Well, it's nice to see the moderators are paying attention. I assume that I was dropped to 0 because the post had nothing to do with the topic.
The reason I put this here is because I assumed that *someone* would be interested in knowing the movie had been aired, and what it was like; this news was hardly worth submitting as a story, after all. This seemed as good a place as any, due to the general lack of interest in the subject and wandering threads. Obviously someone disagrees with me, and that's fine. But really, moderating me *down*? I should at least get some credit for posting something that is actually geek related (as opposed to, say, asking what the prize is for finding aliens).
(Yes, I know I'm not supposed to whine when I get moderated, but this seems a bit much. *I* never moderated anyone doing something like this. (Whoops, I wasn't supposed to say that, either, eh?))
Interesting responses to this, to which I will respond myself. And I have no idea why I chose this thread to loose my opinion on man's place in the universe.
Humans, per se, have not been hunters for millions of years, if you define 'human' as homo sapiens sapiens and believe the current archeological/anthropological theories. However, unless one does not acept *any* modern theories, humans are the latest in a very, very long line of hunters.
(Cue monologue...)
More than that, humans are remarkably violent, far more so than other primates. (Feel free to call me on this, but I'm speaking of both scale and savagry.) More violent, in fact, than any other species that comes to mind. I don't think that this should be overlooked; while you cannot argue that continuous war is the natural state of humanity, the idea that it is somehow unnatural is even more absurd. Feel free to disagree--I have in the past--but I believe that humans are the result of hundreds of millions of years of evolution that, perhaps as a side effect, has made us possibly the most violent, destructive and dangerous species known. Then add to that the fact that modern man is so complex psychologically and socially, both as a species and as individuals, that the use of that power is unpredictable and often bears the marks of insanity. To expect this to all go away just because we have nice homes and the Internet is beyond absurd.
(I should point out that I am looking at this situation as more a Romantic that sociologist, and I must admit some pride in the destructive power of mankind. I doubt many other people will agree with my views; they could and quite possibly are correct. Looking over the preceeding paragraph, I see quite a bit of my own Existensial leanings, and even more of Dionysus, so feel free to tear my argument to shreds.)
The problem is that I don't think those arcade games could teach anyone how to shoot. For one thing, the kid (assuming I'm thinking of the right kid) was using rifles and I have yet to play *any* game a rifle-controller--not a rifle shaped handgun, a real rifle--let alone a realistic one.
Mainly though, those games just aren't anything like real guns. I shoot frequently--mostly handguns, rifles also--and there are *no* games that can simulate that. The noise and esp. the recoil are totally unlike any game, as are the weight of the weapon and the feel in your hand. This works both ways: I'm fairly poor at those arcade games because I'm *expecting* all of that, and keep compensating for it even in game, and I'm willing to bet that it's worse going from the games to reality. The differences would be more than enough to throw off any skill he may have had.
But then we have to figure out where he learned to shoot. It isn't hard to imagine that he had borrowed/stolen or somehow gotten ahold of a gun, without anyone knowning, and practiced a bit. Or he could just be a genius, picking it up *really* fast after he started. In any case, I don't think the games could be credited with teaching him anything useful.
Nope, he was definately talking about Doom and Quake. I watched a couple of his interviews and AFAIK he never said anything about arcade shooters. In fact, he never said anything about actually handling a gun; it was all 'hand-eye coordination' and a the 'killer mindset'.
(BTW, I'm a rocket launcher fanatic, so I do just take one shot *grin*)
Best of all, you can load Linux on an outdated PC or Mac with minimal RAM, and your old machine will zip along like a young jaguar, multiprocessing with the best of them.
Multiprocessing? Great, no need to buy that new mb, I'll just install Linux!
Dumb little nickpick, I know, but this is Time; I'd hope their Tech columnists would know a enough not to make such an obvious mistake. (OK, not *that* obvious to most people, but I got used to double checking for it, and so should he--*before* he writes a column for a major magazine.)
From the sound of it, this has next to nothing to do with 'walking and chewing gum', which are parallel tasks, using different regions of the cortex at the same time--no task switching involved.
What this sounds like, OTOH, is the ability to use the *same* part of the brain for multiple tasks. This would be an extraordinary system, having to store a *lot* of information about the current state of the brain, and then be able to retrieve it for switching. (There seems to be some overlap with memory here, too...) In an extreme case, it may actually be holding copies, albiet probably simplified, of whatever networks were being switched. In computing terms, this thing could not only be a task switcher, but a swapper as well, actually changing tasks by swapping the activation patterns in and out of networks.
Speculating a bit, this system would also be a convenient way around nature's standard approach to multiple tasks, which is to evolve parallel systems. When behavior became sufficiently complex, it didn't make any sense to keep parallelizing for everything, so the switcher evolved as a 'quick-fix' that allowed the organisms to multitask new behavior before the better performing dedicated systems could be developed.
Still speculating, it no doubt takes short cuts, which could explain why people are so poor at switching. (For one thing, it may not attempt to 'force' the switch. The current task, or a monitor, would have to request that the older one be swapped in--this would not only be necessary for the current task to be completed, but would explain why people get side-tracked; they 'forget' to swap the primary task back in.)
