Exactly. Guy isn't only a bad journalist. In his desperate attempt to recover his credibility he's outing himself not only his persona as incompetent and a fake.
A little too convenient to explain away the incompetence in the article that led to his outing as the product of an online persona. I've run into quite a few people who talk the talk until they make a mistake so fundamental they lose all credibility. This guy reads like he's a computer enthusiast masquerading as a technology expert. It appears he stands by his "findings" in the article that outed him which suggests he has no expertise whatsoever. The guy is a phony.
It seems to me that there's a false dilemma. Students doing the recommended preparation in addition to their own reading should be using the notes to make the lecture meaningful to them. Some people are talking about diagrams here like it's something you transcribe from a black board then get on with writing what the professor said in your own words. When I'm taking notes I'm organizing the discussion into a meaningful structure where arrows and other connectives have meaning and aren't only there to point out where the notes continue. Note taking is a skill that requires preparation. Students who are lost or are having trouble keeping up are probably not doing enough reading. The best students are probably so far ahead they aren't even bothering with most of the material, they are probably writing more of their own comments while thinking about the topic in light of what they already know.
This is my experience. Laptop note taking can't capture the connections between concepts like paper and intelligent students are writing their own related comments in the margins as they come. There are students who do well with laptops however I would bet those notes are less useful in a few months when the short term memory begins to fade. The concepts are not linear. Writing linear notes in word is inferior and revisions will take up too much time from the lecture itself.
Another benefit of paper is that there is a spatial memory for the pages themselves that enhances the connections between the concepts.
the 5800 series of cards are actually the first I've seen that outpace every game. I bought an 8800 GTX in 2006 when it first came out and there were still games that would chug a bit with AA on like Neverwinter Nights 2, Rise of Legends, Supreme Commander
I'd guess it's declining because of common gameplay elements. Games with lots of exploration and dialogue are relatively rare these days. Most gameplay is a series of physical actions, usually punching, kicking, shooting, destroying but also jumping, climbing, racing. In those types of games either the developers have to (a) fit the comedy in non interactive cut scenes (Ratchet & Clank, Psychonauts), (b) have a running commentary from one or more of the characters (e.g. Duke Nukem) including a radio/disembodied variant (Portal) (c) parody/slapstick in the visuals/action (e.g. God Hand)
The great humor based games were adventure games that rely on dialogue/environmental exploration. Recent games that do have dialogue/exploration tend to follow the western RPG formula of the faceless hero and/or have poor writing, an issue with games in general that hinders dialogue, story, character development in addition to humor. From what I've read Fallout 3 had a lot of quest dialogue written by developers which isn't going to be up to the standard of the dialogue choices in earlier games written by professional writers.
what about a more general practice effect bias? we are doing very different activities in our lives at 27 than at 18. Supposing that trends toward a lower level of intellectual activity would that not "explain" (plausible alternative) at least some of the observed statistical difference?
the only feature I like is the ability to drag tasks around on the bar and that is currently available in vista with third party applications
I also dislike grouping as it increases the latency of switching to different tasks, it kills the ordering of tasks in spatial memory, prevents clustering related tasks together (browser window, explorer window, some other task all being used in one activity, other tasks being used for other things). the problem the taskbar has with spatial memory is that it crushes tasks as you open more and more of them and the only hack job to fix it is to use a double height taskbar but with that said it's better than the horrible windows 7 model
icons are of course much less descriptive than text for different windows and hovering thumbnails requires fishing to find the right one. grouping all tasks of the same type under one icon is a way to solve this however it completely ruins the idea above of different tasks being related to the actual activity you are doing on the computer, ordered in any logical way, rather than grouping stuff just because it's the same application
in other words the windows 7 system is perfect for people who don't know how to use a computer, severely suboptimal for anyone who knows what they are doing and wants to be efficient
well it might be because you read like you read a little bit about philosophy, concocted simplistic ego motivated stereotypes, and then go on to cite a yahoo group as if those aren't full of crackpots and amateurs
well you're explaining it away, not solving the problem. the question remains, whether or not the information processing, computation, functionalist view can reproduce those experiences, or if there is something missing. that is the hard problem in consciousness. your view of incomplete descriptions simply reclassifies the gap as noumena, existing (in a physical substrate) but ineffable. the argument eats its tail.
