Ahh... now it looks like it's only videos embedded on other sites that do it. That would probably explain my account settings not being applied. I guess I can't really blame YouTube for that. I would have sworn that I also had this happen on youtube.com directly, but either A) YouTube changed their behavior or B) human memory can be flawed. Pride makes me want to think that someone at Google read my post on here and instituted a change in YouTube's behavior, but reason tells me that likely my perception was simply flawed... some combination of logical fallacies with a smattering of confirmation bias would account for that. I guess there's also A.1) YouTube happened to change the behavior and I had nothing to do with it.
Anyway, Here is an example of it happening embedded on a link (generally video) aggregator site. Hit play, then pause. The resolution should be at 360p Wait for the video to completely buffer, hit maximize and it starts all over buffering at 480p. Only seems to happen with videos that have 720p and above available. Clicking on the video takes you to the YouTube page, and this apparently does not happen there. But, you will have to rebuffer... which doesn't really bother me unless I accidentally click the video rather than the maximize button, and I'm not going to blame YouTube for that. And
While it is generally more practical to merge the source with your own and produce derivative works, there exist numerous publications and websites with pictorial tutorials demonstrating redistribution of the original source as is.
The problem is that Youtube automatically upswitches the resolution when going fullscreen for me. I can go back to the buffered version, but the process is an annoyance as I described.
Vista 64, Chrome 9.0.597.98 and Adobe Flash 10.2.something. The browser doesn't seem to matter, as I have had this issue for years and only recently started using Chrome over Firefox. Same problem with Opera 11.01 and current flash. Internet Explorer... well apparently I don't even have flash configured for IE. Going to a different computer, same thing with XP and IE and current Adobe Flash. I've seen the behavior on Linux installs as well. I could try an alternative plugin, but anything compliant should have the same issue. Again, the problem is not that I LOSE the buffer, but that the resolution automatically changes when fullscreening the video, so I have to dink around to switch back to the resolution it is actually buffered in. It's not end of the world annoying, but it is frustrating enough to complain about it on Slashdot.
More likely, it's easier to revoke the ability of the user to view the content if it's streaming only.
On a moderately related topic, I really really wish that YouTube changed the default behavior of maximizing a window. If I buffer the whole clip, why in the world would I want to start buffering again in a higher resolution if I go full screen? Then, once it automatically switches, I have to 1)wait for the video to buffer enough to start playing, 2)switch the resolution back to the one I buffered in, 3)rewind to the beginning so it doesn't start rebuffering at the resolution already completely downloaded in, 4)repeat steps 2 and 3 until I find the resolution it originally downloaded in.
And yes, I have an account set up and my preferences state "I have a slow connection. Never play higher quality video" and didn't check "Always choose the best option for me based on screen size." This may or may not help if I launch right from YouTube, but generally I find my videos from link aggregators or Google searches. My preferences apparently don't apply then.
At least it's better than some video sites that only let you buffer a tiny sliver, so I don't even have the option to jump through all those hoops to get a jitter free experience. In those cases I usually end up closing the video and rating the link down if I have that ability. Then again, those sites are often rotten with video ads that I would have to hunt through the cluttered design to locate in order to stop or pause them. So, I just close any site with an ad that plays intrusive audio which isn't immediately apparent how to pause or silence. Or I consider activating adblocking.
All kidding aside, servers generally don't have random screen savers, cutesy bonzai buddy type applications, and users opening random emails. There is (hopefully) a difference between administrators on servers and your average desktop user.
But I believe that the human brain is a machine. It is composed of tiny discrete units which follow a pretty mechanistic algorithm. The wonder and abilities comes from the immense complexity available in the networks between neurons. I don't really know of any law of nature that would prevent us from modeling the functioning of a neuron. At that point it just becomes a matter of throwing enough hardware at the problem before we could model the functioning of an entire brain. Once the entire brain is modeled, then the mind comes naturally out of the process. While I don't believe that we currently have enough processing power to accurately model an entire brain we are approaching the point where there are about as many transistors in devices connected to the internet as there are neurons in a human brain. If our technology keeps developing in the same direction it is, there is no reason that we would not be able to model an entire human brain. Once we do that, we have modeled the machine in which our consciousness runs and therefore have modeled a mind.
