Here's a better example, and one which would have happened if my company deleted emails (which they don't):
- Help, I have a problem! It is xyz Lots of discussion back and forth to get exact details
- Okay, I now understand the problem and I'll put the fix will be in the next release version I build (due about 45 days from now)
- Thanks, I'll wait for the update 45 days later
- Hey, the problem is still here after the update!
- Oh dear! Because my email server has deleted all of our previous correspondence, you'll have to give me ALL the details again!
As I said, thankfully that doesn't happen since we don't delete emails, but I often find myself referencing emails MONTHS after the fact, even when I originally never had any expectation to be looking at them again (so you can't really say, "if it was important, back it up", because I simply DON'T KNOW what's important until it crops up again)
Many points here that I could debate on end, but I'm not really in the mood, so I'll leave those. I do however have a question. You said:
It's the same reason why Win3.1 sales in similar vertical markets is just ending now.
Can you point me to such a vertical market? I haven't seen 3.1 in a LONG time. "NT Embedded", yes... "3.1", no. (not saying you're lying, I'm actually just genuinely interested if there's a hole in my knowledge somewhere
Why were you driving at 75mph just before dawn while knowingly very tired? What's wrong with pulling over somewhere for a snooze? (I assume you were heading home (or somewhere else) to sleep anyway) If you absolutely MUST be driving in that condition at that time (which I think is doubtful, but I'll accept it might be needed in your circumstances), then slow down to 65 or even less so you're travelling at a speed that your impaired reactions can handle.
I think the "it didn't say it was important" would be hard to argue, but the "the line went that way" would definitely be arguable... I have perfect vision, but if I had to drive one of these cars for whatever reason, the line would, quite quickly I think, become something I'd latch on to whether I wanted to or not. If it suddenly kept going straight ahead when I should have turned, it would take quite some "will" to keep on course. If I were tired or in some other "not as capable of driving" state (no, I don't drink and drive - ever), then it MIGHT lead to an accident. I, like most people, already do drive half on "auto-pilot" as it were - the painted lines on the road are my guide, and while it's PHYSICALLY identical driving to cross a line as it is to stay with it, crossing a line triggers a mental flag. I expect these dashboard glowing lines would become somewhat like that.
It isn't the movies, people almost never go down in one punch.
I find this an interesting statement... I've always considered the movies unrealistic precisely because people don't go down in one punch. I've been in very few fights, but those I have I have either won with one punch or lost with one punch (just typing that gave me vivid memories of the blinding agony and not knowing what's going on for 5 seconds at which point I finally recovered my senses and find myself on the ground with blood pouring out of my face and the other guy WELL gone). This is also true of every fight I've witnessed except by very drunk people who can't swing a decent punch.
Then in the 1980's we saw another phenomenon: the digital dashboard. Instead of using those antiquated analog dials, automakers started using digital readouts instead. It was all computerized and cool and futuristic...and was gone by the early 1990's. People wanted the old-fashioned dials.
Many cars released now have both digital and analogue displays. My last car was a 2005 Holden Commodore Acclaim (Holden is the GM brand in Australia). I found myself looking at the digital speedometer far more than the analogue dial, as it was simpler quicker to read and "felt" more precise (I'm sure it was probably equally as precise, or perhaps even less so, but that's not how it felt).
I'm a proud member of a group dedicated to fighting excessive acronym usage - we're the AAAAAAAAAA (the Australasian And American Association Against Any And All Acronym Abuse).
Just because the experiment doesn't cover one "kind" of decision, it doesn't mean that the decision to "get up to go get a snack while watch TV" is necessarily of the other kind that this experiment does cover (it probably is, but "probably" is not a useful word in this case!). Moreover, it doesn't give any clear way to distinguish between kinds of decisions, so even if the experiment performed does tell us anything at all, it's more than useless in that it doesn't tell us what circumstances it covers!
And even with all of the above, I still don't accept the "10 seconds" idea just on the face of it. To use your TV example again, perhaps the piece of information that made me decide I want a snack was a TV advertisement that appeared. Would you really argue that I actually already had decided (or "was going to decide" depending on viewpoint) that I wanted a snack, and then simply used the TV ad to reinforce the decision and "retcon" it in to the decision in my head?
