I think some of the stuff works. But many Hollywood films fail because the people making them don't care or have other agendas. Many movie makers live in a "different world" and are not in touch - for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There are formulas and critics say too many movies nowadays are following the same formulas too strictly. http://www.slate.com/articles/...
It's not necessary to follow the formula that strictly for success: http://www.savethecat.com/beat... (I also suspect movie makers in other places have different styles - Hong Kong, Bollywood)
But hey it works and most people won't care if most movies start following some formulaic structure. People will care if some idiot produces a superman movie where superman never flies.
. There is some evidence that consciousness is an illusion, and that people make decisions unconsciously
Freewill may be an illusion, but consciousness is NOT an illusion, at least to me. In fact it is the ONLY THING that I can be sure of! Everything else may be illusion (as philosophers of old have said). Maybe you or those mathematicians do not experience consciousness and that's why you all can even say what you say.
Merely behaving as if you are conscious is different from _experiencing_ consciousness. Anyone who thinks there is no difference or it's not an important difference misses the important part of consciousness.
Merely behaving as if you like chocolate is different from _subjectively_ experiencing and enjoying the taste of chocolate.
Mathematicians and programmers with our current knowledge and tech can write algorithms/programs to simulate the mere behaviour but how about the experience? Can we create an algorithm that truly experiences "self", "chocolate"?
Are there some special yet unknown laws in this universe that would cause this to happen? Would merely performing a suitable advanced algorithm with pencil and paper generate a new consciousness phenomena and create a new entity? If so where in time and space would that consciousness reside- the pencil, the paper? Or does it need some extra "nonnewtonian" stuff? Do we need something like a multi-worlds quantum simulator recursively trying to predict itself and the future?
Bullshit like what these mathematicians spout is more likely to take us further away than closer to understanding consciousness.
But I wonder how often would such an "A" vs "B" situation arise for a real world robot car that would be driven cautiously?
So it'll be a very very niche case. Because in most cases the robot car won't be traveling very very fast (think of the liability), nor would it be tailgating (think of the liability again, I know what some say about "virtual trains" of robot cars, but that's a stupid idea in the real messy world), nor would it be doing risky lane changes at high speeds (ditto).
The safest thing to do in most cases is to brake to reduce the impact (lower velocity = less impact energy). Swerving would reduce the amount of traction you can use for braking. There are of course some corner cases that you'd want to avoid like stopping on train tracks...
So if I made a robot car what I'd do is make sure it can stop as quickly as it would be safe to and reinforce the car for rear impacts (tailgaters and large vehicles).
In a case where the brakes fail then yes it may have to decide on what to hit. Example scenario is the car is going at cruising speed towards stationary cars, and the brakes fail. The options are to downshift (or apply motor braking for electric cars) and: a) hit a car b) hit a nonliving stationary obstacle (e.g. highway barrier) c) perform some other fancy maneuver to slow down (is this possible to do safely?) If engine/motor braking is not enough I figure the option should be b) if you can graze the obstacle/side and use a combination of friction and engine braking to slow down.
But that's very niche too. And I figure the ones responsible for the brakes not working should worry more than the programmer who decided what to hit;).
Maybe the real danger is that very impatient passengers might blow a vessel or two because the car is being driven so cautiously;),
Years ago someone I know in NZ had to buy TWO bluray players (one from NZ, one from another country) so that he could watch stuff he bought! He knows how to download movies and does, but he's bought many shelves full of stuff - japanese anime, hollywood stuff etc.
So I wonder how many others didn't do the same thing, but said "FUCK THAT!" and switched to 100% downloading instead.
This stupid DRM bullshit mainly hurts great customers like him. Doesn't hurt those downloading or buying physical pirate copies.
Bridge building is more like compiling. Bridge designing is more like programming/program designing.
And there's the big difference.
Civil Engineering: Design Phase costs about 10% of Build Phase Build Phase involves tons of construction workers and heavy machinery. The blueprints and plastic models are way cheaper to make than the Real Thing. Management often doesn't mind spending a bit extra to get the design better, because the budget only allows for one big Build.
Software Engineering: Design Phase costs more than 1000 times the Build Phase. Build Phase involves the programmer typing "make all" and going to read Slashdot or fetch a coffee. The plastic models cost as much to make as the Real Thing.
Management often sells the blueprints/plastic models as v1.0 because they compile and "kinda run" and the budget only allows for one big Design...... Aaaand the customers often buy it:).
It should be no surprise then that the plastic models regularly fail.
liquid helium is used as a coolant in MRI not a superconductor.