At first this would be a completely new personality but there is no reason that I know of why we eventually wouldn't be able to model the brain of any chosen individual, therefore running their consciousness on that machine. In fact, I believe that it should eventually get to the point where we can model a human mind using as little energy as as human brain needs to think. There may be several technological paradigm shifts involved before we get to that point, and the whole path will involve countless tiny steps. I also do not state as an article of faith that the ability to model a brain will arise within my lifetime. But I would be willing place a small wager that, sometime in my lifetime, we will be able to replace certain parts of the brain. Whether that is computerized, mechanical, transplant or stimulation of regrowth, I do not know. But it just seems that we are too close on many fronts for this to not happen. Ah, and it is a pretty safe bet partially because I won't miss out on that payment once the term of the bet is up.
Ahh. You beat me to it. I thought I had scrolled down far enough. It's so annoying that the first few pages of topics not directly tech related are always "I misread that as..." Prevents real discussion.
Exactly. I think ="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks">Henrietta Lacks is a better example. Basically, she had a tissue sample taken from a uterine tumor without her knowledge in 1951. The sample thrives in vitro, and has been used in many studies that pushed the envelope of science, from the testing of the Salk Vaccine to Aids research to, of course, cancer research as originally intended. In fact, the sample survives so well in vitro that it has contaminated many cell lines used in research. Her cell line is even used in college level intro biology classes for experiments/demonstrations in chromosome staining and other techniques simply because the cells divides so rapidly and it is so hard to accidentally kill the sample.
the problem with replacing bits of the brain is at what point does it cease to be you and just becomes a simulation.
But bits of the brain are replaced constantly. While the gross cell structure may be retained, the individual molecules and atoms are turned over extremely rapidly. While people throw around numbers like "ten years" it is even more quick than that. Phosphate turns over on approximately the order of a six week half life in the brain. Even the individual atoms in bone, a structure that seems solid and permanent, are replaced.
Now, the portion of the question "What point does it cease to be you and just become a simulation" actually assumes a large number of philosophical tenets which need to be explored before the question is even asked. The first unspoken tenet I have seen used without questioning in this discussion is essentially that qualia has a real world "essence of being" or similar concept. So the concepts of "you-ness" and "me-ness" while usually useful constructs, are not necessarily reflections of how the world actually is.
The second assumed tenet builds loosely on the concept of qualia, and assumes that it applies to human consciousness. That is that our consciousness experiences the world as it is. However, optical illusions and other sensory tricks along with the growing body of neuroscience in general provide evidence that the world our conscious mind experiences is actually a simulation. So, if the world that our mind lives in is just a (not fully complete or accurate at that!) simulation of the world our bodies live in, we can not take for granted that consciousness itself is a "real world phenomenon" and not its own simulation. Basically, throw in sensory input, data storage (memories) and language processing, then consciousness appears out of the chaos.
So, if you can not prove that our consciousness is more than simulation, then the question of when it BECOMES a simulation of you loses cogency. As the Corollary to Heraclitus' famous utterance goes: "No man steps in the same river twice; for the river has changed, and so has he."
Claiming that consciousness is not just really advanced path finding algorithms is a bit premature if neuroscience does not know the actual mechanism behind which the mind works. Sure, we have a pretty good feel for how individual neurons work and talk to other neurons. We know that there are regions of the brain where the processing of certain inputs and concepts occur. But the makeup of the mind, of consciousness itself... just because we don't know how to recreate (rather than simulate) it proves that we won't be able to just as much as the fact that Leonardo DaVinci never built a working aircraft disproves flying machines in general. And there is mild evidence and I have heard pretty strong arguments that our consciousness may be essentially based on path finding algorithms.
And to those concerned about the fact that in transferring "you" to a machine will cause a break in their stream of consciousness: are you filled with dread every time you go to sleep? When you wake up, you are not the same person that went to sleep. Chemically, the cells have partially turned over. Your neurotransmitters and hormones are at completely different levels. You have different memories than when you fell asleep, having forgotten some things, remembered others and spun new false memories out of whole cloth in the form of dreams (dreaming itself being a state of quasi-not quite there consciousness that claws at the edge of defining what consciousness is, such as the old yarn: "Did I dream that I was a butterfly, or am I a butterfly dreaming that I am a person.") Your emotional state is likely completely different. Your abilities and skills are likely even quantitatively different than when you went to sleep the night before, as well as different than when you woke up the previous morning. Yet you have no problem calling that the same "you." We have no reason to suspect
The best description I've heard is: China is what you get when government is run by engineers. The United States is what you get when government is run by lawyers.