Or how about when I get to the kitchen to get my snack, have I decided 10 seconds before I get there what I want? (that's before I even walked in and saw what's in my fridge/cupboard/shelf (which, no, I do not generally know in advance))
There are simply too many cases where I don't see how this could possibly work. I'm sure the experiment is showing something, but it's not showing what they claim.
Becoming somewhat of a catchphrase around here... but... Citation please?
I simply can not accept this as true, as it implies I can not make a conscious decision about anything in less than 4 seconds (if I am not consciously aware of something, all actions taken regarding it (that is, before these "4 seconds") would have to be "pre-decided" or "gut instinct" or similar)
There are so many things that I do in life, and other posters have also commented on, that demonstrate a conscious decision in far less than 4 seconds, where the decision could not have been made so long ago as the information needed to know that decision must be made was not available that long ago.
An experiment to prove this could be simple: Hide a coloured slide behind a black panel, hide a word "truth" or "lie" behind another, and hide two buttons behind a third - one button is labelled with the name of the colour, and the other is labelled with another colour. All at once, all three black panels are removed, and the person sitting there must look at the colour and the word, then press a button. If the word is "truth", they must press the button that matches the colour, and if it is "lie" they must press the button that does not. The "truth"/"lie" word exists to force a conscious decision, instead of allowing the person to "autopilot" between their colour sense and language ability (the name of the colour written on the button) To make it even more "decision" based rather than automatic, use less common colour names such as "turquoise" and "ochre" that are less likely to have an automatic response (however you do need to ensure somehow that the people at least know these names). I am CERTAIN that almost anyone can react and press the appropriate button in WELL under 4 seconds, demonstrating that a decision has been made. Because the person did not know which buttons would be available, which colour would be shown, or whether they would have to tell the truth or lie, there is no way they could pre-decide anything.
10 seconds is a VERY long time. If it takes me 2 seconds to read and comprehend the note, 2 seconds to get my phone, 2 seconds to dial the number, then it's been 6 seconds since I picked up the note, and I've DEFINITELY made the decision sometime during this to call - I'm certainly NOT doing all this on "autopilot"!
If all actual decisions took 10 seconds to make, I'm quite sure we would not be capable of basic modern life (actually, I'm not sure we'd even be capable of basic survival)
That makes sense for some limited circumstances but not all - and if does not apply to all, then it can not be a valid theory as stated (it could be valid with rewording of course though).
Example: I come home, and find a note stuck to my front door telling me to call my landlord. In less than 10 seconds, I will have made a decision whether to call him or not based on the available information. There's no way I could have "pre-made" that decision in my brain because the decision couldn't have existed before I saw the note.
You could argue that I've just "pre-made" that decision now, but in that case, have I pre-made a decision for every possible occurrence in my life that I can decide in less than 10 seconds? I really don't think so!
Hold on... my senses are 4 seconds behind reality? WHAT?! Can you explain what you mean by this? When I see something, it certainly isn't 4 seconds after it actually happened (unless it's just a smidge under 4 light seconds away). The processing time for senses is WELL under 4 seconds.
Now try this - fill a glass with salt-water and repeat the experiment (with a significant amount of ice, so the difference is apparent). A drop or two WILL spill. Salt-water (the sea) has a different density to fresh water (melted ice from the polar cap).
From my comfortable modern apartment with high-speed internet access and an excellent public transport system right outside my front door, and more disposable income than I really know what to do with... yes, it is a matter of opinion and the opinion from this side of the pond is that most Americans are back-water kooks living in near third-world conditions with a police-state government while espousing themselves as better than everyone else.
I'm quite happy to pay the equivalent of US $8 per gallon of petrol, and nearly 50% of my income in taxes/insurances/etc when the cost of everything else is low, and I know that any essentials I need (healthcare etc) are effectively free.
I think it's pretty certain that since the universe will one day "end" in some form or other (heat death/big crunch/whatever), humanity will certainly go extinct. Given a more reasonable question: Within the life of this planet, I do not know if we will become extinct or not. I think it's probably likely that we will, but there really isn't enough information one way or the other.
What I do think, is that we as a species should do what all species do - try to survive by any means necessary. If that means altering our planet to do so, we should do it. If it means AVOIDING altering our planet in bad ways, we should also do so.
Global warming may seem like a "chicken little" fad where you are (I assume part of the US somewhere), but in most of the world, it's been an ongoing topic of serious research for decades.
