Monday, May 31, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
it explained how dopamine is a gateway to the regulation of working memory. When dopamine levels are steady, the “doorway” of working memory is closed; when they are low, the “doorway” opens, when there is a spike, the “doorway” opens. Why is this?
When you are feeling bad, (low dopamine), your attention is scattered so you can find things in the environment that will spike your mood: you are going to be more likely to be able to find food, sight potential mates, etc. When there is a spike in dopamine, you need to open your attention to be alert to the new threat/opportunity. Otherwise you can let the contents of your working memory remain constant so you can work on whatever problems are currently on your mind.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Rand Paul falls into the error of unconstrained libertarianism.
Marginal Revolution on the limits of Benthamite utilitarianism.
In conversation: "We are wiser perhaps for worshipping at the altars of many small gods."
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Caveat: existing cells are still required to house the novel genome.
For now, Igor, for now...
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Some people say, In this big universe, you're just a speck of dust.
You may be a speck of dust.
But oh, what a speck of dust.
In this speck of dust, the infinite and the finite are fused.
And you are the threshold of the two.
Here, the mortal being comes as close
as it possibly can to the immortal.
The same power that drives the universe breathes us.
We have been chosen to be the platform for life.
(via Andrew & his readers)
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
"...San Francisco, or some of them other places. Yes, it's transferable. He's
been talking about that for a while. Yes, I'm sure that's true. Manageable. Only the finest cuts..."
Is this someone's cellphone dialing me by accident? A message from beyond the grave? What?
Thursday, May 13, 2010
As he mentions in his post, models which underestimate the expected default rate will blow up the structure. I should also mention that underrepresenting the correlation among assets will likewise result in a structure that's prone to blow up, and that beyond a certain point, all correlations will move toward 1, meaning that the failure of enough mortgages in a pool will make it almost certain that the other mortgages will fail and that your model will have underestimated this fact.
In the recent meltdown, both of these things happened: the chances that the underlying mortgages would independently fail increased and the correlation among all of the mortgages increased. Moreover, there were a number of CDOs out there that appear to have been filled with lemons, where the odds of the underlying failing were known to be higher by the seller, but not the buyer.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Having not known them, I could only guess. Maybe there was a mutual feeding of each other’s paranoia?
There was the paranoia. And I mean, I think she needed a narrative. She needed an explanation as to why she wasn’t making it in Hollywood. She’d made it before, in the video-game world, but I think she came out here and everyone expected her to be a star, this big moviemaker, and she didn’t realize that movies just aren’t getting made. It drove her crazy, and she couldn’t accept that defeat and so she had to build this narrative.
That’s where her theories about a Scientologist plot against her come into it.
The Scientologists. And then she began to build this huge narrative as to why she wasn’t successful in the film industry. I’m haunted by it. I don’t know why it resonated with me so much.
You explained it pretty well. It was the relationship that you’d been having, and your experience with The Informers. That could really put you in a place where the Blake-Duncan story would hit you hard.
And they were hot.
They were hot. Yeah.
Literally, this is how it sold with one of the producers, to get financing for it. “Who wants to see a movie about two people who kill themselves?” And then the other producer said, “Well, they were hot.”
And he said, “Really? Well, where’s the pictures of them? Ah. Yeah.”
This was two producers talking to each other?
Monday, May 10, 2010
Sunday, May 09, 2010
Friday, May 07, 2010
Thursday, May 06, 2010
"I'm beginning to wonder if you really understand what 'abridging the freedom of speech' means at all," said Stevens, a 34-year veteran of the court known for his often-nuanced interpretations of the First Amendment. "I'm also wondering whether you and your fat-faced plaintiffs over there need to have some respect for constitutionally protected expression fucked into your empty hick skulls."(via jwz)