But seriously, the Chinese government tends to have scientists and engineers overrepresented in their officials, while the United States has virtually none save for a handfull of MDs.
You worry too much. There just won't be any more generations to name after Z.
After all it's vital to have a broad, meaningless o apply to everyone who was born within a specific time period, it's amazing they managed it before the Baby Boomers started the whole thing properly.
I have seen a wax cylinder shaved and recorded over in a demonstration in a class, although I can not recall if it was music or science. The cylinder was a replica made by a hobbyist, and I recall that a phonograph horn was made from paper and a straight pin to demonstrate how simply the technology is. However, this would qualify as far as the NPR article is concerned. Although I may be old enough that this isn't done in schools anymore so only qualifies as anecdotal evidence rather than proof.
With asbestos and lead, the tools still exist but were simply redesigned with other materials. In the case of the shoe-fitting x-rays, we do not have a replacement tool with anywhere near the same function. The closest we have is this contraption, and it would take a very strong argument to convince me that those are the same tool.
NB: correct contextual usage of the word "contraption" obviously gives greater weight and style to my argument. Nanny Nanny.
While I personally agree with you, that line of reasoning will not convince believing friends and family that the house isn't haunted.
That's okay, though. Because a thorough scientific investigation will not convince believers either. The slightest wobble in any of your readings will be read as a haunting. Lack of wobble in the readings will be read as a haunting. A complete failure to find any evidence of ghosts will be taken as evidence that the ghosts do not want to be found.
And then there's a good chance that your work and or words will be taken out of context in a way that seems to support ghosts, but will be worded in such a way that a FORMER SKEPTIC now BELIEVES!
It's a misspelling of the name of the poster that mentioned that Minecraft is Turing complete.
Cue the "How does the misspelling of the name of the poster make you feel?" posts
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh, It's not happening anymore. Heisenbug!
Or I'm missing something.... I'll be back
Ahh... now it looks like it's only videos embedded on other sites that do it. That would probably explain my account settings not being applied. I guess I can't really blame YouTube for that. I would have sworn that I also had this happen on youtube.com directly, but either A) YouTube changed their behavior or B) human memory can be flawed. Pride makes me want to think that someone at Google read my post on here and instituted a change in YouTube's behavior, but reason tells me that likely my perception was simply flawed... some combination of logical fallacies with a smattering of confirmation bias would account for that. I guess there's also A.1) YouTube happened to change the behavior and I had nothing to do with it.
Anyway, Here is an example of it happening embedded on a link (generally video) aggregator site. Hit play, then pause. The resolution should be at 360p Wait for the video to completely buffer, hit maximize and it starts all over buffering at 480p. Only seems to happen with videos that have 720p and above available. Clicking on the video takes you to the YouTube page, and this apparently does not happen there. But, you will have to rebuffer... which doesn't really bother me unless I accidentally click the video rather than the maximize button, and I'm not going to blame YouTube for that. And
While it is generally more practical to merge the source with your own and produce derivative works, there exist numerous publications and websites with pictorial tutorials demonstrating redistribution of the original source as is.
The problem is that Youtube automatically upswitches the resolution when going fullscreen for me. I can go back to the buffered version, but the process is an annoyance as I described.
Vista 64, Chrome 9.0.597.98 and Adobe Flash 10.2.something. The browser doesn't seem to matter, as I have had this issue for years and only recently started using Chrome over Firefox. Same problem with Opera 11.01 and current flash. Internet Explorer... well apparently I don't even have flash configured for IE. Going to a different computer, same thing with XP and IE and current Adobe Flash. I've seen the behavior on Linux installs as well. I could try an alternative plugin, but anything compliant should have the same issue. Again, the problem is not that I LOSE the buffer, but that the resolution automatically changes when fullscreening the video, so I have to dink around to switch back to the resolution it is actually buffered in. It's not end of the world annoying, but it is frustrating enough to complain about it on Slashdot.
More likely, it's easier to revoke the ability of the user to view the content if it's streaming only.
On a moderately related topic, I really really wish that YouTube changed the default behavior of maximizing a window. If I buffer the whole clip, why in the world would I want to start buffering again in a higher resolution if I go full screen? Then, once it automatically switches, I have to 1)wait for the video to buffer enough to start playing, 2)switch the resolution back to the one I buffered in, 3)rewind to the beginning so it doesn't start rebuffering at the resolution already completely downloaded in, 4)repeat steps 2 and 3 until I find the resolution it originally downloaded in.