Hello Scott the Troll... Firefox has never locked up for me, nor has IE, so both are equal on that particular ground. Speed seems similar, and security is a debatable point (both have some very strong points and some weak points). I also have not come across any pages that I want to visit that do not correctly render in FF3, the Firefox homepage renders fine.
Extensions: Absolutely - if IE had them, it would be a huge improvement, but not enough to move me away from Firefox. Also, I am unable to run IE even if I wanted to due to my choice of Operating System.
Just to note: Here in Europe, it's uncommon to ask for a "Coke" in a restaurant or whatever. If you want a fizzy cola flavoured drink, you ask for a "cola". It may or may not be coke, and most people just don't care. So, here at least, I think Coca-cola's advertising would be aimed more towards the retailers than the consumers for precisely this reason.
(just to note: It's also true with alcoholic mixes - you order a "rum and cola", not a "rum and coke")
I'm not sure I can accept this... Primarily because I generally make a decision less than 10 seconds after receiving the final piece of information that I will use to make the decision - often, it's even less than 10 seconds after I knew I had a decision to make. So, how can I have made it before I knew I had to make it? I think the article needs to clarify their definition of "decision".
Actually, the chart you link to is IQ of various "races" in the US. It tells us nothing about people around the world, as the factors influencing the intelligence of various people in the US may have more to do with social factors and so on.
I find it unlikely (although admittedly possible) that people of different "races" have different ranges of potential intelligence. But I find it equally as "possible" (as in, not very) that people of different hair colour have different ranges of potential intelligence.
Note of course, I did mention POTENTIAL intelligence rather than intelligence, because the aforementioned social factors unfortunately cause problems there...:(
Actually, the real "basics" of nuclear physics is the stuff you (should have) learned in high school. Parts of high-school chemistry where they talk about the make-up of the stuff you're playing with, and quite a lot of high-school physics is directly applicable/relevant to nuclear physics.
Certainly, it can and DOES get a LOT more complex than that, and people who do it professionally are generally very smart and very well educated, but to understand the basics of what's going on is NOT hard.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a better example, and one which would have happened if my company deleted emails (which they don't):
- Help, I have a problem! It is xyz
Lots of discussion back and forth to get exact details
- Okay, I now understand the problem and I'll put the fix will be in the next release version I build (due about 45 days from now)
- Thanks, I'll wait for the update
45 days later
- Hey, the problem is still here after the update!
- Oh dear! Because my email server has deleted all of our previous correspondence, you'll have to give me ALL the details again!
As I said, thankfully that doesn't happen since we don't delete emails, but I often find myself referencing emails MONTHS after the fact, even when I originally never had any expectation to be looking at them again (so you can't really say, "if it was important, back it up", because I simply DON'T KNOW what's important until it crops up again)
Many points here that I could debate on end, but I'm not really in the mood, so I'll leave those.
I do however have a question. You said:
It's the same reason why Win3.1 sales in similar vertical markets is just ending now.
Can you point me to such a vertical market? I haven't seen 3.1 in a LONG time. "NT Embedded", yes... "3.1", no.
(not saying you're lying, I'm actually just genuinely interested if there's a hole in my knowledge somewhere
Why were you driving at 75mph just before dawn while knowingly very tired? What's wrong with pulling over somewhere for a snooze? (I assume you were heading home (or somewhere else) to sleep anyway)
If you absolutely MUST be driving in that condition at that time (which I think is doubtful, but I'll accept it might be needed in your circumstances), then slow down to 65 or even less so you're travelling at a speed that your impaired reactions can handle.
I think the "it didn't say it was important" would be hard to argue, but the "the line went that way" would definitely be arguable...
I have perfect vision, but if I had to drive one of these cars for whatever reason, the line would, quite quickly I think, become something I'd latch on to whether I wanted to or not. If it suddenly kept going straight ahead when I should have turned, it would take quite some "will" to keep on course. If I were tired or in some other "not as capable of driving" state (no, I don't drink and drive - ever), then it MIGHT lead to an accident.
I, like most people, already do drive half on "auto-pilot" as it were - the painted lines on the road are my guide, and while it's PHYSICALLY identical driving to cross a line as it is to stay with it, crossing a line triggers a mental flag. I expect these dashboard glowing lines would become somewhat like that.
It isn't the movies, people almost never go down in one punch.
I find this an interesting statement... I've always considered the movies unrealistic precisely because people don't go down in one punch.