As for a possible relationship to attention, I doubt it. Attention is a fairly old function, much older than cortex this region is part of, and isn't really switched, though the switcher may be *used* by the attention-function. (IIRC, the thalamus is believed to be the primary 'seat' of attention, which makes it *much* older and considerably more universal.)
>Ok, so point us to a comparable text on evolutionary psychology. Whoops, there aren't any.
The Tangled Wing--a bit dated, but quite comparable. There's nothing new in the claim that psychology is shaped by evolution--that has been an active field of study for decades, though it is possible that cogsci has overlooked it in the past (with cogsci's tradition of being more concerned with implementation than origin).
Psuedo-flame regarding the responses to this question:
As I type this there are at least five people who responded with a variation of "you should have had backups". Apparently in their rush to help they missed the second to last sentence--"we didn't even have enough money to afford a tape backup for the server". This would seem to imply that, regardless of whether he *should* have had tapes, he couldn't, but perhaps I'm missing something.
"It emulates the original playstation in software and even adds perspective corrected textures and antialiasing to old games."
Nope, it runs PSX games on the PSX hardware, otherwise known as the PS2 I/O controller.
"Also the playstation has 2 main processors; an Emotion Engine and the Graphics Synthesizer. The Emotion Engine is a 128 bit chip dedicated to AI and Physics Modelling."
It only has a single, very special, processor: the Emotion Engine, and it isn't optimized for AI (would that even be possible?) The EE has two vector units, one for geometry, the other for physics models. AI and whatever else is left is handled by EE's core and the standard FP unit.
As for the development systems (sorry, too lazy to quote), I hadn't heard anything about SGI's being involved. It would make more sense to just use the Emotion Engine for graphics development, as you can do with PSX. (Hint: you aren't doing much pre-rendering, so what would the SGI's be used for?)
And no, it won't improve older games.
[Now for my own unfounded rumor: Sony is supposedly thinking of using the Emotion Engine in things other than the PS2, like workstations.]
Actually, it does. The PS2's I/O chip is the PSX _core_, not the I/O chip (at least, it was a few weeks ago). When Playstation games are run it just flips over to I/O processor.
And of course the rendering is done by the new hardware--they aren't going to drop the PSX graphics system in their too--but since the old core is still handling geometry (and AI, and physics, etc) I don't think it'll make much of a difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's nice to see the moderators are paying attention. I assume that I was dropped to 0 because the post had nothing to do with the topic.
The reason I put this here is because I assumed that *someone* would be interested in knowing the movie had been aired, and what it was like; this news was hardly worth submitting as a story, after all. This seemed as good a place as any, due to the general lack of interest in the subject and wandering threads. Obviously someone disagrees with me, and that's fine. But really, moderating me *down*? I should at least get some credit for posting something that is actually geek related (as opposed to, say, asking what the prize is for finding aliens).
(Yes, I know I'm not supposed to whine when I get moderated, but this seems a bit much. *I* never moderated anyone doing something like this. (Whoops, I wasn't supposed to say that, either, eh?))
Interesting responses to this, to which I will respond myself. And I have no idea why I chose this thread to loose my opinion on man's place in the universe.
Humans, per se, have not been hunters for millions of years, if you define 'human' as homo sapiens sapiens and believe the current archeological/anthropological theories. However, unless one does not acept *any* modern theories, humans are the latest in a very, very long line of hunters.
(Cue monologue...)
More than that, humans are remarkably violent, far more so than other primates. (Feel free to call me on this, but I'm speaking of both scale and savagry.) More violent, in fact, than any other species that comes to mind. I don't think that this should be overlooked; while you cannot argue that continuous war is the natural state of humanity, the idea that it is somehow unnatural is even more absurd. Feel free to disagree--I have in the past--but I believe that humans are the result of hundreds of millions of years of evolution that, perhaps as a side effect, has made us possibly the most violent, destructive and dangerous species known. Then add to that the fact that modern man is so complex psychologically and socially, both as a species and as individuals, that the use of that power is unpredictable and often bears the marks of insanity. To expect this to all go away just because we have nice homes and the Internet is beyond absurd.
(I should point out that I am looking at this situation as more a Romantic that sociologist, and I must admit some pride in the destructive power of mankind. I doubt many other people will agree with my views; they could and quite possibly are correct. Looking over the preceeding paragraph, I see quite a bit of my own Existensial leanings, and even more of Dionysus, so feel free to tear my argument to shreds.)
The problem is that I don't think those arcade games could teach anyone how to shoot. For one thing, the kid (assuming I'm thinking of the right kid) was using rifles and I have yet to play *any* game a rifle-controller--not a rifle shaped handgun, a real rifle--let alone a realistic one.
Mainly though, those games just aren't anything like real guns. I shoot frequently--mostly handguns, rifles also--and there are *no* games that can simulate that. The noise and esp. the recoil are totally unlike any game, as are the weight of the weapon and the feel in your hand. This works both ways: I'm fairly poor at those arcade games because I'm *expecting* all of that, and keep compensating for it even in game, and I'm willing to bet that it's worse going from the games to reality. The differences would be more than enough to throw off any skill he may have had.