that's more an issue of the topic being watered down for the humanities stream, all of whom have taken an elementary calculus course at best in addition to a course in statistics (unless it's a choice between statistics and symbolic logic). I have taken challenging upper level courses in logic. None were as challenging as the course in Computability and Logic that I took within the Computer Science faculty, however it was drawing on a more general mathematical knowledge in addition to being more advanced due to the specialization of the faculty
I wonder what those philosophy majors would have done when faced with the notion of decidability
an introduction to the topic should be covered in any intermediate logic course
many of the great philosophers contemporary or otherwise are also experts in other subjects. I think you're confusing "the big questions" you learn about in elementary classes with the philosophy of X, which focuses on outstanding conceptual or methodological issues in biology, mathematics, psychology, physics, computer science in addition to more timeless topics like metaphysics, the nature of truth, the meaning of life, aesthetics
that isn't to say that the profession of philosophy isn't mired with some who are very concerned with insular minutiae uninteresting to most outside of analytic philosophy, but with that said there are specialist journals for many topics from the philosophy of science in general, to specific topics in biology, physics, whatever.
some topics like ethics have become more scientific in the last decades due to work first done in anthropology, and more recently neuroscience, however the work of philosophy is not done in that case, first because it's also a normative activity, but second, and more specifically, because many investigators also make elementary philosophical mistakes in their interpretations and the work of philosophers have helped to smooth over confusion through discussion about interpretations of experiments among the more general body of knowledge (not necessarily professional philosophers as a thinker like Steven Pinker also does philosophy and draws on it despite not being a "proper" philosopher)
the same follows for any topic. for example, look up "fom" on google and you will find archives of a foundations of mathematics mailing list from the perspective of mathematicians, computer scientists, philosophers, and so on. the topic is an intersection of different interests and so there are different strengths and weaknesses in the different perspectives, some more well rounded, some with a great deal of specialist expertise, and so on
I could continue. economics is a social science. it is concerned with statistics and forecasting. it is also concerned with in political philosophy. some are interested in quantitative issues associated with the general economy. others are interested in the psychology of choices. some like Amartya Sen are interested in conceptual issues at the heart of economics such as choice, comparisons, ordering of preferences, as well as topics like well being or social welfare that overlap political philosophy
I don't necessarily agree with the arguments of Searle who seems to think the brain is a special substance. On the evidence it's at best equivocal with the possibility that (i) the brain is simply much more complex than was assumed in previous generations (ii) brains are embodied, bodies are only causally effective in an environment that is also causally effective. A computer program is only a simulation of an arbitrarily separated process.
Now, Searle isn't only arguing that the brain is a special substance for "mental states" he's also suggesting it is a special substance for "qualia" or as Antonio Damasio calls it "the feeling of what happens". Searle is here, assuming in the absence of any solution for the "hard problem" in consciousness that an animal brain is composed of the only possible substance which satisfies this criteria, for which he has no evidence; although we could be charitable and make the more minimal claim for him that no modern electronic computer will ever satisfy those conditions, whatever they are, which is in any case beside the point as there is no evidence to solve the hard problem even in objects like human brains.