I've been in very few fights, but those I have I have either won with one punch or lost with one punch (just typing that gave me vivid memories of the blinding agony and not knowing what's going on for 5 seconds at which point I finally recovered my senses and find myself on the ground with blood pouring out of my face and the other guy WELL gone). This is also true of every fight I've witnessed except by very drunk people who can't swing a decent punch.
Seconded... if there was an NNTP interface for subscribers, I'd subscribe immediately.
That depends on the manner of his asking... is he pointing a gun at me as he asks?
Then in the 1980's we saw another phenomenon: the digital dashboard. Instead of using those antiquated analog dials, automakers started using digital readouts instead. It was all computerized and cool and futuristic...and was gone by the early 1990's. People wanted the old-fashioned dials.
Many cars released now have both digital and analogue displays. My last car was a 2005 Holden Commodore Acclaim (Holden is the GM brand in Australia). I found myself looking at the digital speedometer far more than the analogue dial, as it was simpler quicker to read and "felt" more precise (I'm sure it was probably equally as precise, or perhaps even less so, but that's not how it felt).
I'm a proud member of a group dedicated to fighting excessive acronym usage - we're the AAAAAAAAAA (the Australasian And American Association Against Any And All Acronym Abuse).
I don't see how that's necessarily the case.
Just because the experiment doesn't cover one "kind" of decision, it doesn't mean that the decision to "get up to go get a snack while watch TV" is necessarily of the other kind that this experiment does cover (it probably is, but "probably" is not a useful word in this case!). Moreover, it doesn't give any clear way to distinguish between kinds of decisions, so even if the experiment performed does tell us anything at all, it's more than useless in that it doesn't tell us what circumstances it covers!
And even with all of the above, I still don't accept the "10 seconds" idea just on the face of it. To use your TV example again, perhaps the piece of information that made me decide I want a snack was a TV advertisement that appeared. Would you really argue that I actually already had decided (or "was going to decide" depending on viewpoint) that I wanted a snack, and then simply used the TV ad to reinforce the decision and "retcon" it in to the decision in my head?
Or how about when I get to the kitchen to get my snack, have I decided 10 seconds before I get there what I want? (that's before I even walked in and saw what's in my fridge/cupboard/shelf (which, no, I do not generally know in advance))
There are simply too many cases where I don't see how this could possibly work. I'm sure the experiment is showing something, but it's not showing what they claim.
Becoming somewhat of a catchphrase around here... but... Citation please?
I simply can not accept this as true, as it implies I can not make a conscious decision about anything in less than 4 seconds (if I am not consciously aware of something, all actions taken regarding it (that is, before these "4 seconds") would have to be "pre-decided" or "gut instinct" or similar)
There are so many things that I do in life, and other posters have also commented on, that demonstrate a conscious decision in far less than 4 seconds, where the decision could not have been made so long ago as the information needed to know that decision must be made was not available that long ago.
An experiment to prove this could be simple: Hide a coloured slide behind a black panel, hide a word "truth" or "lie" behind another, and hide two buttons behind a third - one button is labelled with the name of the colour, and the other is labelled with another colour. All at once, all three black panels are removed, and the person sitting there must look at the colour and the word, then press a button. If the word is "truth", they must press the button that matches the colour, and if it is "lie" they must press the button that does not.
The "truth"/"lie" word exists to force a conscious decision, instead of allowing the person to "autopilot" between their colour sense and language ability (the name of the colour written on the button)
To make it even more "decision" based rather than automatic, use less common colour names such as "turquoise" and "ochre" that are less likely to have an automatic response (however you do need to ensure somehow that the people at least know these names).
I am CERTAIN that almost anyone can react and press the appropriate button in WELL under 4 seconds, demonstrating that a decision has been made.
Because the person did not know which buttons would be available, which colour would be shown, or whether they would have to tell the truth or lie, there is no way they could pre-decide anything.
10 seconds is a VERY long time. If it takes me 2 seconds to read and comprehend the note, 2 seconds to get my phone, 2 seconds to dial the number, then it's been 6 seconds since I picked up the note, and I've DEFINITELY made the decision sometime during this to call - I'm certainly NOT doing all this on "autopilot"!
If all actual decisions took 10 seconds to make, I'm quite sure we would not be capable of basic modern life (actually, I'm not sure we'd even be capable of basic survival)
That makes sense for some limited circumstances but not all - and if does not apply to all, then it can not be a valid theory as stated (it could be valid with rewording of course though).