And yes, I have an account set up and my preferences state "I have a slow connection. Never play higher quality video" and didn't check "Always choose the best option for me based on screen size." This may or may not help if I launch right from YouTube, but generally I find my videos from link aggregators or Google searches. My preferences apparently don't apply then.
At least it's better than some video sites that only let you buffer a tiny sliver, so I don't even have the option to jump through all those hoops to get a jitter free experience. In those cases I usually end up closing the video and rating the link down if I have that ability. Then again, those sites are often rotten with video ads that I would have to hunt through the cluttered design to locate in order to stop or pause them. So, I just close any site with an ad that plays intrusive audio which isn't immediately apparent how to pause or silence. Or I consider activating adblocking.
How does keep people interested in a conversation on IRC make you feel?
All kidding aside, servers generally don't have random screen savers, cutesy bonzai buddy type applications, and users opening random emails. There is (hopefully) a difference between administrators on servers and your average desktop user.
So, are you saying that all members of Anonymous are equal, but some are more equal than others?
But I believe that the human brain is a machine. It is composed of tiny discrete units which follow a pretty mechanistic algorithm. The wonder and abilities comes from the immense complexity available in the networks between neurons. I don't really know of any law of nature that would prevent us from modeling the functioning of a neuron. At that point it just becomes a matter of throwing enough hardware at the problem before we could model the functioning of an entire brain. Once the entire brain is modeled, then the mind comes naturally out of the process. While I don't believe that we currently have enough processing power to accurately model an entire brain we are approaching the point where there are about as many transistors in devices connected to the internet as there are neurons in a human brain. If our technology keeps developing in the same direction it is, there is no reason that we would not be able to model an entire human brain. Once we do that, we have modeled the machine in which our consciousness runs and therefore have modeled a mind.
At first this would be a completely new personality but there is no reason that I know of why we eventually wouldn't be able to model the brain of any chosen individual, therefore running their consciousness on that machine. In fact, I believe that it should eventually get to the point where we can model a human mind using as little energy as as human brain needs to think. There may be several technological paradigm shifts involved before we get to that point, and the whole path will involve countless tiny steps. I also do not state as an article of faith that the ability to model a brain will arise within my lifetime. But I would be willing place a small wager that, sometime in my lifetime, we will be able to replace certain parts of the brain. Whether that is computerized, mechanical, transplant or stimulation of regrowth, I do not know. But it just seems that we are too close on many fronts for this to not happen. Ah, and it is a pretty safe bet partially because I won't miss out on that payment once the term of the bet is up.
Ahh. You beat me to it. I thought I had scrolled down far enough. It's so annoying that the first few pages of topics not directly tech related are always "I misread that as..." Prevents real discussion.
Oops, biffed link. Should point Here
Exactly. I think ="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks">Henrietta Lacks is a better example. Basically, she had a tissue sample taken from a uterine tumor without her knowledge in 1951. The sample thrives in vitro, and has been used in many studies that pushed the envelope of science, from the testing of the Salk Vaccine to Aids research to, of course, cancer research as originally intended. In fact, the sample survives so well in vitro that it has contaminated many cell lines used in research. Her cell line is even used in college level intro biology classes for experiments/demonstrations in chromosome staining and other techniques simply because the cells divides so rapidly and it is so hard to accidentally kill the sample.
the problem with replacing bits of the brain is at what point does it cease to be you and just becomes a simulation.
But bits of the brain are replaced constantly. While the gross cell structure may be retained, the individual molecules and atoms are turned over extremely rapidly. While people throw around numbers like "ten years" it is even more quick than that. Phosphate turns over on approximately the order of a six week half life in the brain. Even the individual atoms in bone, a structure that seems solid and permanent, are replaced.
Now, the portion of the question "What point does it cease to be you and just become a simulation" actually assumes a large number of philosophical tenets which need to be explored before the question is even asked. The first unspoken tenet I have seen used without questioning in this discussion is essentially that qualia has a real world "essence of being" or similar concept. So the concepts of "you-ness" and "me-ness" while usually useful constructs, are not necessarily reflections of how the world actually is.