It cools the target superconducting material enough so that it becomes superconducting, can carry lots more current and thus create the high magnetic field without losing its superconductivity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Term limits are: 1) Undemocratic 2) Stupid It takes a while to do anything, so while you may make it harder for elected leaders to do bad things but you also make it harder for elected leaders to do good things.
The smart power hungry sociopaths will just create or move to positions of power where the term limits (and elections) do not apply to them and continue influencing the incompetent figureheads and ruling over voters. Becomes less democratic that way too.
Which seems similar to what is happening now, only more so.
People deciding who they want as leaders is democratic. Term limits restricting their choice is not democratic.
The real solution is the smart people taking the time to educate the stupid and ignorant ones rather then going "Oh Noes, the voters are too stupid, we should remove choice from them - even the choice of re-electing someone they want for another term".
It seems to me that 98% of the US voters who bothered to vote prefer either R or D, instead of the other alternatives. If you think they shouldn't then you shouldn't be trying to stop them against their will. You should be trying to convince them.
Unless of course there are no better alternatives. In which case, Democracy is working as well as it can, and your real problem is elsewhere.
Taking any significant amount of time makes measurement easier, and errors smaller, and hence this type of attack easier.
Unless you only respond after X + random Y milliseconds, no matter how long it actually takes to do the calculation (where X milliseconds is longer than the max time it takes to do the calculation).
Takes more time, but makes timing attacks a lot harder.
Even so, Starcraft also rewards those who micromanage units - like a Terran floating a building as bait to distract unmicromanaged enemy troops while the Terran troops destroy the enemy. All while micromanaging other stuff and building.
The real life command and control interfaces you mention assume the units won't need to be micromanaged.
Yes. However if Microsoft kept doing that Windows would end up being a "BIOS". And someone would do to them what Phoenix etc did to IBM and IBM PC BIOS. I suspect all the BIOS vendors combined don't make as much money as Windows does for Microsoft.
That's why Microsoft has to keep moving the goal posts every now and then. Even like now when they have run out of good ideas on where to put the goal posts.
If they stopped moving and didn't come out with stuff like Vista someone might eventually succeed in turning ReactOS or similar into a practical working Windows XP compatible OS. Then a lot of large companies might switch to it.
How many really care about what BIOS their PC used? As long as it keeps working fine nobody gives a damn, they just want to use the OTHER stuff.
Similarly most people don't actually want to care about the OS. They care about what they want to get done. At most they care about the apps they use to get things done. And crap like Windows 8 just gets more obviously in the way.
a) neurons while not necessarily geniuses are actually not that stupid, and that the real problem a brain solved was not "thinking" but that a single thinking neuron can't be used to control a multicellular body because of connectivity and redundancy reasons (can't have a whole body wasted just because one neuron died).
b) The brain is like a bunch of Bingo halls each filled with neurons that yell Bingo when something they recognize is "read out". The fancy trick is some of them are supposed to recognize and announce the future before it happens...;)
Now move along and figure out how a neuron or single celled creature actually thinks.
Wouldn't Occam's razor exclude the subjective _experience_ (not behavior) of consciousness? There's no apparent "need" for it is there? Couldn't all of us walk, talk, etc without experiencing it? Except for the fact that I know I personally experience it AND I don't think I'm that special to be the only one. There's no proof you can provide to me that you experience consciousness right? Couldn't an AI make the same claims you do and not be conscious?
Or does the simplest explanation in this Universe require that experiential consciousness must exist alongside behavioral consciousness? Both the true or false cases would be interesting;).
that's a pretty good question...humans seem to be the only creatures (that we know of of course) in this simulation that have achieved the level of consciousness of which you speak
But why do you say so? I'm talking about the consciousness _experience_ not the behaviour.
I have no evidence that you experience consciousness anymore than I have evidence that a dog does too. How can you or a dog prove to me that you experience consciousness?
All I know is that I am conscious and I doubt I'm that special, and that's why I have faith that others are conscious too. I don't see such a big difference between humans and many other animals.
From what I gather we don't even know in detail how single celled creatures make decisions! Testate amoebas build distinctive shells for themselves, putting particles in the right places. Some can even decide to not reproduce if there's not enough material for daughter cells to have their own shells. Maybe they experience consciousness too, just limited in their capabilities and senses?
But couldn't a machine do the same things without generating/causing/experiencing the same consciousness effect I experience? Couldn't something behave as if it was conscious without that consciousness effect emerging? Why not?
Are you claiming that a conventional computer would actually experience "consciousness" and not just behave as if it was conscious when it runs a self-predicting program that's "complex enough"? It'll be interesting if someone can describe the laws of physics/this universe that would cause some NOR gates to generate consciousness... Or would all physical operations generate it?
