Thursday, February 28, 2013
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Winter Wakes Up Your Mind--and Warm Weather Makes it Harder to Think Straight: Scientific American
Winter Wakes Up Your Mind--and Warm Weather Makes it Harder to Think Straight: Scientific American
Warm temperatures, then, are more likely to deplete our resources?as our bodies work to maintain homeostasis, we use up large amounts of glucose. Because glucose is also used for mental processes, it may be that the physical demands imposed by excessive warmth reduce our capacity for cognitive functioning, thereby adversely affecting our decision-making abilities.
The researchers decided to test this apparent link between weather and complex decision-making in the lab by performing a series of experiments comparing participants? cognitive performance at two seemingly unremarkable temperatures: 19.4°C and 25° C People tend to be most comfortable at around 22.2° C so each temperature represented just ~3° C deviation from maximum comfort.
Despite this minimal deviation in temperature, the researchers found remarkable differences in cognitive functioning. In one lab study, participants were asked to proofread an article while they were in either a warm (25°) or a cool (19.4°) room. Participants in warm rooms performed significantly worse than those in cool rooms, failing to identify almost half of the spelling and grammatical errors (those in cool rooms, on the hand, only missed a quarter of the mistakes). These results suggest that even simple cognitive tasks can be adversely affected by excessive ambient warmth.
In a second study, the researchers showed similar effects for more complex cognitive calculations. In this study, another group of participants were asked to choose between two cell phone plans, again in either a warm or a cool room. One plan looked more attractive on the surface, but was actually more expensive; simple patterns of decision-making would therefore lead participants to choose the more expensive plan, whereas more complex analyses would lead participants to correctly choose the more cost-effective plan. Participants in the cool room made the correct choice over half the time; those in the warm room, on the other hand, made the correct choice only a quarter of the time. Warmer temperatures seemed to make participants more likely to rely on simplistic patterns of decision-making, which in turn led to inferior choices. These results suggest that complex decision-making, like simple cognitive tasks, is adversely affected by warm temperatures.
A third study suggests that warm surroundings may not just cause people to fail at complex decision-making?it may cause them to shy away from making these sorts of decisions in the first place. In this study, participants were placed in either a warm or a cool room and asked to choose between two products: an innovative one and a traditional one. Participants in warm rooms, relative to those in cool rooms, were much more likely to choose the traditional product?ostensibly because they did not have the cognitive resources necessary to evaluate the new information relevant to an innovative item.
These results do not mean, however, that people in warmer climates are reliably prone to making poorer decisions than those in cooler environments. Human beings are remarkably adaptive; we automatically acclimate to changes in ambient temperature and?given a bit of time?are capable of performing just as well in sweltering heat, frigid cold, and a climate-controlled office. It really does matter that you were on vacation when making your lottery decision; if you had been a native Alaskan or Floridian, the temperature would have made little, if any, difference. This research suggests that what does make a difference is slight deviations in temperature from an expected norm.
Warm temperatures, then, are more likely to deplete our resources?as our bodies work to maintain homeostasis, we use up large amounts of glucose. Because glucose is also used for mental processes, it may be that the physical demands imposed by excessive warmth reduce our capacity for cognitive functioning, thereby adversely affecting our decision-making abilities.
The researchers decided to test this apparent link between weather and complex decision-making in the lab by performing a series of experiments comparing participants? cognitive performance at two seemingly unremarkable temperatures: 19.4°C and 25° C People tend to be most comfortable at around 22.2° C so each temperature represented just ~3° C deviation from maximum comfort.
Despite this minimal deviation in temperature, the researchers found remarkable differences in cognitive functioning. In one lab study, participants were asked to proofread an article while they were in either a warm (25°) or a cool (19.4°) room. Participants in warm rooms performed significantly worse than those in cool rooms, failing to identify almost half of the spelling and grammatical errors (those in cool rooms, on the hand, only missed a quarter of the mistakes). These results suggest that even simple cognitive tasks can be adversely affected by excessive ambient warmth.
In a second study, the researchers showed similar effects for more complex cognitive calculations. In this study, another group of participants were asked to choose between two cell phone plans, again in either a warm or a cool room. One plan looked more attractive on the surface, but was actually more expensive; simple patterns of decision-making would therefore lead participants to choose the more expensive plan, whereas more complex analyses would lead participants to correctly choose the more cost-effective plan. Participants in the cool room made the correct choice over half the time; those in the warm room, on the other hand, made the correct choice only a quarter of the time. Warmer temperatures seemed to make participants more likely to rely on simplistic patterns of decision-making, which in turn led to inferior choices. These results suggest that complex decision-making, like simple cognitive tasks, is adversely affected by warm temperatures.
A third study suggests that warm surroundings may not just cause people to fail at complex decision-making?it may cause them to shy away from making these sorts of decisions in the first place. In this study, participants were placed in either a warm or a cool room and asked to choose between two products: an innovative one and a traditional one. Participants in warm rooms, relative to those in cool rooms, were much more likely to choose the traditional product?ostensibly because they did not have the cognitive resources necessary to evaluate the new information relevant to an innovative item.
