ZoeTick

LaskyaClaren wrote: I'd hazard a guess that Pep, who is was (as I've mentioned before) the most accomplished and effective troll I've ever known, would fly beneath the radar almost all of the time. Pep always obeyed the letter of the law in regard to the detailed, if vague, content of the CG/ToS, although not necessarily the spirit. Up until they used the catchall: "the actions taken (or not taken) by Linden Lab and our moderators are at our sole discretion, and we may act without warning or explanation". Which Pep considered a display of gutless cowardice, and an admission of what has proved to be impotence, in practice.

Kelli May wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: ... ETA: Kelli May still posts here. I do indeed, although I wasn't sure what the relevance of that was until I read the old forum thread. Not that I was any more involved with that thread than I have been with this one. More of an 'I was there' moment than anything else. Sorry Kelli, I didn't notice your contribution. Perhaps because it was not sufficiently hyperdramatic.

Celestiall Nightfire wrote: I'm game for the hug though, as you could probably use it. ; ) Thanks for the offer, but I don't need one, actually. Not just because I am male, but I tend to interpret hugs as a mechanism to get close enough to filch stuff from my wallet. Which manouevre my daughter is perfecting in the (alas temporary) absence of my wife, who is sailing the Aegean with her ex-boss.

Celestiall Nightfire wrote: ZoeTick wrote: Humans do multi-task; for example, the medulla oblongata operates independently of, say, the areas of the brain involved with reading a book, to moderate breathing in response to carbon dioxide levels in the blood. We're not discussing the autonomic nervous system, or cellular functions. So, not relevant. Yes we are. Multi-tasking is multi-tasking. Cognitive multi-tasking is an entiely different concept, and has not been specified as a subject for discussion heretofore. ZoeTick wrote: Some links that I never posted.... So don't worry too much about it, Celestiall, I'll give you a hug anyway... Odd. The links you're refuting, aren't the one's I posted. One link was to populist journalistic reformulations of already junk science, so I tried to dig deeper to see what the study actually said. My experience of interpretations of sensational research is pretty much the same as that of rugby matches I have played in, descriptions of which were generally written up without the correspondents moving from the bar and using an out-of-date version of the match programme. One link was to something only semi-relevant to multi-tasking gender differences and focused on the costs of task switching, not multi-tasking itself; that is rather like looking at the salaries of quarter backs rather than examining their pass completion and interception statistics in trying to explain their teams' success or failure. And f course I ignored the Harvard Business Review link, as it was the usual HBR emotionally confused mashup reflection on stuff they don't understand; they should stick to getting business matters completely wrong ahead of time, and right in retrospect.

In other news, the Titanic sank.

Call Sir Francis Drake. But leave it until he has finished his bowls match.

LaskyaClaren wrote: The use of ResMods is one reason for that, I guess: Unfortunately, a couple of the ResMods were hypersensitive catlovers and feminists, and other hypersensitive catlovers and feminists only had to sniff about meanness (a concept not even then incorporated in the ToS) or perceived misogyny and threads were locked, although rarely were posts actually removed, except for the odd dead cat or spider images. Threads involving mental illness, however, were removed extremely promptly, so it wasn't all bad.

LaskyaClaren wrote: ZoeTick wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Now, that would be almost worth a tedious search through the forum archives. :-) Perhaps I can be of some assistance in the matter. Wow. :-o Before my time, I think. And Pep was rather more than a callow youth even then . . . . . . but the predecessors of the LWL took him much too seriously. I think the fragrant Marianne Little is the only contributor to that thread still posting to these forums. Although of course some may now be using alts!

Shelby Silverspar wrote: It helped me After you've been here five years? Wow!

LaskyaClaren wrote: Now, that would be almost worth a tedious search through the forum archives. :-) Perhaps I can be of some assistance in the matter.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that more studies show women outperforming men. Then we'll then be arguing whether that's because more women are performing the studies. Unfortunately our recent STEM trends are going the wrong way. No, it'll be because there's no grant money in reaffirming what is patently obvious; instead, funding will be given to studies (probably conducted by ESLers of indeterminate gender) which select elements of "multi-tasking" (as long as they aren't actually simultaneous tasks, for reasons elucidated previously) which will generate headlines supporting apparent female superiority. They will also probably exclude all those things that men have learned to do subconsciously, that women have to think about, as you have described above. Other examples include deciding what clothes to wear and shaving. Did you know the REAL reason women live longer than men? Every time they evacuate their bowels they sit down and rest.

LaskyaClaren wrote: It's a long leap, however, from your improbable characterization of the LWL as a group of displaced Caledon residents, to one that labels them as a "vindictive clique." If the cap fits, and you (voluntarily) wear it . . .

I tried using that today and, in conjunction with a shotgun, look forward to tomorrow's dawn chorus being several decibels down on this morning's. And I hope that it continues to attract victims.

Oh great. Does that mean we can look forward to a new name infesting GD asking naive questions about where the toilets are in SL?

LaskyaClaren wrote: What I find both amusing and a little annoying is the metaphorical investiture of an Illuminati-like intent and genius in the term "LWL." If there are individuals or cliques who have been manipulative and underhanded or abusive, then let's talk about them in a way that doesn't smear a group that merely happens to include some of those people, and in terms that don't mystify their machinations. If you could be bothered to check your forum history you would find that a certain Pserendipity Daniels was habitually using the phrase "Ladies Who Lunch" to describe hypocritical old women of both sexes who read the forums through rose tinted spectacles and tutted into their pearls through their ball-gags when observing behaviour that, although they did not always fully understand it, did not accord with their neo-victorian values ("Cover up those naked table legs, Jeeves") long before the inworld Group of that name was created. I am pleased to carry the torch in GD for the aforementioned Pep in highlighting the ignorance, peevishness, intolerance and covert malice of those who might have inherited the dubious accolade of informal membership of the vindictive clique.