But I do agree that many projects in Artificial Intelligence presuppose faulty philosophical assumptions.
some of the screenshots show the old start menu so I'm assuming there's a choice.
an iconified task list is vastly inferior to the icon/text start menu in my opinion. text is more informative than icons in most cases, even when it's a real time thumbnail. I have a large monitor and I would like to continue to use the double height, non grouping start menu I'm currently using. double height avoids the crunching together of tasks when more than 9 windows are open, disabling grouping preserves the location of tasks and prevents the need to go into nested crap to change between windows. the ability to drag tasks around isn't in vista by default, however applications like taskbar shuffle already allow for this (I use Taskix because there's no x64 version of Taskbar Shuffle)
Sorry to break it to you like this, but Vista is a steaming pile, and everyone knows it
I thought so too, then I ran Vista x64 for a while and it runs fine. The only incompatibility I had is that there is no PS3 Sixaxis driver for x64, and HP never really updated their drivers for my old printer/scanner (they work but features are missing)
As far as performance it requires more ram, so hardware with less ram will have performance issues. The interface is also 3d accelerated, meaning it will be sluggish on lesser hardware. XP is more snappy because it doesn't have any of the additional effects. That said, responsiveness is actually worse in XP in some cases, however with decent hardware it's comparable (I know I have a XP/Vista dual boot)
2.5gb shouldn't take 10 minutes to copy over a 100mbit network, nevermind four times that long to get it from point A to point B on the same physical disk.
I don't have these problems. I max out throughput in both cases. There was at one time an issue with sending thousands of files, however, afaik that is now fixed.
Ok, so let's disregard the performance issues for a moment... they also moved stuff all over the place in the UI, and most of the changes make me think they only did it to jerk the mom and pop techs around.
this is change aversion. I hated it at first too but with time I very much prefer vista.
(1) the favorite link bar on the left in explorer is great
(2) the default folder views annoyed me and it seemed like they were resetting. the underlying issue is that there are different views for different types of folders. after doing "apply for all folders of this type" for the different folder types everything is exactly how I want it
(3) The automatic sorting differences are annoying at first, however I prefer it now
(4) the control panel is annoying at first, however it makes sense after a litle bit of use. XP only seems "better" because you have the experience with it
emotional valence is under recognized in attractiveness research. neutral faces evoke different interpretations of emotional state to the point that there can be a disconnect between it and the internal intention relative to others in part due to differences in facial configurations
for example, some eyes droop in a way that leads other to read a face as sad, unapproving, not open, and the same follows for (even slightly) retruded jaws, faces with a prognathic jaw appear more angry, as does a furrow of the brow, etc
when it isn't abnormal the effect is often very subtle. luckily those affected can practice making more active expressions that are interpreted as more attractive
Freedom Evolves is an extension of his earlier view. Dennett is actually a compatibilist so I think you may be projecting somewhat with the supposed confusion. He does lean on explanations that diminish control, hence the metaphors about the self as the center of narrative gravity, or like a symphony, and some silly views about qualia; however he is a compatibilist and does think we do exercise control (maybe less than others would tend to think) hence the subtitle "varieties of free will worth having"
I prefer a compatibilist view more similar to the one expressed by Jenann Ismael:
Yeah, they sell those systems as fast and they are decent excluding the video card. The retailers love this because it helps their margins and they tend to select systems with pos secondary components if they can get away with it. Most buy on price and superficial understanding of specs and are fooled. Then they buy a game and find out they need to spend an additional 200+ to enjoy it.
My brother plays cs source in 1024x768 with a 7800GS OC and a 3ghz pentium 4 (the only component in the system newer than 4 years is the 7800 in 2006 which replaced an X800 Pro). If he wanted to he could use directx8, but he likes the graphics in dx9. The average frame rate is between 25 and 35 fps AND YET he's a good player who has no trouble competing. It's a legitimate practical concern as he can't even play TF2 on his system, but it's a barrier to entry, it has nothing to do with the skill in the game.