But then we have to figure out where he learned to shoot. It isn't hard to imagine that he had borrowed/stolen or somehow gotten ahold of a gun, without anyone knowning, and practiced a bit. Or he could just be a genius, picking it up *really* fast after he started. In any case, I don't think the games could be credited with teaching him anything useful.
Nope, he was definately talking about Doom and Quake. I watched a couple of his interviews and AFAIK he never said anything about arcade shooters. In fact, he never said anything about actually handling a gun; it was all 'hand-eye coordination' and a the 'killer mindset'.
(BTW, I'm a rocket launcher fanatic, so I do just take one shot *grin*)
Multiprocessing? Great, no need to buy that new mb, I'll just install Linux!
Dumb little nickpick, I know, but this is Time; I'd hope their Tech columnists would know a enough not to make such an obvious mistake. (OK, not *that* obvious to most people, but I got used to double checking for it, and so should he--*before* he writes a column for a major magazine.)
From the sound of it, this has next to nothing to do with 'walking and chewing gum', which are parallel tasks, using different regions of the cortex at the same time--no task switching involved.
What this sounds like, OTOH, is the ability to use the *same* part of the brain for multiple tasks. This would be an extraordinary system, having to store a *lot* of information about the current state of the brain, and then be able to retrieve it for switching. (There seems to be some overlap with memory here, too...) In an extreme case, it may actually be holding copies, albiet probably simplified, of whatever networks were being switched. In computing terms, this thing could not only be a task switcher, but a swapper as well, actually changing tasks by swapping the activation patterns in and out of networks.
Speculating a bit, this system would also be a convenient way around nature's standard approach to multiple tasks, which is to evolve parallel systems. When behavior became sufficiently complex, it didn't make any sense to keep parallelizing for everything, so the switcher evolved as a 'quick-fix' that allowed the organisms to multitask new behavior before the better performing dedicated systems could be developed.
Still speculating, it no doubt takes short cuts, which could explain why people are so poor at switching. (For one thing, it may not attempt to 'force' the switch. The current task, or a monitor, would have to request that the older one be swapped in--this would not only be necessary for the current task to be completed, but would explain why people get side-tracked; they 'forget' to swap the primary task back in.)
As for a possible relationship to attention, I doubt it. Attention is a fairly old function, much older than cortex this region is part of, and isn't really switched, though the switcher may be *used* by the attention-function. (IIRC, the thalamus is believed to be the primary 'seat' of attention, which makes it *much* older and considerably more universal.)
>Ok, so point us to a comparable text on evolutionary psychology. Whoops, there aren't any.
The Tangled Wing--a bit dated, but quite comparable. There's nothing new in the claim that psychology is shaped by evolution--that has been an active field of study for decades, though it is possible that cogsci has overlooked it in the past (with cogsci's tradition of being more concerned with implementation than origin).
If anyone has some extra time and is willing to watch John Dvorak, the author was on Silicon Spin Wednesday. Real Video for 28.8 and 56k.
(Spoiler: Transhumanism and 'uploading').
Psuedo-flame regarding the responses to this question:
As I type this there are at least five people who responded with a variation of "you should have had backups". Apparently in their rush to help they missed the second to last sentence--"we didn't even have enough money to afford a tape backup for the server". This would seem to imply that, regardless of whether he *should* have had tapes, he couldn't, but perhaps I'm missing something.
Nit-picking:
"It emulates the original playstation in software and even adds perspective corrected textures and antialiasing to old games."
Nope, it runs PSX games on the PSX hardware, otherwise known as the PS2 I/O controller.
"Also the playstation has 2 main processors; an Emotion Engine and the Graphics Synthesizer. The Emotion Engine is a 128 bit chip dedicated to AI and Physics Modelling."
It only has a single, very special, processor: the Emotion Engine, and it isn't optimized for AI (would that even be possible?) The EE has two vector units, one for geometry, the other for physics models. AI and whatever else is left is handled by EE's core and the standard FP unit.
As for the development systems (sorry, too lazy to quote), I hadn't heard anything about SGI's being involved. It would make more sense to just use the Emotion Engine for graphics development, as you can do with PSX. (Hint: you aren't doing much pre-rendering, so what would the SGI's be used for?)
And no, it won't improve older games.
[Now for my own unfounded rumor: Sony is supposedly thinking of using the Emotion Engine in things other than the PS2, like workstations.]
[Sudden urge to nit-pick this thread.]
>One I/O chip doesn't make a 32bit PSX my friend.
Actually, it does. The PS2's I/O chip is the PSX _core_, not the I/O chip (at least, it was a few weeks ago). When Playstation games are run it just flips over to I/O processor.
And of course the rendering is done by the new hardware--they aren't going to drop the PSX graphics system in their too--but since the old core is still handling geometry (and AI, and physics, etc) I don't think it'll make much of a difference.