Fernando’s posterous

article repository; random thoughts 

Why your voice differs from inside to outside

I kinda knew that, but, anyway, it's nice to confirm one's suspicions.
 
(From here: http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-06/why-your-voice-sounds-different-recordings
)
 
---------------
 
It sounds different because it is different. "When you speak, the
vocal folds in your throat vibrate, which causes your skin, skull and
oral cavities to also vibrate, and we perceive this as sound,"
explains Ben Hornsby, a professor of audiology at Vanderbilt
University. The vibrations mix with the sound waves traveling from
your mouth to your eardrum, giving your voice a quality — generally a
deeper, more dignified sound — that no one else hears.
 
Through a loudspeaker or recording device, you pick up sound only
through air conduction. "The sound we're used to hearing has a lower
frequency from the bone vibrations," Hornsby says. "We like that
because it sounds rich and full." Many people cringe at the playback
sound because our brain struggles to accept that this foreign voice is
our own.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   article  

Comments [0]

Silêncio

Loading mentions Retweet

Comments [0]

Distrações infinitas

Peguei daqui (não vi permalinks que satisfizessem):
 
http://talktohimselfshow.zip.net/
 
Por incrível que pareça, consegui ler até o final sem me distrair. Deve ser porque dou prioridade total a artigos sobre eliminação de distrações.
 
----------------------------------
 
Como se concentrar em meio a tantas distrações
 
Abra mão do mito do "multitasking" para levar uma "vida focada"
 
 
Imagine que você deixou seu laptop de lado e desligou seu celular. Você está fora do alcance do YouTube, do Facebook, do e-mail e das mensagens de texto. Está sentado num táxi com um exemplar de "Rapt" (Extasiado), um guia de Winifred Gallagher à ciência do prestar atenção.
O tema do livro, que Gallagher escolheu depois de descobrir que sofria de um tumor maligno, é inspirado no psicólogo William James: "Minha experiência é aquilo ao qual concordo em prestar atenção". Você pode levar uma vida infeliz, focando sua atenção nos problemas. Pode se levar à loucura, tentando realizar tarefas múltiplas ao mesmo tempo e responder a todos os e-mails imediatamente.
Ou, então, pode reconhecer a capacidade finita de processar informações que tem seu cérebro e conquistar as satisfações do que Gallagher descreve como a vida focada. Soa atraente, só que, enquanto você está sentado no táxi, lendo sobre a ciência do prestar atenção, você percebe que não está prestando atenção a uma única palavra do que está na página.
A TV do táxi, que não pode ser desligada, está mostrando um comercial sobre um sujeito num táxi trabalhando num laptop -e, enquanto ele conta como seu novo cartão wireless tornou mais produtivo o percurso no táxi, você não consegue fazer nada de produtivo durante o seu próprio trajeto.
Será que ainda há, em algum lugar, um refúgio realista da idade da distração? Fiz essas perguntas a Gallagher e a um dos especialistas citados em seu livro, o neurocientista Robert Desimone, do Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Desimone vem rastreando as ondas cerebrais de símios do gênero macacus e de humanos, enquanto olham para telas de vídeo, à procura de determinados padrões que vão e vêm em flash.
Quando uma coisa iluminada ou nova pisca, ela tende a automaticamente vencer a disputa pela atenção do cérebro, mas esse impulso involuntário pode ser superado voluntariamente por meio de um processo que Desimone chama de "competição enviesada".
Ele e alguns de seus colegas descobriram que neurônios no córtex pré-frontal -o centro de planejamento do cérebro- começam a oscilar em uníssono, criando ondas gama, e enviam sinais direcionando o córtex visual a prestar atenção a outra coisa.
Para Desimone, uma terapia desse tipo pode ajudar pessoas que sofrem de esquizofrenia ou déficit de atenção, com menos efeitos colaterais que medicamentos. Se pudesse ser feita com uma luz de baixo comprimento de onda, que penetrasse o crânio, seria possível simplesmente colocar (ou tirar) um minúsculo aparelho sem fios.
Depois que descobriu como é difícil para o cérebro deixar de prestar atenção a sons, Gallagher começou a levar tampões de ouvidos em sua bolsa. Quando você está preso num metrô barulhento, disse, precisa construir seu próprio "abrigo" contra os estímulos. Gallagher recomenda às pessoas iniciar o dia de trabalho concentrando-se sobre a tarefa mais importante do dia durante 90 minutos. Depois disso, seu córtex pré-frontal provavelmente precisará de um descanso. É o momento em que você pode responder e-mails, retornar telefonemas e tomar uma bebida com cafeína (que de fato auxilia a atenção), antes de voltar a focar no trabalho. Mas, até esse primeiro "recreio", não se deixe distrair, porque depois de uma interrupção o cérebro pode levar 20 minutos para ser "reiniciado".
"O multitasking é um mito", disse Gallagher. "Não é possível fazer duas coisas ao mesmo tempo. O mecanismo da atenção é a seleção: ou uma coisa ou outra." E prossegue: "A atenção é um recurso finito, como o dinheiro. Você quer investir seu dinheiro cognitivo mandando mensagens pelo Twitter, navegando na internet ou assistindo à TV? Fazemos escolhas constantes, e nossas escolhas determinam nossa experiência".
Gallagher contou que quando se tratou do câncer, há alguns anos, conseguiu se manter relativamente bem humorada, guardando em mente o mantra de William James e também um verso de John Milton: "A mente é seu próprio lugar, e, sozinha / é capaz de converter o céu em inferno ou o inferno em céu".
"Dizia a mim mesma: 'Você quer ficar deitada aqui, prestando atenção às grandes chances de que você vá morrer e deixar seus filhos sem mãe, ou quer se levantar, lavar o rosto e prestar atenção a seu trabalho, sua família e seus amigos?'. Céu ou inferno -a escolha é sua", disse.