"What I am trying to emphasize is that there is a balance between a players skill, and their interface to the game"
well I don't see how you win the argument there. You first trot out the mouse sensitivity idea favored by console gamers which is mostly nonsense, then you complain about automation in instances you don't even understand or use outdated information (for example, WoW in a 1.x patch introduced some automation in macros that allowed spamming of one button to decurse, or easy access to heals in frames, but these features were removed from 2.x. focus, introduced in 2.0, that is, remembering one target, while somewhat questionable for targets out of range or behind objects, fits the pillar dodging in arena)
and the fair, equal playing field idea is flawed in any case because controllers on console inhibit (or partially automate) skills like movement, aiming, reaction, anticipation. lesser players can compete because others are artificially limited. it might satisfy you as a lesser player, however many pc players are only frustrated - and appalled by the consequent subpar AI in single player (enemies are idiotic and stand around, no games like Serious Sam that require lots of movement and targeting), drained fun factor from auto targetting (CoD4), player has ridiculous hitpoints requiring little evasion due to horrible movement (Halo and many others). The only games I've played that was enjoyable is Uncharted (a third person game) because you get to pre aim in a general direction behind cover with no reticule but even in that case I was more into the story and graphics. I love consoles but I prefer games like Ninja Gaiden or drums on Rock Band because the controls work and don't inhibit your skills.
Most of the skill differences on pc have very little to do with unfair advantages you describe. The skill gap between fps players on pc is due to the fact that there are skill multipliers in the superior control scheme. Natural dexterity and training reflect player skill, whereas console controllers rob the player of dexterity and reaction time, inhibiting differences between players. The console isn't more fair, it's less skilled gaming. You complain about macros, a form of automation... which is amusing because fps games on the console automate aiming with sticky reticule that not only limit aiming, but also skills like pre-aiming, properly leading targets, etc in addition to inferior movement to avoid fire, move to a spot in anticipation of the other player, etc.
This idea that mouse sensitivity accounts for player differences is absolutely ridiculous. A good player with a 15 dollar 800 dpi mouse is a good player on any server. And mice with ridiculous dpi cost less than console controllers (1600dpi logitech is like $25 whereas console controllers are $40+)
By the way, the macros in WoW are relatively limited, and the game itself is seen as a lesser skilled game because of the fairly long global cooldown, and attribute based effects on outcomes. The greatest gap between players beyond gear (time not skill) is properly learning your class, learning other classes, learning matchup strategy. Keybindings do give players an advantage over clickers, however the advantage is a skill multiplier (rewards better movement and reaction time). Compared to clicking it is unintuitive as it requires some mental training but it's built into the game.
The comparison to chess is ludicrous. Chess requires a great deal of training and there are huge differences in skill between players. It's also turned based, therefore the skills required are different (emphasis on pattern matching) than real time games (more related to execution under time pressure).
no, they (a) let many students wash out in first year, or change to an easy major (b) most students in the sciences have a horrible GPA
I attended Berkeley and U of T, both are comparable assuming you pick a major with standards. The students with less aptitude are funneled into lesser course work through minimum gpa requirements. The average student at Stanford or MIT is smarter - but I've seen the coursework, we use the same texts, students ask the same dumb questions, etc. That said, Waterloo has one of the more difficult Computer Science programs due to its unusual maths emphasis. That level of rigour is more common in engineering.
what annoys me about that type of book is that the authors tend to make very bad philosophical arguments as if they flow from research when really they are fooling themselves with the biologification. browsing through that book it's actually fairly balanced which surprised me, though it's somewhat simplistic as he has an automatic assumption to assume biology is determined, is fixed as an ultimate explanation rather than parameters in overall behavior that are flexible to change via learning such as training. for example, cognitive behavioral therapy is relatively effective and even prevents relapse for a number of conditions. the fact that there are inherited individual differences doesn't automatically exclude the possibility of changes that are desirable.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Guy isn't only a bad journalist. In his desperate attempt to recover his credibility he's outing himself not only his persona as incompetent and a fake.
A little too convenient to explain away the incompetence in the article that led to his outing as the product of an online persona. I've run into quite a few people who talk the talk until they make a mistake so fundamental they lose all credibility. This guy reads like he's a computer enthusiast masquerading as a technology expert. It appears he stands by his "findings" in the article that outed him which suggests he has no expertise whatsoever. The guy is a phony.
