As I read this post about Kaspersky's opinion, I thought to myself, wouldn't it be cool if "opinion" posts had an "agree/disagree" button that users could click if they were logged in, and after a few hundred votes had been collected, a little graphical indicator would appear on the story to indicate how Slashdot users felt about something.
That would add an easy interactive component that I think would both be informative and fun.
When I read stories like this, I have two reactions. The first is to be encouraged that people are investigating the experience of consciousness (qualia), because in my opinion it is probably the most bizarre/amazing thing in the universe, and yet almost completely not understood. (And not studied very much given how amazing it is)
My other reaction is, gosh, we just don't seem to get it. It seems so obvious to me that the experience of consciousness cannot be a result of "software", nor "hardware" -- it cannot be the result of atoms, molecules, and electrons. Isn't that obvious to anyone else? And I'm not even talking about religion, I'm just talking about common sense. But science is so set on explaining everything based on physical observation that it seems to conclude that the experience of consciousness MUST be due to atoms and molecules and electrons. Again, I'm not advocating for the "spirit" here, I'm just saying that I find it dumbfounding that we're still convinced that something as completely bizarre/unique as this can be due to the physics that we know.
I guess that's why people are interested in exploring any possible connections with quantum mechanics, because if it's not due to classical physics, which it simply cannot be, then it must be due to something else, and quantum mechanics is the only "other" thing under the physics umbrella.
The only physical analogy that makes sense to me, personally, is dimensionality... that in addition to the classic dimensions we're familiar with, there must be additional dimensionality to the universe that allows for the experience of consciousness. That makes some sense, because there is obviously an extremely strong spatial and temporal correlation between our brain and whatever it is that allows us to experience consciousness -- any distance in time or space space completely interrupts consciousness, and that's something that we can observe.
So if there is additional dimensionality that allows us to experience consciousness, is there any way to "observe" that other than the usual way, which is simply to be alive and experience life? I guess to interact with something in a dimension, you need something else that is at the same coordinates in that dimension? For example, to affect something at a current XYZ coordinate in the universe, typically you need something else at that XYZ coordinate. Or to affect something directly at a certain time in history, you need to be at that same time in history. Perhaps likewise with additional dimensionality to the universe: To observe it or affect it, you need to be at the same "coordinates" in that dimension -- and as far as I know, we don't have any scientific sense of anything in the universe that can observe or affect that dimensionality other than our own brains. So humph, a mystery.
But yeah, I wish people would talk about this more and I wish that our society and government would spend more effort encouraging the study of what, seriously is the most mysterious, amazing, observable phenomenon in the universe!
Don't listen to all of the negative press... I'm a real fan of TNG, I've seen each of the movies, and gosh darning Jim, this ISN'T the worst of the bunch. That's just sillyness. I went out to see it tonight and I was pleasantly suprised. I had a good time -- there were lots of fun moments. This movie isn't a "great movie", but that's not what anyone would expect out of Star Trek... so go see it and have a good time.
Given Microsoft's investment in Xbox Live and their expertise in online and online gaming, I'd bet on Xbox Live being a high-quality service.
Remember, Xbox Live has:
a) Data centers that are localized
b) Data centers that are very high-bandwidth
c) All-broadband clients
We've never witnessed a gaming service like this. Truely it will be in a league of its own; certainly it will be fast.
The reliability issue isn't as clear. Part of reliablity is how fool-proof and easy it is to get a game. Many online gaming services, such as Battle.net, get the job done, but not without a lot of frustration. It would be interesting to compare across gaming services the ratio of time spent getting a game versus time playing a game.
But Xbox Live has a large team behind it. Again, I expect the engineering investment to be much larger than anything we've seen in the realm of online gaming. So I wouldn't at all be suprised if Xbox Live turns out to be quite a pleasure to use.
My final point regarding quality is the Xbox Communicator. As we all know, communication is one of the key aspects of online gaming. But communication via a keyboard? It doesn't quite fit the console gaming experience, and it inhibits game play. It seems likely that, if the audio is reliable and of high quality, that the Xbox Communicator will make Xbox Live much more pleasant to use than alternatives.
This $50 startup deal also seems quite good... a mild fee up front and you're good to go. Plus the beta test will have 10,000 gamers to spread the word (and get addicted this summer).
Where I expect Xbox Live will struggle is this $10/mo fee. For many it will be enough of hurdle that they'll just pass Xbox Live by.