Loading mentions Retweet

Comments [0]

Now here's a reddit comment that made my day.

From here:
 
http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/8v80l/as_obama_talked_about_the_power_of_the_neda_video/c0ajhyc
 
----------
 
 > Maybe I'm wrong here, but wouldn't she just be an average journalist if this was say, anytime before 1970?
 
This is a surprisingly common belief that there was a "good ol' days." There wasn't. What happens is we look back through rose-colored glasses and we only see the reporting which was notable and remembered.
 
40 years from now, people are going to look back at our time and they're only going to see stories of Helen Thomas sticking up for responsible journalism and they're going to think "why aren't reporters today like those of the early 2000's when there were lots of journalists like Helen Thomas who asked uncomfortable questions to the President?"

Loading mentions Retweet

Comments [0]

The Philosophy of Computer Science

If you need philosophy, please break the glass with an axe.
 
Excerpt from here ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computer-science/ ):
 
-------------------------------
 
2.1 The Dual Nature of Programs
 
Many authors (Moor 1978; Rapaport 2005b; Colburn 2004) discuss the so-called dual nature of programs. On the face of it, a program appears to have both a textual and a mechanical or process-like guise. As text, a program can be edited. But its manifestation on a machine-readable disk seems to have quite different properties. In particular, it can be executed on a physical machine. So according to the principle of the indiscernibility of identicals (§3.3), the two guises cannot be the same entity. Of course, anyone persuaded by this duality is under an obligation to say something about the relationship between these two apparent forms of existence.
 
One immediate suggestion is that one manifestation of a program is an implementation of the other i.e., the physical manifestation is an implementation of the textual one. However, even within the confines of computer science, it is not immediately clear that the word implementation refers to just one notion. Often it is used to refer to the result of a compilation process where a program in a high-level language (the source code) is transformed into machine language (the object code). But equally often it is used to refer to the process where the source code is somehow directly realized in hardware (e.g. a concrete implementation in semiconductors). And presumably, this is the relevant notion. But without a more detailed philosophical analysis of the notion of implementation (§3.2) itself (Rapaport 2005b), it is unclear how this advances the discussion; we seem only to have named the relationship between the two apparent forms of existence. In a similar vein, others have described the relationship between the program-text and the program-process as being similar to that between a plan and its manifestation as a series of physical actions. But this does not seem to be quite analogous to the program-process pairing: we are not tempted to refer to the plan and the physical process as being different manifestations of the same thing. For example, are we tempted to think of a plan to go for a walk and the actual walk as different facets of the same thing?
 