It seems to me that there's a false dilemma. Students doing the recommended preparation in addition to their own reading should be using the notes to make the lecture meaningful to them. Some people are talking about diagrams here like it's something you transcribe from a black board then get on with writing what the professor said in your own words. When I'm taking notes I'm organizing the discussion into a meaningful structure where arrows and other connectives have meaning and aren't only there to point out where the notes continue. Note taking is a skill that requires preparation. Students who are lost or are having trouble keeping up are probably not doing enough reading. The best students are probably so far ahead they aren't even bothering with most of the material, they are probably writing more of their own comments while thinking about the topic in light of what they already know.
This is my experience. Laptop note taking can't capture the connections between concepts like paper and intelligent students are writing their own related comments in the margins as they come. There are students who do well with laptops however I would bet those notes are less useful in a few months when the short term memory begins to fade. The concepts are not linear. Writing linear notes in word is inferior and revisions will take up too much time from the lecture itself.
Another benefit of paper is that there is a spatial memory for the pages themselves that enhances the connections between the concepts.
the 5800 series of cards are actually the first I've seen that outpace every game. I bought an 8800 GTX in 2006 when it first came out and there were still games that would chug a bit with AA on like Neverwinter Nights 2, Rise of Legends, Supreme Commander
I'd guess it's declining because of common gameplay elements. Games with lots of exploration and dialogue are relatively rare these days. Most gameplay is a series of physical actions, usually punching, kicking, shooting, destroying but also jumping, climbing, racing. In those types of games either the developers have to (a) fit the comedy in non interactive cut scenes (Ratchet & Clank, Psychonauts), (b) have a running commentary from one or more of the characters (e.g. Duke Nukem) including a radio/disembodied variant (Portal) (c) parody/slapstick in the visuals/action (e.g. God Hand)
The great humor based games were adventure games that rely on dialogue/environmental exploration. Recent games that do have dialogue/exploration tend to follow the western RPG formula of the faceless hero and/or have poor writing, an issue with games in general that hinders dialogue, story, character development in addition to humor. From what I've read Fallout 3 had a lot of quest dialogue written by developers which isn't going to be up to the standard of the dialogue choices in earlier games written by professional writers.
what about a more general practice effect bias? we are doing very different activities in our lives at 27 than at 18. Supposing that trends toward a lower level of intellectual activity would that not "explain" (plausible alternative) at least some of the observed statistical difference?
the only feature I like is the ability to drag tasks around on the bar and that is currently available in vista with third party applications
I also dislike grouping as it increases the latency of switching to different tasks, it kills the ordering of tasks in spatial memory, prevents clustering related tasks together (browser window, explorer window, some other task all being used in one activity, other tasks being used for other things). the problem the taskbar has with spatial memory is that it crushes tasks as you open more and more of them and the only hack job to fix it is to use a double height taskbar but with that said it's better than the horrible windows 7 model
icons are of course much less descriptive than text for different windows and hovering thumbnails requires fishing to find the right one. grouping all tasks of the same type under one icon is a way to solve this however it completely ruins the idea above of different tasks being related to the actual activity you are doing on the computer, ordered in any logical way, rather than grouping stuff just because it's the same application
in other words the windows 7 system is perfect for people who don't know how to use a computer, severely suboptimal for anyone who knows what they are doing and wants to be efficient
well it might be because you read like you read a little bit about philosophy, concocted simplistic ego motivated stereotypes, and then go on to cite a yahoo group as if those aren't full of crackpots and amateurs
well you're explaining it away, not solving the problem. the question remains, whether or not the information processing, computation, functionalist view can reproduce those experiences, or if there is something missing. that is the hard problem in consciousness. your view of incomplete descriptions simply reclassifies the gap as noumena, existing (in a physical substrate) but ineffable. the argument eats its tail.
