Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re: When The Lunatics Take Over The Asylum (Score 1) 422

"negative punishment", that you describe as taking something away, is most certainly a form of negative reinforcement. Negative reinforcement most certainly does not imply the removal of something. A slap on the wrist is negative reinforcement.

Comment Re: When The Lunatics Take Over The Asylum (Score 2, Interesting) 422

There are plenty of ways to discipline a child without hitting them. For example, negative punishment: take something away from the child that s/he likes, such as a toy, television, internet, etc.

Also keep in mind that punishment does not train behavior, it merely stops it. Training behavior is best accomplished with rewards.

Actually, negative reinforcement works best when it is administered promptly after the undesired action, every time it occurs, be it physical punishment or mental punishment. There severity of it is of less importance, but obviously can't be too light.

Comment Re:When The Lunatics Take Over The Asylum (Score 1) 422

Subject says it all. It really is time to start taking lawyers and other bottom feeders to task. Mentally ill people should be treated for their paranoia, not have it confirmed.

I have no problem with the lady getting assistance, but unfortunately the courts think they or a jury can decide what the cause is.

Comment Interesting FTA (Score 1) 250

Two interesting paragraphs that might have been good for the summary as well;

A study by more than 270 researchers from around the world has found that just 39 per cent of the claims made in psychology papers published in three prominent journals could be reproduced unambiguously – and even then they were found to be less significant statistically than the original findings.

The non-reproducible research includes studies into what factors influence men's and women's choice of romantic partners, whether peoples’ ability to identify an object is slowed down if it is wrongly labelled, and whether people show any racial bias when asked to identify different kinds of weapons.

Comment Re:A counter-example already exists: Chernobyl (Score 1) 163

In Chernobyl, a large nuclear disaster, not only did people die from acute exposure, but hundreds if not thousands of children had thyroid surgery (the "Chernobyl necklace"), and many downwind developed cancer as a result. Remembering that this paper states exposure beyond SEVEN DAYS is not considered, we already know that large nuclear disasters have both acute and long-term health effects. Claiming that they don't flies in the face of history.

That's right. And most of those that didn't die turned in to glowing mongoloids. We can't ignore that history.

Submission + - Canadian accident study puts risks into perspective->

An anonymous reader writes: A Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) study has concluded that there would be no detectable increase in cancer risk for most of the population from radiation released in a hypothetical severe nuclear accident.

The CNSC's dtudy is the result of a collaborative effort of research and analysis undertaken to address concerns raised during public hearings on the environmental assessment for the refurbishment of Ontario Power Generation's (OPG's) Darlington nuclear power plant in 2012. The draft study was released for public consultation in June 2014. Feedback from the Commission itself and comments from over 500 submissions from the public, government and other organizations have been incorporated in the final version.

The study involved identifying and modelling a large atmospheric release of radionuclides from a hypothetical severe nuclear accident at the four-unit Darlington plant

Link to Original Source

Submission + - Many Drivers Never Use In-Vehicle Tech, Don't Want Apple Or Google In Next Car->

Lucas123 writes: Many of the high-tech features automakers believe owners want in their vehicles are not only not being used by them, but they don't want them in their next vehicle, according to a new survey by J.D. Power. According to J.D. Power's 2015 Driver Interactive Vehicle Experience (DrIVE) Report, 20% of new-vehicle owners have never used 16 of 33 of the latest technology features. The five features owners most commonly report that they "never use" are in-vehicle concierge (43%); mobile routers (38%); automatic parking systems (35%); heads-up display (33%); and built-in apps (32%). Additionally, there are 14 technology features that 20% or more of owners don't even want in their next vehicle. Those features include Apple CarPlay and Google Android Auto, in-vehicle concierge services and in-vehicle voice texting. When narrowed to just Gen Yers, the number of vehicle owners who don't want entertainment and connectivity systems increases to 23%.
Link to Original Source

Submission + - Carbon Offsets May Have Dramatically Increased Emissions->

schwit1 writes: That's the finding of a new report from the Stockholm Environment Institute, which investigated carbon credits used to offset greenhouse gas emissions under a UN scheme. As one of the co-authors of the report put it, issuing these credits "was like printing money."

As a result of political horse trading at UN negotiations on climate change, countries like Russia and the Ukraine were allowed to create carbon credits from activities like curbing coal waste fires, or restricting gas emissions from petroleum production. Under the UN scheme, called Joint Implementation, they then were able to sell those credits to the European Union's carbon market. Companies bought the offsets rather than making their own more expensive, emissions cuts.

But this study, from the Stockholm Environment Institute, says the vast majority of Russian and Ukrainian credits were in fact, "hot air" — no actual emissions were reduced.

Link to Original Source

Fear is the greatest salesman. -- Robert Klein