The city greenhouse gas emissions inventories discussed in this paper all use a traditional production-based approach to allocating emissions, meaning that they take into account the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases produced within the area under consideration.
i.e. Not the areas they are consumed. This is partly the GPs point. Many emissions attributed to rural areas are really produced in support of urban areas.

Philogyny recapitulates erogeny; erogeny recapitulates philogyny.