Congratulations! You are the 100th person to ask this question in the forums. And the 50th to ask it in General Discussions rather than Answers where it would be more appropriate. And the first to answer it yourself, althogh this does nothing for your reputation.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: dewisilures wrote: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/03/04/0956797612459660.abstract "In two experiments, participants completed a multitasking session with four gender-fair monitoring tasks and separate tasks measuring executive functioning (working memory updating) and spatial ability (mental rotation). In both experiments, males outperformed females in monitoring accuracy. Individual differences in executive functioning and spatial ability were independent predictors of monitoring accuracy, but only spatial ability mediated gender differences in multitasking. Menstrual changes accentuated these effects, such that gender differences in multitasking (and spatial ability) were eliminated between males and females who were in the menstrual phase of the menstrual cycle but not between males and females who were in the luteal phase. These findings suggest that multitasking involves spatiotemporal task coordination and that gender differences in multiple-task performance reflect differences in spatial ability." Which explains why female who are mentruating should not be allowed to drive as their performance decreases when they are putting on their make-up in the mirror or gabbing away on their cell phones. You might want to read your quoted paragraph a bit more carefully. I read the paragraph, and, concerned that it was self-contradictory, checked the linked abstract, which has been quoted accurately, as well as a more recent version of the paper, which exhibited a similar inconsistency. Until I am able to read the paper itself I shall assume that, once again, an ESLer (the author is Swedish) is so delighted in their own perception of their command of English that they have not noticed that they are talking rubbish.

dewisilures wrote: 4. The activation in a task is synchronized between pairs or n-tuplets of participating areas. The communication pathways among areas are the brain’s white matter, the tracts of myelinated axons enabling the close collaboration among activating gray matter areas. Female brains have proportionately less white matter, thus reducing the efficiency/effectiveness of communication internal to the brain. (For which they apparently attempt to compensate by over-communicating externally.)

How much are you prepared to pay to rent a location?

bebejee wrote: What are you alt #5 that you got provoked by my comment? nice to see you out yourself though, anyways the 2-3 others post in similar topics thats why I mentioned them, two with initials LL in their name are staying away, wont besurprised if the drop in now that they have been mentioned. As for my account despite filing a ticket I have not recieved the confrmation for it that was due within 24 hours and its been three days now, trying again. Did you know that discussing the identities of alts is against the ToS? Even if you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Oh, and obscene avatar names are not allowed.

Shelby Silverspar wrote: Nice reply, Zoe... Shaade, that certainly could help someone else - it's exactly what this forum is for. Yeah, like it helped Shaade repeat a question that has been asked and answered tens of times before . . .

Clouds

Celestiall, back in the 70s I was involved for a considerable time designing multi-tasking computer systems, and we used to make a lot of jokes about Zeno's Paradoxes, and how engineers were significantly better at building working systems than philosophers. We played with multiple processor architecture, using the human body as an analogy, once we got away from believing that the latter had only one nervous system. The key to an understanding of multi-tasking is to differentiate between linked serial tasks and simultaneously processed tasks, since they require different control algorithms and resource allocation. The APA study you reference focuses on one small aspect in this area, the cost of task-switching, which is (as is implicit in their paper) only relevant where executive decision-making is required to progress the task differentially. This would not apply if the algorithm for the overall task required only pre-defined activity at switching points. We also looked at success criteria; the number of tasks you can process at once is irrelevant if none of them ever deliver an end-result in a prespecified timescale. None of the research I have been able to identify even considers the overall effectiveness of eventual outcomes of multiple linked-task sequences. Humans do multi-task; for example, the medulla oblongata operates independently of, say, the areas of the brain involved with reading a book, to moderate breathing in response to carbon dioxide levels in the blood. I could offer any number of other examples of conscious, sub-conscious, automatic and periodic responses to stimuli which are managed independently, not necessarily by the brain, and which do not interfere with each other's efficient operation. Not much formal psychological research has been done on human multi-tasking because it isn't that interesting, other than potentially to generate sensational headlines supposedly confirming or refuting the ridiculous belief that women are better than men at it. For example, you reference this minimalist study (examining participants from West Yorkshire, which is not famous for the mercurial nature of its male inhabitants) fails to identify any particular difference in the time taken to achieve multiple tasks, but pretty much ignores the more effective strategies used by men to achieve certain tasks, as well as concluding in a dismissive fashion that men were only appreciably better than women where there was a need for simultaneous processing of tasks. You have to wonder how the researchers defined multi-tasking, don't you! They also seem to believe that pencil is spelled "pensil" which might be seen to diminish their credibility somewhat... Another study that you reference, by Verma et al at the University of Pennsylvania, generated similar media interest, principally because the study consisted mainly of complex join-the-dot illustrations of human brains (unsurprisingly, Verma is an Associate Professor in the Department of Radiology, NOT Psychology) with accompanying nonsensical statements regarding the operation of brain hemispheres which lack any verifiable justification in applying them to actual task outcomes. All the study seemed to prove was that when women were confronted with a problem their brains scatter-gunned their thinking all over the place looking for a solution, whereas men were more systematic. That men actually identified practical solutions much more effectively was glossed over in the study, although the reference to "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" was telling. So don't worry too much about it, Celestiall, I'll give you a hug anyway...

And elevators with mirrors on both side walls and the back. So if you are vain you can see hundreds of copies of yourself. And check if you have sat down in some melted chocolate.

Invisible superheroes.