Where did I even say that?

I already defined it - consciousness is the very first observation all scientists make (at least I assumed so anyway - maybe not all scientists are conscious). The "I am" experience.

I can't be sure whether you or a cat experience it. All I know for sure is I experience it. And it's actually the only thing I can be sure of - everything else could be an illusion (unlikely I guess)

But why and how? What laws in this universe could cause consciousness to occur? Would merely performing a suitable advanced algorithm by hand with pencil and paper generate the consciousness phenomena? If yes, where would this generated consciousness reside? Or does it need some extra "nonnewtonian" stuff? Do we need something like a multi-worlds quantum simulator recursively trying to predict itself and the future? Or it's due to something different?

Really? A trivially simple program could do that- have memory and make decisions based on old memories. Are you so sure such a program would experience consciousness?

Or are you actually one of those entities that don't actually experience consciousness, you merely behave almost as if you are conscious? And that's why you can say such a thing?

What I do know is I experience consciousness, there's a "me" in here, observing myself and the external world - I can only claim it but I can't prove it to anyone.

It's not a big flaw since it makes it easier to have and maintain the tapetum lucidum or retinal pigmented epithelium and still have relatively high resolution.

Thing is even intelligent designers can create optical stuff with flaws.

For example reflecting optical telescopes have flaws since the detector (or secondary mirror) part is in between the mirror and the target AND the detector also needs support structures. These block and distort light. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
But most astronomers accept and cope with these flaws- quote wiki: "Nearly all large research-grade astronomical telescopes are reflectors."

FWIW I'm a Christian and I think most of the Intelligent Design believers arguments are ridiculous.

But if there's one thing in this universe that should give you pause and make you wonder, it's consciousness - the actual subjective experience itself (not talking about "free will" which is a different thing). You can have all the laws of physics explain how things move etc, but how will they ever explain this consciousness? And it's the very first "observation" all scientists ever make :).

But is this phenomena even "necessary"? Couldn't the whole universe work like it does without it existing?

I can't even prove beyond all doubt that others experience this phenomenon and are conscious. And I can't prove my consciousness to others. I just have to take it by faith that these "imaginary friends" called "you" and "I" exist.

I think some of the stuff works. But many Hollywood films fail because the people making them don't care or have other agendas. Many movie makers live in a "different world" and are not in touch - for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

There are formulas and critics say too many movies nowadays are following the same formulas too strictly. http://www.slate.com/articles/...

It's not necessary to follow the formula that strictly for success: http://www.savethecat.com/beat...
(I also suspect movie makers in other places have different styles - Hong Kong, Bollywood)

But hey it works and most people won't care if most movies start following some formulaic structure. People will care if some idiot produces a superman movie where superman never flies.

Freewill may be an illusion, but consciousness is NOT an illusion, at least to me. In fact it is the ONLY THING that I can be sure of! Everything else may be illusion (as philosophers of old have said). Maybe you or those mathematicians do not experience consciousness and that's why you all can even say what you say.

Merely behaving as if you are conscious is different from _experiencing_ consciousness. Anyone who thinks there is no difference or it's not an important difference misses the important part of consciousness.

Merely behaving as if you like chocolate is different from _subjectively_ experiencing and enjoying the taste of chocolate.

Mathematicians and programmers with our current knowledge and tech can write algorithms/programs to simulate the mere behaviour but how about the experience? Can we create an algorithm that truly experiences "self", "chocolate"?

Are there some special yet unknown laws in this universe that would cause this to happen? Would merely performing a suitable advanced algorithm with pencil and paper generate a new consciousness phenomena and create a new entity? If so where in time and space would that consciousness reside- the pencil, the paper? Or does it need some extra "nonnewtonian" stuff? Do we need something like a multi-worlds quantum simulator recursively trying to predict itself and the future?

Bullshit like what these mathematicians spout is more likely to take us further away than closer to understanding consciousness.

But I wonder how often would such an "A" vs "B" situation arise for a real world robot car that would be driven cautiously?

So it'll be a very very niche case. Because in most cases the robot car won't be traveling very very fast (think of the liability), nor would it be tailgating (think of the liability again, I know what some say about "virtual trains" of robot cars, but that's a stupid idea in the real messy world), nor would it be doing risky lane changes at high speeds (ditto).