Or would it only happen to a quantum computer (e.g. the sort of that does quantum superpositions) simulator that also recursively simulates itself?
Yeah we might be in a simulation (that's in another simulation and so on) but why do we experience this consciousness thing? Not talking about free will, but the experience of awareness itself.
Are the rules of this universe such that no matter what as long as you have certain processes, consciousness will arise as an emergent phenomenon? And what would those certain processes be?
Could it be extinguished and yet the person still continues on "living" and moving as before? For example say a person went to sleep, and woke up the next day but never had the consciousness thing anymore - but just walked and talked etc like before as if he/she still had it.
Here's another thing for you to work out while you're at it:
Why are you even conscious? Couldn't a machine exist like you that did the exact same things you'd do but wasn't conscious at all?
Note: I'm not talking about "free will". I'm talking about the subjective experience that I have (and I believe you have) of being aware. I don't think I'm the only conscious being in this universe.
To me the two amazing things are: 0) That there is anything at all in the first place. 1) That there is this consciousness phenomenon that I'm experiencing.
The "splayed side mirror config" reduces the rear view of your side mirrors. That's not so good if there's a large vehicle behind you- you can't see what's behind on the other lanes- all you see is the big vehicle behind you in your centre rearview mirror. You can't safely change lanes so easily.
Slashdot Mirror
I think some of the stuff works. But many Hollywood films fail because the people making them don't care or have other agendas. Many movie makers live in a "different world" and are not in touch - for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There are formulas and critics say too many movies nowadays are following the same formulas too strictly. http://www.slate.com/articles/...
It's not necessary to follow the formula that strictly for success: http://www.savethecat.com/beat...
(I also suspect movie makers in other places have different styles - Hong Kong, Bollywood)
But hey it works and most people won't care if most movies start following some formulaic structure. People will care if some idiot produces a superman movie where superman never flies.
. There is some evidence that consciousness is an illusion, and that people make decisions unconsciously
Freewill may be an illusion, but consciousness is NOT an illusion, at least to me. In fact it is the ONLY THING that I can be sure of! Everything else may be illusion (as philosophers of old have said). Maybe you or those mathematicians do not experience consciousness and that's why you all can even say what you say.
Merely behaving as if you are conscious is different from _experiencing_ consciousness. Anyone who thinks there is no difference or it's not an important difference misses the important part of consciousness.
Merely behaving as if you like chocolate is different from _subjectively_ experiencing and enjoying the taste of chocolate.
Mathematicians and programmers with our current knowledge and tech can write algorithms/programs to simulate the mere behaviour but how about the experience? Can we create an algorithm that truly experiences "self", "chocolate"?
Are there some special yet unknown laws in this universe that would cause this to happen? Would merely performing a suitable advanced algorithm with pencil and paper generate a new consciousness phenomena and create a new entity? If so where in time and space would that consciousness reside- the pencil, the paper? Or does it need some extra "nonnewtonian" stuff? Do we need something like a multi-worlds quantum simulator recursively trying to predict itself and the future?
Bullshit like what these mathematicians spout is more likely to take us further away than closer to understanding consciousness.
But I wonder how often would such an "A" vs "B" situation arise for a real world robot car that would be driven cautiously?
;).
;),
So it'll be a very very niche case. Because in most cases the robot car won't be traveling very very fast (think of the liability), nor would it be tailgating (think of the liability again, I know what some say about "virtual trains" of robot cars, but that's a stupid idea in the real messy world), nor would it be doing risky lane changes at high speeds (ditto).
The safest thing to do in most cases is to brake to reduce the impact (lower velocity = less impact energy). Swerving would reduce the amount of traction you can use for braking. There are of course some corner cases that you'd want to avoid like stopping on train tracks...
So if I made a robot car what I'd do is make sure it can stop as quickly as it would be safe to and reinforce the car for rear impacts (tailgaters and large vehicles).
In a case where the brakes fail then yes it may have to decide on what to hit. Example scenario is the car is going at cruising speed towards stationary cars, and the brakes fail.
The options are to downshift (or apply motor braking for electric cars) and:
a) hit a car
b) hit a nonliving stationary obstacle (e.g. highway barrier)
c) perform some other fancy maneuver to slow down (is this possible to do safely?)
If engine/motor braking is not enough I figure the option should be b) if you can graze the obstacle/side and use a combination of friction and engine braking to slow down.
