Lawrence THE HANDLE, which varies in length according to the height of its user, and in some cases is made by that user to his or her specifications, is like most of the other parts of the tool in that it has a name and thus a character of its own. I call it the snath, as do most of us in the UK, though variations include the snathe, the snaithe, the snead, and the sned. Onto the snath are attached two hand grips, adjusted for the height of the user. On the bottom of the snath is a small hole, a rubberized protector, and a metal D-ring with two hex sockets.
One informal analysis suggests short first names are strongly correlated with higher salaries. They are bad in several ways, and modern glyphs are little better. For example, v and w, or m and n. People confuse them all the time, both in reading and in writing. Even though they share relatively few pixels, they are still identical under rotation, and we can see that.
We could confuse them if we were reading upside down, or at an angle, or just confuse them period. OK, so we now have a set of unique and dissimilar glyphs that are unambiguous about their orientation. Well, we might want them to be easy to write as well as read.
How do we define easy to write? We could have a complicated physiological model about what strokes can easily follow what movements and so on, but we will cop out and say: Rather than unwritable pixels in a grid, our primitives will be little geometric primitives.
The fewer the primitives and the closer to integers or common fractions the positioning of said primitives, the simpler and the better.
We throw all these rules in, add a random starting population or better yet a population modeled after the existing alphabet, and begin our genetic algorithm. What 26 glyphs will we get? Dehaene describes some fascinating and convincing evidence for the first kind of innateness.
In one of the most interesting chapters, he argues that the shapes we use to make written letters mirror the shapes that primates use to recognize objects.
After all, I could use any arbitrary squiggle to encode the sound at the start of Tree instead of a T. But actually the shapes of written symbols are strikingly similar across many languages.
It turns out that T shapes are important to monkeys, too. When a monkey sees a T shape in the world, it is very likely to indicate the edge of an object - something the monkey can grab and maybe even eat.
A particular area of its brain pays special attention to those important shapes. Human brains use the same area to process letters. Dehaene makes a compelling case that these brain areas have been recycled We did not invent most of our letter shapes, he writes.
They lay dormant in our brains for millions of years, and were merely rediscovered when our species invented writing and the alphabet. But who is to say that a butterfly could not dream of a man? You are not the butterfly to say so!
Better to ask what manner of beast could dream of a man dreaming a butterfly, and a butterfly dreaming a man. This is a reasonable objection. But it is rarely proffered by people really familiar with IQ, who also rarely respond to it.
I believe they have an intuitive understanding that IQ is a percentile ranking, not an absolute measurement.
IQ is ordinal, not cardinal. It is plausible that the 20 points separating and represents far more cognitive power and ability than that separating andor and And if retarded kids are closer to Einstein that the smartest non-human animal, that indicates human intelligence is very narrowand that there is a vast spectrum of stupidity stretching below us all the way down to viruses which only learn through evolution.
Current IQ tests are designed for, tested against, and normed on fine distinctions among humans. It is very hard to test animal intelligence because of differing incentives and sensory systems, but if one deals with those problems, there ought to be some general intelligence of prediction and problem solving; the approach I favor is AIXI-style IQ tests.
A gap like 20 points looks very impressive from our narrow compressed human perspective, but it reflects very little absolute difference; to a sheep, other sheep are each distinctive. In Big O computer terms, we might say that geniuses are a constant factor faster than their dimmer brethren, but not asymptotically faster.
The practical impact of a few factors out of thousands may be minimal, and explain the findings without denying the existence of such differences.Solving Cold Cases with DNA: The Boston Strangler Case by Philip Bulman. NIJ funding helped the Boston Police Department solve a rape and murder case almost 50 years after the crime.
Thinkstock, Sometimes the cases are so old that DNA testing did not yet exist when the crimes were committed, and testing biological evidence now might .
grupobittia.comcs visitors, We’re asking for your help. For over 20 years, the grupobittia.comcs website has provided engaging, multimedia educational materials at no cost.. grupobittia.comcs is one of the most-used science websites. DNA Evidence Basics: Possible Results from Testing; DNA Evidence Basics: Types of Samples Suitable for DNA Testing In criminal cases, this generally involves obtaining samples from crime-scene evidence and a suspect, extracting the DNA, and analyzing it for the presence of a set of specific DNA regions (markers).
National Institute of.
A. If you have a court order and the mother refuses to hand over the child, you need to point out that she is breaking a court order and if she still refuses, you need to consider applying to the court for enforcement of the order.
Misc thoughts, memories, proto-essays, musings, etc. And on that dread day, the Ineffable One will summon the artificers and makers of graven images, and He will command them to give life to their creations, and failing, they and their creations will be dedicated to the flames.
The Golden State Killer is a serial killer, rapist, and burglar who committed at least 13 murders, more than 50 rapes, and over burglaries in California from to He is believed to be responsible for three crime sprees throughout California, each of which spawned a different nickname in the press before it became evident that they were committed by the same person.