The second assumed tenet builds loosely on the concept of qualia, and assumes that it applies to human consciousness. That is that our consciousness experiences the world as it is. However, optical illusions and other sensory tricks along with the growing body of neuroscience in general provide evidence that the world our conscious mind experiences is actually a simulation. So, if the world that our mind lives in is just a (not fully complete or accurate at that!) simulation of the world our bodies live in, we can not take for granted that consciousness itself is a "real world phenomenon" and not its own simulation. Basically, throw in sensory input, data storage (memories) and language processing, then consciousness appears out of the chaos.
So, if you can not prove that our consciousness is more than simulation, then the question of when it BECOMES a simulation of you loses cogency. As the Corollary to Heraclitus' famous utterance goes: "No man steps in the same river twice; for the river has changed, and so has he."
Claiming that consciousness is not just really advanced path finding algorithms is a bit premature if neuroscience does not know the actual mechanism behind which the mind works. Sure, we have a pretty good feel for how individual neurons work and talk to other neurons. We know that there are regions of the brain where the processing of certain inputs and concepts occur. But the makeup of the mind, of consciousness itself... just because we don't know how to recreate (rather than simulate) it proves that we won't be able to just as much as the fact that Leonardo DaVinci never built a working aircraft disproves flying machines in general. And there is mild evidence and I have heard pretty strong arguments that our consciousness may be essentially based on path finding algorithms.
And to those concerned about the fact that in transferring "you" to a machine will cause a break in their stream of consciousness: are you filled with dread every time you go to sleep? When you wake up, you are not the same person that went to sleep. Chemically, the cells have partially turned over. Your neurotransmitters and hormones are at completely different levels. You have different memories than when you fell asleep, having forgotten some things, remembered others and spun new false memories out of whole cloth in the form of dreams (dreaming itself being a state of quasi-not quite there consciousness that claws at the edge of defining what consciousness is, such as the old yarn: "Did I dream that I was a butterfly, or am I a butterfly dreaming that I am a person.") Your emotional state is likely completely different. Your abilities and skills are likely even quantitatively different than when you went to sleep the night before, as well as different than when you woke up the previous morning. Yet you have no problem calling that the same "you." We have no reason to suspect
You beat me to it although a different punch line.
The best description I've heard is: China is what you get when government is run by engineers. The United States is what you get when government is run by lawyers.
But seriously, the Chinese government tends to have scientists and engineers overrepresented in their officials, while the United States has virtually none save for a handfull of MDs.
After all it's vital to have a broad, meaningless o apply to everyone who was born within a specific time period, it's amazing they managed it before the Baby Boomers started the whole thing properly.
That's totally something a Capricorn would say.
So they're going to do "custom applications" just for a playbook?
Now, they're going to do custom applications for a playbook which is difficult to hack or make unauthorized copies of.
Benihana is a chain. There's a good chance you can boycott locally.
PETA would have an issue with it. PETA doesn't even want you to have pets.
I have seen a wax cylinder shaved and recorded over in a demonstration in a class, although I can not recall if it was music or science. The cylinder was a replica made by a hobbyist, and I recall that a phonograph horn was made from paper and a straight pin to demonstrate how simply the technology is. However, this would qualify as far as the NPR article is concerned. Although I may be old enough that this isn't done in schools anymore so only qualifies as anecdotal evidence rather than proof.
With asbestos and lead, the tools still exist but were simply redesigned with other materials. In the case of the shoe-fitting x-rays, we do not have a replacement tool with anywhere near the same function. The closest we have is this contraption, and it would take a very strong argument to convince me that those are the same tool.
NB: correct contextual usage of the word "contraption" obviously gives greater weight and style to my argument. Nanny Nanny.
Sue the Beeb for slandering you to the employee.
But it would be easier to create a new exotic organism than to retrofit our entire fleet of gasoline engines.
While I personally agree with you, that line of reasoning will not convince believing friends and family that the house isn't haunted.
That's okay, though. Because a thorough scientific investigation will not convince believers either. The slightest wobble in any of your readings will be read as a haunting. Lack of wobble in the readings will be read as a haunting. A complete failure to find any evidence of ghosts will be taken as evidence that the ghosts do not want to be found.
And then there's a good chance that your work and or words will be taken out of context in a way that seems to support ghosts, but will be worded in such a way that a FORMER SKEPTIC now BELIEVES!
Basically, don't do it.
It's a misspelling of the name of the poster that mentioned that Minecraft is Turing complete. Cue the "How does the misspelling of the name of the poster make you feel?" posts
Plaxinum is actually an AI built within Minecraft. Doesn't prove Turing Completeness, but hey... good enough for me.