To the extent that some other medium can perform all of the same computations, that medium is instantiating the brain as well
that is one of the tenets of functionalism. unfortunately further thinking about it has suggested it's problematic
that's more an issue of the topic being watered down for the humanities stream, all of whom have taken an elementary calculus course at best in addition to a course in statistics (unless it's a choice between statistics and symbolic logic). I have taken challenging upper level courses in logic. None were as challenging as the course in Computability and Logic that I took within the Computer Science faculty, however it was drawing on a more general mathematical knowledge in addition to being more advanced due to the specialization of the faculty
I wonder what those philosophy majors would have done when faced with the notion of decidability
an introduction to the topic should be covered in any intermediate logic course
many of the great philosophers contemporary or otherwise are also experts in other subjects. I think you're confusing "the big questions" you learn about in elementary classes with the philosophy of X, which focuses on outstanding conceptual or methodological issues in biology, mathematics, psychology, physics, computer science in addition to more timeless topics like metaphysics, the nature of truth, the meaning of life, aesthetics
that isn't to say that the profession of philosophy isn't mired with some who are very concerned with insular minutiae uninteresting to most outside of analytic philosophy, but with that said there are specialist journals for many topics from the philosophy of science in general, to specific topics in biology, physics, whatever.
some topics like ethics have become more scientific in the last decades due to work first done in anthropology, and more recently neuroscience, however the work of philosophy is not done in that case, first because it's also a normative activity, but second, and more specifically, because many investigators also make elementary philosophical mistakes in their interpretations and the work of philosophers have helped to smooth over confusion through discussion about interpretations of experiments among the more general body of knowledge (not necessarily professional philosophers as a thinker like Steven Pinker also does philosophy and draws on it despite not being a "proper" philosopher)
the same follows for any topic. for example, look up "fom" on google and you will find archives of a foundations of mathematics mailing list from the perspective of mathematicians, computer scientists, philosophers, and so on. the topic is an intersection of different interests and so there are different strengths and weaknesses in the different perspectives, some more well rounded, some with a great deal of specialist expertise, and so on
I could continue. economics is a social science. it is concerned with statistics and forecasting. it is also concerned with in political philosophy. some are interested in quantitative issues associated with the general economy. others are interested in the psychology of choices. some like Amartya Sen are interested in conceptual issues at the heart of economics such as choice, comparisons, ordering of preferences, as well as topics like well being or social welfare that overlap political philosophy
I don't necessarily agree with the arguments of Searle who seems to think the brain is a special substance. On the evidence it's at best equivocal with the possibility that (i) the brain is simply much more complex than was assumed in previous generations (ii) brains are embodied, bodies are only causally effective in an environment that is also causally effective. A computer program is only a simulation of an arbitrarily separated process.
Now, Searle isn't only arguing that the brain is a special substance for "mental states" he's also suggesting it is a special substance for "qualia" or as Antonio Damasio calls it "the feeling of what happens". Searle is here, assuming in the absence of any solution for the "hard problem" in consciousness that an animal brain is composed of the only possible substance which satisfies this criteria, for which he has no evidence; although we could be charitable and make the more minimal claim for him that no modern electronic computer will ever satisfy those conditions, whatever they are, which is in any case beside the point as there is no evidence to solve the hard problem even in objects like human brains.
But I do agree that many projects in Artificial Intelligence presuppose faulty philosophical assumptions.
some of the screenshots show the old start menu so I'm assuming there's a choice.