Perhaps matters are best described by saying that programs, as textual objects, cause mechanical processes? The idea seems to be that somehow the textual object physically causes the mechanical process. But this would seem to demand some rather careful analysis of the nature of such a causal relation. Colburn (2004) denies that the symbolic text has the causal effect; it is its physical manifestation (the thing on the disk) that has such an effect. Software is a concrete abstraction that has a medium of description (the text, the abstraction) and a medium of execution (e.g., a concrete implementation in semiconductors).
 
A slightly different perspective on these issues starts from the question of program identity. When are two programs taken to be the same? Such issues arise for example in attempts to determine the legal identity of a piece of software. If we identify a program with its textual manifestation then the identity of a program is sensitive to changes in its appearance (e.g. changing the font). Evidently, it is not the text alone that provides us with any philosophically interesting notion of program identity. Rather, to reach an informed criterion of identity we need to take more account of semantics and implementation. We shall return to this subject in §3 and §6.

Loading mentions Retweet

Comments [0]

Python bizarre integer equality

Of course it works perfectly with ==, but that's not "object equality" in Python anyway:
 
(From http://distilledb.com/blog/archives/date/2009/06/18/python-gotcha-integer-equality.page )
 
----------------
 
 
Python gotcha: Bizarre integer equality
 
John
Thursday, June 18, 2009 @ 20:00
 
Summary Python implementations can throw you a curveball when comparing integer identity.
 
In Python, everything is an object. These semantics are predictable for the most part -- until they aren't. Here's a short but confusing snippet of Python 3 code, running from Ubuntu 9.04. Can you surmise why this inconsistency happens?
 
 >>> a = 500
 >>> b = 500
 >>> a is b
False
 
 >>> c = 200
 >>> d = 200
 >>> c is d
True
 
In Python, is tests for identity, not equality. x is y if and only if x and y reference the same thing. Although a and b have the same value, they are distinct objects, and so comparing the two yields False, as one might expect.
 
But then we're confronted with the second case. It's precisely identical to the first, just with a different assigned value. Yet it produces the opposite result. How can this be?
 
The key to this puzzle lies in a peculiar implementation detail of CPython, the de facto Python implementation. As we said earlier, in Python, everything is an object, even literals. Logically, that means that two different instances should be distinct from each other, as in the first case above.
 
But in CPython, when you create an integer literal in the range [-5, ..., 256], it's actually cached for performance reasons. Further references to the same literal are identical references to the existing literal, not new references. Thus c and d refer to the same cached instance, and the result is True.
 
Because of another implementation detail, two literals with the same value that are in the same compilation unit will reference the same object. Comparing literals directly results in True in both cases, as we see here:
 
 >>> 200 is 200
True
 
 >>> 500 is 500
True
 
More importantly, however, this illustrates the danger when is is mistakenly used to compare value equality instead of reference equality. Had you used == instead, the results are precisely what you'd expect:
 
 >>> a = 500
 >>> b = 500
 >>> a == b
True
 
 >>> c = 200
 >>> d = 200
 >>> c == d
True

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   dev   python  

Comments [0]

Introduction to decompilation

Yeah, that's what it is. Right here: http://www.debugmode.com/dcompile/

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   dev  

Comments [0]

"Find my iPhone" actually works

From here ( http://happywaffle.livejournal.com/5890.html ):
 
--------------------
 
(...) Now, put yourself in the shoes of the iPhone thiever who will momentarily be entering the story. You might have told yourself, "Hey, free iPhone!" the night before. You might have seen the gently-threatening messages and ignored them, maybe even scoffed. Then the phone told you it was on Medill St. It talked to you in Spanish. And you saw three skinny white guys prowling in the street with a laptop computer open.
 
So you take off down the road, and to your shock and horror, the honkeys follow you. You stand at your local bus stop, expecting to lose them. And they converge on your location from across the intersection, the bald one with the laptop yelling and pointing at you. You probably think the angels of death have found you. (...)

Loading mentions Retweet

Comments [0]

Os novos ascensoristas

Trechinho daqui ( http://www.rafael.galvao.org/2009/06/de-jornalistas-e-ascensoristas/ ):


----------------------

Mas, aparentemente, a grande maioria dos jornalistas não consegue se enxergar fora de uma estrutura que se consolidou ao longo dos últimos 150 anos. Cada vez mais, lembram ascensoristas desconsolados diante do surgimento de elevadores automáticos, em pânico diante da superação dos elevadores com alavancas e portas pantográficas.