But that's very niche too. And I figure the ones responsible for the brakes not working should worry more than the programmer who decided what to hit
Maybe the real danger is that very impatient passengers might blow a vessel or two because the car is being driven so cautiously
Years ago someone I know in NZ had to buy TWO bluray players (one from NZ, one from another country) so that he could watch stuff he bought!
He knows how to download movies and does, but he's bought many shelves full of stuff - japanese anime, hollywood stuff etc.
So I wonder how many others didn't do the same thing, but said "FUCK THAT!" and switched to 100% downloading instead.
This stupid DRM bullshit mainly hurts great customers like him. Doesn't hurt those downloading or buying physical pirate copies.
He's wrong though.
... Aaaand the customers often buy it :).
Bridge building is more like compiling.
Bridge designing is more like programming/program designing.
And there's the big difference.
Civil Engineering:
Design Phase costs about 10% of Build Phase
Build Phase involves tons of construction workers and heavy machinery.
The blueprints and plastic models are way cheaper to make than the Real Thing.
Management often doesn't mind spending a bit extra to get the design better, because the budget only allows for one big Build.
Software Engineering:
Design Phase costs more than 1000 times the Build Phase.
Build Phase involves the programmer typing "make all" and going to read Slashdot or fetch a coffee.
The plastic models cost as much to make as the Real Thing.
Management often sells the blueprints/plastic models as v1.0 because they compile and "kinda run" and the budget only allows for one big Design...
It should be no surprise then that the plastic models regularly fail.
liquid helium is used as a coolant in MRI not a superconductor.
It cools the target superconducting material enough so that it becomes superconducting, can carry lots more current and thus create the high magnetic field without losing its superconductivity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If we run out of helium we will alternative methods of supercooling. Possibly stuff like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Term limits are:
1) Undemocratic
2) Stupid
It takes a while to do anything, so while you may make it harder for elected leaders to do bad things but you also make it harder for elected leaders to do good things.
The smart power hungry sociopaths will just create or move to positions of power where the term limits (and elections) do not apply to them and continue influencing the incompetent figureheads and ruling over voters. Becomes less democratic that way too.
Which seems similar to what is happening now, only more so.
People deciding who they want as leaders is democratic. Term limits restricting their choice is not democratic.
The real solution is the smart people taking the time to educate the stupid and ignorant ones rather then going "Oh Noes, the voters are too stupid, we should remove choice from them - even the choice of re-electing someone they want for another term".
It seems to me that 98% of the US voters who bothered to vote prefer either R or D, instead of the other alternatives. If you think they shouldn't then you shouldn't be trying to stop them against their will. You should be trying to convince them.
Unless of course there are no better alternatives. In which case, Democracy is working as well as it can, and your real problem is elsewhere.
Taking any significant amount of time makes measurement easier, and errors smaller, and hence this type of attack easier.
Unless you only respond after X + random Y milliseconds, no matter how long it actually takes to do the calculation (where X milliseconds is longer than the max time it takes to do the calculation).
Takes more time, but makes timing attacks a lot harder.
How about call it "SpreadOpenSSL" or similar. Truth in advertising and all that.
The idea that I was drinking water straight from an open-air reservoir post-treatment nauseates me. Why would anyone want this?
Maybe they like their water to have more body?
Not me though.
Check your monitor, mouse and keyboard latency. A decade earlier you might have been using a CRT with lower latency than a slow LCD monitor.
In my experience add them all up and it can make the difference between having a < 200ms response time and a > 250ms response time.
Try digging out an old CRT if you have one and see if it makes a difference in your reaction times on those reaction time websites.
Even so, Starcraft also rewards those who micromanage units - like a Terran floating a building as bait to distract unmicromanaged enemy troops while the Terran troops destroy the enemy. All while
micromanaging other stuff and building.
The real life command and control interfaces you mention assume the units won't need to be micromanaged.
Yeah after all nuclear bombs can help reduce world-wide daily power consumption for centuries.
;)
But most people don't want that nuclear option right?
In the Scrabble universe?
http://www.howstuffworks.com/l...
http://www.scrabblefinder.com/...
p.s. pay more attention to the spelling, the Z is important in scrabble.
Yes. However if Microsoft kept doing that Windows would end up being a "BIOS". And someone would do to them what Phoenix etc did to IBM and IBM PC BIOS. I suspect all the BIOS vendors combined don't make as much money as Windows does for Microsoft.
That's why Microsoft has to keep moving the goal posts every now and then. Even like now when they have run out of good ideas on where to put the goal posts.
If they stopped moving and didn't come out with stuff like Vista someone might eventually succeed in turning ReactOS or similar into a practical working Windows XP compatible OS. Then a lot of large companies might switch to it.