an iconified task list is vastly inferior to the icon/text start menu in my opinion. text is more informative than icons in most cases, even when it's a real time thumbnail. I have a large monitor and I would like to continue to use the double height, non grouping start menu I'm currently using. double height avoids the crunching together of tasks when more than 9 windows are open, disabling grouping preserves the location of tasks and prevents the need to go into nested crap to change between windows. the ability to drag tasks around isn't in vista by default, however applications like taskbar shuffle already allow for this (I use Taskix because there's no x64 version of Taskbar Shuffle)
Sorry to break it to you like this, but Vista is a steaming pile, and everyone knows it
I thought so too, then I ran Vista x64 for a while and it runs fine. The only incompatibility I had is that there is no PS3 Sixaxis driver for x64, and HP never really updated their drivers for my old printer/scanner (they work but features are missing)
As far as performance it requires more ram, so hardware with less ram will have performance issues. The interface is also 3d accelerated, meaning it will be sluggish on lesser hardware. XP is more snappy because it doesn't have any of the additional effects. That said, responsiveness is actually worse in XP in some cases, however with decent hardware it's comparable (I know I have a XP/Vista dual boot)
2.5gb shouldn't take 10 minutes to copy over a 100mbit network, nevermind four times that long to get it from point A to point B on the same physical disk.
I don't have these problems. I max out throughput in both cases. There was at one time an issue with sending thousands of files, however, afaik that is now fixed.
Ok, so let's disregard the performance issues for a moment... they also moved stuff all over the place in the UI, and most of the changes make me think they only did it to jerk the mom and pop techs around.
this is change aversion. I hated it at first too but with time I very much prefer vista.
(1) the favorite link bar on the left in explorer is great
(2) the default folder views annoyed me and it seemed like they were resetting. the underlying issue is that there are different views for different types of folders. after doing "apply for all folders of this type" for the different folder types everything is exactly how I want it
(3) The automatic sorting differences are annoying at first, however I prefer it now
(4) the control panel is annoying at first, however it makes sense after a litle bit of use. XP only seems "better" because you have the experience with it
emotional valence is under recognized in attractiveness research. neutral faces evoke different interpretations of emotional state to the point that there can be a disconnect between it and the internal intention relative to others in part due to differences in facial configurations
for example, some eyes droop in a way that leads other to read a face as sad, unapproving, not open, and the same follows for (even slightly) retruded jaws, faces with a prognathic jaw appear more angry, as does a furrow of the brow, etc
when it isn't abnormal the effect is often very subtle. luckily those affected can practice making more active expressions that are interpreted as more attractive
Freedom Evolves is an extension of his earlier view. Dennett is actually a compatibilist so I think you may be projecting somewhat with the supposed confusion. He does lean on explanations that diminish control, hence the metaphors about the self as the center of narrative gravity, or like a symphony, and some silly views about qualia; however he is a compatibilist and does think we do exercise control (maybe less than others would tend to think) hence the subtitle "varieties of free will worth having"
I prefer a compatibilist view more similar to the one expressed by Jenann Ismael:
http://www.usyd.edu.au/time/ismael/papers/5.freedom&determinism.pdf
http://www.usyd.edu.au/time/ismael/papers/selves.pdf
http://www.usyd.edu.au/time/ismael/papers/6.causation_perspective_agency.pdf
also:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00057.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=ppsc
"I always hated the cog-sci cultists (Dennet, mostly) attacking free will"
uh, have you read Elbow Room? I think you're somewhat confused about his view.
Yeah, they sell those systems as fast and they are decent excluding the video card. The retailers love this because it helps their margins and they tend to select systems with pos secondary components if they can get away with it. Most buy on price and superficial understanding of specs and are fooled. Then they buy a game and find out they need to spend an additional 200+ to enjoy it.
My brother plays cs source in 1024x768 with a 7800GS OC and a 3ghz pentium 4 (the only component in the system newer than 4 years is the 7800 in 2006 which replaced an X800 Pro). If he wanted to he could use directx8, but he likes the graphics in dx9. The average frame rate is between 25 and 35 fps AND YET he's a good player who has no trouble competing. It's a legitimate practical concern as he can't even play TF2 on his system, but it's a barrier to entry, it has nothing to do with the skill in the game.