Example: I come home, and find a note stuck to my front door telling me to call my landlord. In less than 10 seconds, I will have made a decision whether to call him or not based on the available information. There's no way I could have "pre-made" that decision in my brain because the decision couldn't have existed before I saw the note.
You could argue that I've just "pre-made" that decision now, but in that case, have I pre-made a decision for every possible occurrence in my life that I can decide in less than 10 seconds? I really don't think so!
Hold on... my senses are 4 seconds behind reality? WHAT?! Can you explain what you mean by this? When I see something, it certainly isn't 4 seconds after it actually happened (unless it's just a smidge under 4 light seconds away). The processing time for senses is WELL under 4 seconds.
Well, I don't like this chart just for the style of it (dividing the seasons like that is annoying), but it gives you what you want: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
Now try this - fill a glass with salt-water and repeat the experiment (with a significant amount of ice, so the difference is apparent). A drop or two WILL spill. Salt-water (the sea) has a different density to fresh water (melted ice from the polar cap).
From my comfortable modern apartment with high-speed internet access and an excellent public transport system right outside my front door, and more disposable income than I really know what to do with... yes, it is a matter of opinion and the opinion from this side of the pond is that most Americans are back-water kooks living in near third-world conditions with a police-state government while espousing themselves as better than everyone else.
I'm quite happy to pay the equivalent of US $8 per gallon of petrol, and nearly 50% of my income in taxes/insurances/etc when the cost of everything else is low, and I know that any essentials I need (healthcare etc) are effectively free.
I think it's pretty certain that since the universe will one day "end" in some form or other (heat death/big crunch/whatever), humanity will certainly go extinct. Given a more reasonable question: Within the life of this planet, I do not know if we will become extinct or not. I think it's probably likely that we will, but there really isn't enough information one way or the other.
What I do think, is that we as a species should do what all species do - try to survive by any means necessary. If that means altering our planet to do so, we should do it. If it means AVOIDING altering our planet in bad ways, we should also do so.
Global warming may seem like a "chicken little" fad where you are (I assume part of the US somewhere), but in most of the world, it's been an ongoing topic of serious research for decades.
Hello Scott the Troll... Firefox has never locked up for me, nor has IE, so both are equal on that particular ground. Speed seems similar, and security is a debatable point (both have some very strong points and some weak points). I also have not come across any pages that I want to visit that do not correctly render in FF3, the Firefox homepage renders fine.
Extensions: Absolutely - if IE had them, it would be a huge improvement, but not enough to move me away from Firefox. Also, I am unable to run IE even if I wanted to due to my choice of Operating System.
Just to note: Here in Europe, it's uncommon to ask for a "Coke" in a restaurant or whatever. If you want a fizzy cola flavoured drink, you ask for a "cola". It may or may not be coke, and most people just don't care. So, here at least, I think Coca-cola's advertising would be aimed more towards the retailers than the consumers for precisely this reason.
(just to note: It's also true with alcoholic mixes - you order a "rum and cola", not a "rum and coke")
I am disturbed that restaurants that do not have fruit juice exist anywhere in the world...
I'm not sure I can accept this... Primarily because I generally make a decision less than 10 seconds after receiving the final piece of information that I will use to make the decision - often, it's even less than 10 seconds after I knew I had a decision to make. So, how can I have made it before I knew I had to make it? I think the article needs to clarify their definition of "decision".
Actually, the chart you link to is IQ of various "races" in the US. It tells us nothing about people around the world, as the factors influencing the intelligence of various people in the US may have more to do with social factors and so on.
I find it unlikely (although admittedly possible) that people of different "races" have different ranges of potential intelligence. But I find it equally as "possible" (as in, not very) that people of different hair colour have different ranges of potential intelligence.
Note of course, I did mention POTENTIAL intelligence rather than intelligence, because the aforementioned social factors unfortunately cause problems there... :(
Actually, the real "basics" of nuclear physics is the stuff you (should have) learned in high school. Parts of high-school chemistry where they talk about the make-up of the stuff you're playing with, and quite a lot of high-school physics is directly applicable/relevant to nuclear physics.
Certainly, it can and DOES get a LOT more complex than that, and people who do it professionally are generally very smart and very well educated, but to understand the basics of what's going on is NOT hard.