Always hatin' on the Munroe Republic :(

A quick Google scholar search for biofeedback returns "about 139 000 results", for just papers; patents and citations unchecked.

I recommend reading anything by John V. Basmajian. He wrote a good criticism of what he saw as common fallacies in EMG research in a chapter of "Mind/body integration : essential readings in biofeedback" (itself a mixed bag of good and poor articles.)

Some links to articles of interest: Moser et. al. 1997, Rodriguez and Rosa 2012, Andrasik 2010

Happy reading!

Reading the comment storm brewing here, the meta-debate is also mostly idiots yelling :)

Study finds: "Subject trying to learn how to relax, manages to relax, despite the relaxation aid being BS or even counterproductive."
Conclusion: "Recommend that autonomy of subject is taken into account in future studies, where success during trial is in subject's interest."

In good biofeedback studies, the subject should not be aware of the parameter they are attempting to control (e.g. I read a study in which the subject learned to raise and lower their body temperature at will, where as far as they were concerned, they were just trying to move a ball across a screen with their mind.)
Biofeedback is an interesting field with a lot of good scientific support, but suffers from a bad reputation due to prevalence of pseudoscience.

Disclaimer: I have worked on biofeedback research projects in the past.

Yes, I'm sadly disappointed that my search for 'organ' came up blank :(

Beamer FTW!

Quoting the daily mail should get you modded down, not up.

The daily mail has a long record for making up statistics and deliberately misunderstanding facts, so as to push an an agenda which includes anti-animal-welfare.

Also, you seem to have upped the statistics from 84% in one shelter (according to the mail) to 90% for all animals (according to you). Silly you.

Please remind me: why does the government think that whistleblowers are the greatest threat to national security?

Firstly: your random address doesn't exist. 521 1st st, New York, NY does, however and OSM finds it straight away, even showing house numbers on the buildings!

521 N (as copy-pasted from your post into the search bar) returns two alternatives - in Nassau and in Cattaraugus, where there are North and South 1st streets.

Other counterexamples:

All the starbucks in my town are listed in OSM.

Looking for bus routes in Kent, England
Google Maps: Search, get the occasionall bus depot. Public transport layer, get not a thing.
OpenStreetMap: Search, get nothing. Transport layer: get detailed visualisation of bus route and train routes.

OSM also has an excellent layer for cycle routes. Google thinks it has one, but it's woefully incomplete and inaccurate.

Basically, I find OSMs local info to be more complete, but google has a better search parser and, of course, street view.
They are both utterly useable.

Ok, so the assign statements are more like buffers, or D-latches with permanent enables (and yes, they are asynchronous. the always statement is clocked, though). To make it non-reactive, you would need to multiplex, or place it in a conditional block.
I guess hardware is always reactive, you just get to decide what it is reacting to and any one point. Reminds me of a micro architecture lecture where someone asked what happens if you don't put a value on the opcode port...

From the article, I think the idea is to enable hardware-like features to programmers.
It's not clear (and other posts are clearly as confused about this) whether reactive programming is meant to be a language-level paradigm (which IMHO would be interesting and useful) or some kind of 'philosophy' like agile.

If the latter, then I guess it would be about creating frameworks, which would get seriously messy, or some kind of meta-programming.

For C++, I think Qt-style signals and slots is the best you're likely to get, since you don't need to care how the event loop and triggers work, you just 'emit' in the right places and 'connect' up whatever object you'd like to change accordingly.

The motto of NIH!

Yes, you get buggy frameworks which are to be avoided. There are also many quality frameworks and toolkits available.
If it is commecially supported, then it is someone else's task to fix any bugs you point out.
If you built the thing from the ground up, then it's all on you (and you probably took years just getting there.)
If it is open source, then realise that you are benefitting from everyone else's contributions and thus stop whining and go ahead and fix someone else's bug.

Rome was not built by one man. :)

The point of new paradigms in programming languages is to make the complexity of the expression match the complexity of the idea being expressed, not the complexity of the (platform specific) implementation.

Crappy illustration:

C++ - Event-trigger
vector triggers;

void add_trigger(Trigger * t);

void reactive_variable::modify_value(int new_value)
{
// event
this.value = new_value;
// trigger
for (i = triggers.begin(); i != triggers.end(); i++){
i.react(new_value);
}
}

// actual code you want to get around to actually writing
int main()
{
reactive_variable a;
Trigger *b = new Trigger(COPY_VAR);
a.add_trigger(b);
Trigger *c = new Trigger(ADD_VAR, 1);
a.add_trigger(c);

a.modify_value(2);

enter_event_loop(); // some routine that modifies a continuously

return 0;
}

Incomplete, inelegant and probably buggy, but you get the picture.

Verilog - Reactive
assign b = a;
assign c = a+1;

inital a = 2;

always @(posedge clk)
a = count(input);

Easy to understand whats going on and spot errors. 'b' will always equal 'a' and 'c' will always be one more.

It's the new rock, paper, scissors :)

I mainly agree, but the most valuble lesson I think you learn from python is readability.

This is (should be?) big for marketability.