How many really care about what BIOS their PC used? As long as it keeps working fine nobody gives a damn, they just want to use the OTHER stuff.
Similarly most people don't actually want to care about the OS. They care about what they want to get done. At most they care about the apps they use to get things done. And crap like Windows 8 just gets more obviously in the way.
Meh I can come up with silly theories too.
;)
a) neurons while not necessarily geniuses are actually not that stupid, and that the real problem a brain solved was not "thinking" but that a single thinking neuron can't be used to control a multicellular body because of connectivity and redundancy reasons (can't have a whole body wasted just because one neuron died).
b) The brain is like a bunch of Bingo halls each filled with neurons that yell Bingo when something they recognize is "read out". The fancy trick is some of them are supposed to recognize and announce the future before it happens...
Now move along and figure out how a neuron or single celled creature actually thinks.
Wouldn't Occam's razor exclude the subjective _experience_ (not behavior) of consciousness? There's no apparent "need" for it is there? Couldn't all of us walk, talk, etc without experiencing it? Except for the fact that I know I personally experience it AND I don't think I'm that special to be the only one. There's no proof you can provide to me that you experience consciousness right? Couldn't an AI make the same claims you do and not be conscious?
;).
Or does the simplest explanation in this Universe require that experiential consciousness must exist alongside behavioral consciousness? Both the true or false cases would be interesting
Maybe you're one of those who doesn't experience the same consciousness phenomenon that I do?
Hmm. Are you an AI posting on Slashdot?
that's a pretty good question...humans seem to be the only creatures (that we know of of course) in this simulation that have achieved the level of consciousness of which you speak
But why do you say so? I'm talking about the consciousness _experience_ not the behaviour.
I have no evidence that you experience consciousness anymore than I have evidence that a dog does too. How can you or a dog prove to me that you experience consciousness?
All I know is that I am conscious and I doubt I'm that special, and that's why I have faith that others are conscious too. I don't see such a big difference between humans and many other animals.
From what I gather we don't even know in detail how single celled creatures make decisions! Testate amoebas build distinctive shells for themselves, putting particles in the right places. Some can even decide to not reproduce if there's not enough material for daughter cells to have their own shells. Maybe they experience consciousness too, just limited in their capabilities and senses?
But couldn't a machine do the same things without generating/causing/experiencing the same consciousness effect I experience? Couldn't something behave as if it was conscious without that consciousness effect emerging? Why not?
Are you claiming that a conventional computer would actually experience "consciousness" and not just behave as if it was conscious when it runs a self-predicting program that's "complex enough"? It'll be interesting if someone can describe the laws of physics/this universe that would cause some NOR gates to generate consciousness... Or would all physical operations generate it?
Or would it only happen to a quantum computer (e.g. the sort of that does quantum superpositions) simulator that also recursively simulates itself?
Yeah we might be in a simulation (that's in another simulation and so on) but why do we experience this consciousness thing? Not talking about free will, but the experience of awareness itself.
Are the rules of this universe such that no matter what as long as you have certain processes, consciousness will arise as an emergent phenomenon? And what would those certain processes be?
Could it be extinguished and yet the person still continues on "living" and moving as before? For example say a person went to sleep, and woke up the next day but never had the consciousness thing anymore - but just walked and talked etc like before as if he/she still had it.
Here's another thing for you to work out while you're at it:
Why are you even conscious? Couldn't a machine exist like you that did the exact same things you'd do but wasn't conscious at all?
Note: I'm not talking about "free will". I'm talking about the subjective experience that I have (and I believe you have) of being aware. I don't think I'm the only conscious being in this universe.
To me the two amazing things are:
0) That there is anything at all in the first place.
1) That there is this consciousness phenomenon that I'm experiencing.
see also: http://gamenaminator.com/
The "splayed side mirror config" reduces the rear view of your side mirrors. That's not so good if there's a large vehicle behind you- you can't see what's behind on the other lanes- all you see is the big vehicle behind you in your centre rearview mirror. You can't safely change lanes so easily.
Have you seen any alternatives to moderation/meta-moderation schemes that exclude this?
I haven't seen any implemented but a possible way is to keep the opposing groups apart.
If "A" doesn't like "B" just make it less likely that "A" and "B" end up in the same match (or see each others posts).
If "A" starts getting too picky "A" might end up in fewer matches. If "B" really is an asshole, then "B" might end up in fewer matches too.
I've proposed this before to an MMO and also a related "Points of View" method for reviewing products: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
After a while you might end up with distinct groups and then you can do some research and datamining on them ;).