Loading mentions Retweet

Comments [0]

Zoning out

I'll actually post the entire content here, 'cause paging in and out
means no fun at all.
 
And "no zoning out", by the way.
 
From here: http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jul-aug/15-brain-stop-paying-attention-zoning-out-crucial-mental-state
 
------------------
 
The Brain Stop Paying Attention: Zoning Out Is a Crucial Mental State
Researchers say a wandering mind may be important to setting goals,
making discoveries, and living a balanced life.
 
by Carl Zimmer
 
I am going to do my best to hold your attention until the very last
word of this column. Actually, I know it’s futile. Along the way, your
mind will wander off, then return, then drift away again. But I can
console myself with some recent research on the subject of mind
wandering. Mind wandering is not necessarily the sign of a boring
column. It’s just one of the things that make us human.
 
Everybody knows what it is like for our minds to wander, and yet, for
a long time psychologists shied away from examining the experience. It
seemed too elusive and subjective to study scientifically. Only in the
past decade have they even measured just how common mind wandering is.
The answer is very.
 
Some of the most striking evidence comes from Jonathan Schooler, a
psychologist at the University of California at Santa Barbara who is
one of the leading researchers on mind wandering. In 2005 he and his
colleagues told a group of undergraduates to read the opening chapters
of War and Peace on a computer monitor and then to tap a key whenever
they realized they were not thinking about what they were reading. On
average, the students reported that their minds wandered 5.4 times in
a 45-minute session. Other researchers have gotten similar results
with simpler tasks, such as pronouncing words or pressing a button in
response to seeing particular letters and numbers. Depending on the
experiment, people spend up to half their time not thinking about the
task at hand—even when they’ve been told explicitly to pay attention.
 
Psychologists have also discovered ways to increase and decrease mind
wandering. Jonathan Smallwood, a colleague of Schooler’s at UC Santa
Barbara, instructed subjects to tap a key every time they saw a new
number appear on a computer screen but to hold off tapping if the
number was three. The more quickly the numbers came, the less often
the subjects’ minds wandered. But as people practiced the task and
became more familiar with it, their mind wandering increased.
Smallwood has also found that mood affects mind wandering: If he
showed people a short video about a sick dog before they performed the
task, for example, they spent more time mind wandering than did a
separate group that had watched a comedy clip.
 
Alcohol tweaks mind wandering in a particularly interesting way, as
Schooler and his colleagues report in a new paper entitled “Lost in
the Sauce,” published in Psychological Science. The psychologists ran
the War and Peace experiment again, but this time after serving their
subjects some vodka with cranberry juice. Drunk readers actually
reported less mind wandering than sober people did. That does not mean
that you should swill vodka if you want a laser focus on Tolstoy’s
deathless prose, though. Schooler has shown that there are, in fact,
two kinds of mind wandering: mind wandering when you are aware that
you’re thinking about something else and mind wandering without
awareness. He calls this second kind “zoning out.”
 
To determine which kind of mind wandering people experience, Schooler
and his collaborators told the participants in the War and Peace
experiment to report their own drifting but also asked them every few
minutes if they were thinking of something else. If people responded
to those questions with a yes, that meant they weren’t aware enough of
their own minds to report their mind wandering on their own. These
experiments show that we spend about 13 percent of our time zoning
out. But when we are drunk, that figure doubles. In other words,
inebriated subjects report less mind wandering only because they are
less aware of their own minds.
 
When our minds wander, we lose touch with the outside world. We don’t
actually black out, of course, but we are more likely to make
mistakes, fail to encode memories, or miss a connection. Zoning out
makes us particularly prone to these errors. Schooler and Smallwood,
along with Merrill McSpadden of the University of British Columbia,
tested the effect of zoning out by having a test group read a Sherlock
Holmes mystery in which a villain used a pseudonym. As people were
reading the passages discussing this fact, the researchers checked
their state of attentiveness. Just 30 percent of the people who were
zoning out at the key moments could give the villain’s pseudonym,
while 61 percent of the people who weren’t zoning out at those moments
succeeded.
 