"What I am trying to emphasize is that there is a balance between a players skill, and their interface to the game"
well I don't see how you win the argument there. You first trot out the mouse sensitivity idea favored by console gamers which is mostly nonsense, then you complain about automation in instances you don't even understand or use outdated information (for example, WoW in a 1.x patch introduced some automation in macros that allowed spamming of one button to decurse, or easy access to heals in frames, but these features were removed from 2.x. focus, introduced in 2.0, that is, remembering one target, while somewhat questionable for targets out of range or behind objects, fits the pillar dodging in arena)
and the fair, equal playing field idea is flawed in any case because controllers on console inhibit (or partially automate) skills like movement, aiming, reaction, anticipation. lesser players can compete because others are artificially limited. it might satisfy you as a lesser player, however many pc players are only frustrated - and appalled by the consequent subpar AI in single player (enemies are idiotic and stand around, no games like Serious Sam that require lots of movement and targeting), drained fun factor from auto targetting (CoD4), player has ridiculous hitpoints requiring little evasion due to horrible movement (Halo and many others). The only games I've played that was enjoyable is Uncharted (a third person game) because you get to pre aim in a general direction behind cover with no reticule but even in that case I was more into the story and graphics. I love consoles but I prefer games like Ninja Gaiden or drums on Rock Band because the controls work and don't inhibit your skills.
Most of the skill differences on pc have very little to do with unfair advantages you describe. The skill gap between fps players on pc is due to the fact that there are skill multipliers in the superior control scheme. Natural dexterity and training reflect player skill, whereas console controllers rob the player of dexterity and reaction time, inhibiting differences between players. The console isn't more fair, it's less skilled gaming. You complain about macros, a form of automation... which is amusing because fps games on the console automate aiming with sticky reticule that not only limit aiming, but also skills like pre-aiming, properly leading targets, etc in addition to inferior movement to avoid fire, move to a spot in anticipation of the other player, etc.
This idea that mouse sensitivity accounts for player differences is absolutely ridiculous. A good player with a 15 dollar 800 dpi mouse is a good player on any server. And mice with ridiculous dpi cost less than console controllers (1600dpi logitech is like $25 whereas console controllers are $40+)
By the way, the macros in WoW are relatively limited, and the game itself is seen as a lesser skilled game because of the fairly long global cooldown, and attribute based effects on outcomes. The greatest gap between players beyond gear (time not skill) is properly learning your class, learning other classes, learning matchup strategy. Keybindings do give players an advantage over clickers, however the advantage is a skill multiplier (rewards better movement and reaction time). Compared to clicking it is unintuitive as it requires some mental training but it's built into the game.
The comparison to chess is ludicrous. Chess requires a great deal of training and there are huge differences in skill between players. It's also turned based, therefore the skills required are different (emphasis on pattern matching) than real time games (more related to execution under time pressure).
no, they (a) let many students wash out in first year, or change to an easy major (b) most students in the sciences have a horrible GPA
I attended Berkeley and U of T, both are comparable assuming you pick a major with standards. The students with less aptitude are funneled into lesser course work through minimum gpa requirements. The average student at Stanford or MIT is smarter - but I've seen the coursework, we use the same texts, students ask the same dumb questions, etc. That said, Waterloo has one of the more difficult Computer Science programs due to its unusual maths emphasis. That level of rigour is more common in engineering.
what if i want to watch it at its native resolution rather than full screen? you should add that imo, unless I'm the only one with that preference.
what annoys me about that type of book is that the authors tend to make very bad philosophical arguments as if they flow from research when really they are fooling themselves with the biologification. browsing through that book it's actually fairly balanced which surprised me, though it's somewhat simplistic as he has an automatic assumption to assume biology is determined, is fixed as an ultimate explanation rather than parameters in overall behavior that are flexible to change via learning such as training. for example, cognitive behavioral therapy is relatively effective and even prevents relapse for a number of conditions. the fact that there are inherited individual differences doesn't automatically exclude the possibility of changes that are desirable.