Slashdot Mirror
As I read this post about Kaspersky's opinion, I thought to myself, wouldn't it be cool if "opinion" posts had an "agree/disagree" button that users could click if they were logged in, and after a few hundred votes had been collected, a little graphical indicator would appear on the story to indicate how Slashdot users felt about something.
That would add an easy interactive component that I think would both be informative and fun.
When I read stories like this, I have two reactions. The first is to be encouraged that people are investigating the experience of consciousness (qualia), because in my opinion it is probably the most bizarre/amazing thing in the universe, and yet almost completely not understood. (And not studied very much given how amazing it is)
My other reaction is, gosh, we just don't seem to get it. It seems so obvious to me that the experience of consciousness cannot be a result of "software", nor "hardware" -- it cannot be the result of atoms, molecules, and electrons. Isn't that obvious to anyone else? And I'm not even talking about religion, I'm just talking about common sense. But science is so set on explaining everything based on physical observation that it seems to conclude that the experience of consciousness MUST be due to atoms and molecules and electrons. Again, I'm not advocating for the "spirit" here, I'm just saying that I find it dumbfounding that we're still convinced that something as completely bizarre/unique as this can be due to the physics that we know.
I guess that's why people are interested in exploring any possible connections with quantum mechanics, because if it's not due to classical physics, which it simply cannot be, then it must be due to something else, and quantum mechanics is the only "other" thing under the physics umbrella.
The only physical analogy that makes sense to me, personally, is dimensionality... that in addition to the classic dimensions we're familiar with, there must be additional dimensionality to the universe that allows for the experience of consciousness. That makes some sense, because there is obviously an extremely strong spatial and temporal correlation between our brain and whatever it is that allows us to experience consciousness -- any distance in time or space space completely interrupts consciousness, and that's something that we can observe.
So if there is additional dimensionality that allows us to experience consciousness, is there any way to "observe" that other than the usual way, which is simply to be alive and experience life? I guess to interact with something in a dimension, you need something else that is at the same coordinates in that dimension? For example, to affect something at a current XYZ coordinate in the universe, typically you need something else at that XYZ coordinate. Or to affect something directly at a certain time in history, you need to be at that same time in history. Perhaps likewise with additional dimensionality to the universe: To observe it or affect it, you need to be at the same "coordinates" in that dimension -- and as far as I know, we don't have any scientific sense of anything in the universe that can observe or affect that dimensionality other than our own brains. So humph, a mystery.
But yeah, I wish people would talk about this more and I wish that our society and government would spend more effort encouraging the study of what, seriously is the most mysterious, amazing, observable phenomenon in the universe!
Don't listen to all of the negative press... I'm a real fan of TNG, I've seen each of the movies, and gosh darning Jim, this ISN'T the worst of the bunch. That's just sillyness. I went out to see it tonight and I was pleasantly suprised. I had a good time -- there were lots of fun moments. This movie isn't a "great movie", but that's not what anyone would expect out of Star Trek... so go see it and have a good time.
Given Microsoft's investment in Xbox Live and their expertise in online and online gaming, I'd bet on Xbox Live being a high-quality service.
Remember, Xbox Live has:
a) Data centers that are localized
b) Data centers that are very high-bandwidth
c) All-broadband clients
We've never witnessed a gaming service like this. Truely it will be in a league of its own; certainly it will be fast.
The reliability issue isn't as clear. Part of reliablity is how fool-proof and easy it is to get a game. Many online gaming services, such as Battle.net, get the job done, but not without a lot of frustration. It would be interesting to compare across gaming services the ratio of time spent getting a game versus time playing a game.
But Xbox Live has a large team behind it. Again, I expect the engineering investment to be much larger than anything we've seen in the realm of online gaming. So I wouldn't at all be suprised if Xbox Live turns out to be quite a pleasure to use.
My final point regarding quality is the Xbox Communicator. As we all know, communication is one of the key aspects of online gaming. But communication via a keyboard? It doesn't quite fit the console gaming experience, and it inhibits game play. It seems likely that, if the audio is reliable and of high quality, that the Xbox Communicator will make Xbox Live much more pleasant to use than alternatives.
This $50 startup deal also seems quite good... a mild fee up front and you're good to go. Plus the beta test will have 10,000 gamers to spread the word (and get addicted this summer).
Where I expect Xbox Live will struggle is this $10/mo fee. For many it will be enough of hurdle that they'll just pass Xbox Live by.