These results do not mean, however, that people in warmer climates are reliably prone to making poorer decisions than those in cooler environments. Human beings are remarkably adaptive; we automatically acclimate to changes in ambient temperature and?given a bit of time?are capable of performing just as well in sweltering heat, frigid cold, and a climate-controlled office. It really does matter that you were on vacation when making your lottery decision; if you had been a native Alaskan or Floridian, the temperature would have made little, if any, difference. This research suggests that what does make a difference is slight deviations in temperature from an expected norm.
China 'aiding hacker attacks on west' | Technology | guardian.co.uk
China 'aiding hacker attacks on west' | Technology | guardian.co.uk
2005: "Titan Rain" pulls data from the Pentagon's systems, and a specialist says of a December 2005 attack on the House of Commons computer system that "The degree of sophistication was extremely high. They were very clever programmers."
2007: Estonia's government and other internet services are knocked offline by a coordinated attack from more than a million computers around the world – reckoned to have been run from a group acting at the urging of the Russian government. Nobody is ever arrested over the attack.
2008: Russia's government is suspected of carrying out a cyberattack to knock out government and other websites inside Georgia, with which it is fighting a border skirmish over the territory of Ossetia.
December 2009: Google's email systems in China are hacked by a group which tries to identify and take over the accounts of Chinese dissidents. Google withdraws its search engine from the Chinese mainland in protest at the actions. Wikileaks cables suggest that the Chinese government was aware of the hacking.
2010: The Flame virus begins silently infecting computers in Iran. It incorporates cutting-edge cryptography breakthroughs which would require world-class experts to write. That is then used to infect Windows PCs via the Windows Update mechanism which normally creates a cryptographically secure link to Microsoft. Instead, Flame puts software that watches every keystroke and frame on the PC. Analysts say that only a "wealthy" nation state could have written the virus, which breaks new ground in encryption.
The Stuxnet worm is discovered to have been affecting systems inside Iran's uranium reprocessing establishment, passing from Windows PCs to the industrial systems which control centrifuges that separate out heavier uranium. The worm makes the centrifuges spin out of control, while suggesting on their control panel that they are operating normally – and so break them. Iran denies that the attack has affected its project. The US and Israel are later fingered as being behind the code.
September 2011: a new virus that silently captures data from transactions in Middle Eastern online banking is unleashed. The principal targets use Lebanese banks. It is not identified until August 2012, when Russian security company Kaspersky discovers the name "Gauss" embedded inside it. The company says the malware it is "nation state-sponsored" – probably by a western state seeking to trace transactions by specific targets.
2012: About 30,000 Windows PCs at Saudi Aramco, the world's most valuable company, are rendered unusable after a virus called "Shamoon" wipes and corrupts data and the part of the hard drive needed to "bootstrap" the machine when it is turned on. In the US, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta described Shamoon as "one of the most destructive viruses ever" and suggested it could be used to launch an attack as destructive as the 9/11 attacks of 2001.
A timeline of government-sponsored hacking attacks
2004 suspected: Chinese group in Shanghai begins probing US companies and military targets.2005: "Titan Rain" pulls data from the Pentagon's systems, and a specialist says of a December 2005 attack on the House of Commons computer system that "The degree of sophistication was extremely high. They were very clever programmers."
2007: Estonia's government and other internet services are knocked offline by a coordinated attack from more than a million computers around the world – reckoned to have been run from a group acting at the urging of the Russian government. Nobody is ever arrested over the attack.
2008: Russia's government is suspected of carrying out a cyberattack to knock out government and other websites inside Georgia, with which it is fighting a border skirmish over the territory of Ossetia.
December 2009: Google's email systems in China are hacked by a group which tries to identify and take over the accounts of Chinese dissidents. Google withdraws its search engine from the Chinese mainland in protest at the actions. Wikileaks cables suggest that the Chinese government was aware of the hacking.
2010: The Flame virus begins silently infecting computers in Iran. It incorporates cutting-edge cryptography breakthroughs which would require world-class experts to write. That is then used to infect Windows PCs via the Windows Update mechanism which normally creates a cryptographically secure link to Microsoft. Instead, Flame puts software that watches every keystroke and frame on the PC. Analysts say that only a "wealthy" nation state could have written the virus, which breaks new ground in encryption.
The Stuxnet worm is discovered to have been affecting systems inside Iran's uranium reprocessing establishment, passing from Windows PCs to the industrial systems which control centrifuges that separate out heavier uranium. The worm makes the centrifuges spin out of control, while suggesting on their control panel that they are operating normally – and so break them. Iran denies that the attack has affected its project. The US and Israel are later fingered as being behind the code.
September 2011: a new virus that silently captures data from transactions in Middle Eastern online banking is unleashed. The principal targets use Lebanese banks. It is not identified until August 2012, when Russian security company Kaspersky discovers the name "Gauss" embedded inside it. The company says the malware it is "nation state-sponsored" – probably by a western state seeking to trace transactions by specific targets.
2012: About 30,000 Windows PCs at Saudi Aramco, the world's most valuable company, are rendered unusable after a virus called "Shamoon" wipes and corrupts data and the part of the hard drive needed to "bootstrap" the machine when it is turned on. In the US, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta described Shamoon as "one of the most destructive viruses ever" and suggested it could be used to launch an attack as destructive as the 9/11 attacks of 2001.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Monday, February 18, 2013
Friday, February 15, 2013
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Monday, February 11, 2013
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Monday, February 4, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)