The safest thing to do in most cases is to brake to reduce the impact (lower velocity = less impact energy). Swerving would reduce the amount of traction you can use for braking. There are of course some corner cases that you'd want to avoid like stopping on train tracks...

So if I made a robot car what I'd do is make sure it can stop as quickly as it would be safe to and reinforce the car for rear impacts (tailgaters and large vehicles).

In a case where the brakes fail then yes it may have to decide on what to hit. Example scenario is the car is going at cruising speed towards stationary cars, and the brakes fail.
The options are to downshift (or apply motor braking for electric cars) and:
a) hit a car
b) hit a nonliving stationary obstacle (e.g. highway barrier)
c) perform some other fancy maneuver to slow down (is this possible to do safely?)
If engine/motor braking is not enough I figure the option should be b) if you can graze the obstacle/side and use a combination of friction and engine braking to slow down.

But that's very niche too. And I figure the ones responsible for the brakes not working should worry more than the programmer who decided what to hit ;).

Maybe the real danger is that very impatient passengers might blow a vessel or two because the car is being driven so cautiously ;),

Years ago someone I know in NZ had to buy TWO bluray players (one from NZ, one from another country) so that he could watch stuff he bought!
He knows how to download movies and does, but he's bought many shelves full of stuff - japanese anime, hollywood stuff etc.

So I wonder how many others didn't do the same thing, but said "FUCK THAT!" and switched to 100% downloading instead.

This stupid DRM bullshit mainly hurts great customers like him. Doesn't hurt those downloading or buying physical pirate copies.

He's wrong though.

Bridge building is more like compiling.
Bridge designing is more like programming/program designing.

And there's the big difference.

Civil Engineering:
Design Phase costs about 10% of Build Phase
Build Phase involves tons of construction workers and heavy machinery.
The blueprints and plastic models are way cheaper to make than the Real Thing.
Management often doesn't mind spending a bit extra to get the design better, because the budget only allows for one big Build.

Software Engineering:
Design Phase costs more than 1000 times the Build Phase.
Build Phase involves the programmer typing "make all" and going to read Slashdot or fetch a coffee.
The plastic models cost as much to make as the Real Thing.

Management often sells the blueprints/plastic models as v1.0 because they compile and "kinda run" and the budget only allows for one big Design... ... Aaaand the customers often buy it :).

It should be no surprise then that the plastic models regularly fail.

liquid helium is used as a coolant in MRI not a superconductor.

It cools the target superconducting material enough so that it becomes superconducting, can carry lots more current and thus create the high magnetic field without losing its superconductivity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

If we run out of helium we will alternative methods of supercooling. Possibly stuff like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Term limits are:
1) Undemocratic
2) Stupid
It takes a while to do anything, so while you may make it harder for elected leaders to do bad things but you also make it harder for elected leaders to do good things.

The smart power hungry sociopaths will just create or move to positions of power where the term limits (and elections) do not apply to them and continue influencing the incompetent figureheads and ruling over voters. Becomes less democratic that way too.

Which seems similar to what is happening now, only more so.

People deciding who they want as leaders is democratic. Term limits restricting their choice is not democratic.

The real solution is the smart people taking the time to educate the stupid and ignorant ones rather then going "Oh Noes, the voters are too stupid, we should remove choice from them - even the choice of re-electing someone they want for another term".

It seems to me that 98% of the US voters who bothered to vote prefer either R or D, instead of the other alternatives. If you think they shouldn't then you shouldn't be trying to stop them against their will. You should be trying to convince them.

Unless of course there are no better alternatives. In which case, Democracy is working as well as it can, and your real problem is elsewhere.

Unless you only respond after X + random Y milliseconds, no matter how long it actually takes to do the calculation (where X milliseconds is longer than the max time it takes to do the calculation).

Takes more time, but makes timing attacks a lot harder.

How about call it "SpreadOpenSSL" or similar. Truth in advertising and all that.

Maybe they like their water to have more body?

Not me though.

Check your monitor, mouse and keyboard latency. A decade earlier you might have been using a CRT with lower latency than a slow LCD monitor.

In my experience add them all up and it can make the difference between having a < 200ms response time and a > 250ms response time.

Try digging out an old CRT if you have one and see if it makes a difference in your reaction times on those reaction time websites.