These results are shocking when you stop to think about them. Each of
us has a magnificent hive of billions of neurons in our head, joined
to each other by trillions of connections. The human brain is arguably
the most complex organ in the natural world. And yet studies on mind
wandering are showing that we find it difficult to stay focused for
more than a few minutes on even the easiest tasks, despite the fact
that we make mistakes whenever we drift away.
 
Neuroscientists are investigating this paradox by searching for the
signatures of mind wandering in the brain. To that end, Schooler and
Smallwood recently ran yet another experiment—this one in
collaboration with Alan Gordon of Stanford University, University of
British Columbia neuroscientist Kalina Christoff, and Christoff’s
graduate student Rachelle Smith. The researchers put people in a
functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanner and gave them the
standard press-a-key-unless-you-see-three test. From time to time they
asked the subjects if they were paying attention to the task; if they
hadn’t been, the researchers asked if they had been aware that their
mind had wandered. The subjects reported mind wandering 43 percent of
the time they were asked. In nearly half those cases, they said they
hadn’t been aware of their inattentiveness until the scientists asked.
 
Later, the scientists pored over the scans, looking closely at the
activity in people’s brains right before they were asked about their
state of mind. Overall, people who said they were mind wandering had a
pattern of brain activity quite different from those who were focused
on the task.
 
The regions of the brain that become active during mind wandering
belong to two important networks. One is known as the executive
control system. Located mainly in the front of the brain, these
regions exert a top-down influence on our conscious and unconscious
thought, directing the brain’s activity toward important goals. The
other regions belong to another network called the default network. In
2001 a group led by neuroscientist Marcus Raichle at Washington
University discovered that this network was more active when people
were simply sitting idly in a brain scanner than when they were asked
to perform a particular task. The default network also becomes active
during certain kinds of self-referential thinking, such as reflecting
on personal experiences or picturing yourself in the future.
 
The fact that both of these important brain networks become active
together suggests that mind wandering is not useless mental static.
Instead, Schooler proposes, mind wandering allows us to work through
some important thinking. Our brains process information to reach
goals, but some of those goals are immediate while others are distant.
Somehow we have evolved a way to switch between handling the here and
now and contemplating long-term objectives. It may be no coincidence
that most of the thoughts that people have during mind wandering have
to do with the future.
 
Each of us has a magnificent hive of billions of neurons in our head.
Yet we find it difficult to stay focused for more than a few minutes
on even the easiest tasks.
 
Even more telling is the discovery that zoning out may be the most
fruitful type of mind wandering. In their fMRI study, Schooler and his
colleagues found that the default network and executive control
systems are even more active during zoning out than they are during
the less extreme mind wandering with awareness. When we are no longer
even aware that our minds are wandering, we may be able to think most
deeply about the big picture.
 
Because a fair amount of mind wandering happens without our ever
noticing, the solutions it lets us reach may come as a surprise. There
are many stories in the history of science of great discoveries
occurring to people out of the blue. The French mathematician Henri
Poincaré once wrote about how he struggled for two weeks with a
difficult mathematical proof. He set it aside to take a bus to a
geology conference, and the moment he stepped on the bus, the solution
came to him. It is possible that mind wandering led him to the
solution. John Kounios of Drexel University and his colleagues have
done brain scans that capture the moment when people have a sudden
insight that lets them solve a word puzzle. Many of the regions that
become active during those creative flashes belong to the default
network and the executive control system as well.
 
Of course, being permanently zoned out has its downside. It is one
thing to drift away for a few lines of War and Peace. But if you’re
pondering where you’ll be in five years as you drive through a busy
intersection, you may not be around in five years to find out. Our
brains delicately navigate between near-term and long-term thinking,
monitoring our own awareness to make sure that we are not missing
something vital. Perhaps, Schooler and Smallwood argue, the secret to
a good life is finding the balance between the two, the rhythm that
brings harmony to the different timescales at which we live.
 
And if you are staring at that last sentence and wondering what on
earth I’m talking about, you might want to scan back a few paragraphs
to find the spot where you zoned out. Honestly, I won’t mind.

Loading mentions Retweet

Comments [0]