Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Superior pilots (Score 1) 98

by TheLink (#46770667) Attached to: Your <em>StarCraft II</em> Potential Peaked At Age 24
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.

Comment: Re:I have serious doubts.. (Score 1) 98

by TheLink (#46770499) Attached to: Your <em>StarCraft II</em> Potential Peaked At Age 24
Even so, Starcraft also rewards those who micromanage units - like a Terran floating a building as bait to distract unmicromanaged enemy troops while the Terran troops destroy the enemy. All while
micromanaging other stuff and building.

The real life command and control interfaces you mention assume the units won't need to be micromanaged.

Comment: Re:Good for you. (Score 1) 641

by TheLink (#46695375) Attached to: Meet the Diehards Who Refuse To Move On From Windows XP
Yes. However if Microsoft kept doing that Windows would end up being a "BIOS". And someone would do to them what Phoenix etc did to IBM and IBM PC BIOS. I suspect all the BIOS vendors combined don't make as much money as Windows does for Microsoft.

That's why Microsoft has to keep moving the goal posts every now and then. Even like now when they have run out of good ideas on where to put the goal posts.

If they stopped moving and didn't come out with stuff like Vista someone might eventually succeed in turning ReactOS or similar into a practical working Windows XP compatible OS. Then a lot of large companies might switch to it.

How many really care about what BIOS their PC used? As long as it keeps working fine nobody gives a damn, they just want to use the OTHER stuff.

Similarly most people don't actually want to care about the OS. They care about what they want to get done. At most they care about the apps they use to get things done. And crap like Windows 8 just gets more obviously in the way.

Comment: Re:oblig xkcd (Score 1, Insightful) 105

by TheLink (#46681303) Attached to: Sand in the Brain: A Fundamental Theory To Model the Mind
Meh I can come up with silly theories too.

a) neurons while not necessarily geniuses are actually not that stupid, and that the real problem a brain solved was not "thinking" but that a single thinking neuron can't be used to control a multicellular body because of connectivity and redundancy reasons (can't have a whole body wasted just because one neuron died).

b) The brain is like a bunch of Bingo halls each filled with neurons that yell Bingo when something they recognize is "read out". The fancy trick is some of them are supposed to recognize and announce the future before it happens... ;)

Now move along and figure out how a neuron or single celled creature actually thinks.

Comment: Re:As an observer (Score 1) 105

by TheLink (#46681227) Attached to: Sand in the Brain: A Fundamental Theory To Model the Mind
Wouldn't Occam's razor exclude the subjective _experience_ (not behavior) of consciousness? There's no apparent "need" for it is there? Couldn't all of us walk, talk, etc without experiencing it? Except for the fact that I know I personally experience it AND I don't think I'm that special to be the only one. There's no proof you can provide to me that you experience consciousness right? Couldn't an AI make the same claims you do and not be conscious?

Or does the simplest explanation in this Universe require that experiential consciousness must exist alongside behavioral consciousness? Both the true or false cases would be interesting ;).

Comment: Re:easy! (Score 1) 392

by TheLink (#46681131) Attached to: Why Are We Made of Matter?

that's a pretty good question...humans seem to be the only creatures (that we know of of course) in this simulation that have achieved the level of consciousness of which you speak

But why do you say so? I'm talking about the consciousness _experience_ not the behaviour.

I have no evidence that you experience consciousness anymore than I have evidence that a dog does too. How can you or a dog prove to me that you experience consciousness?

All I know is that I am conscious and I doubt I'm that special, and that's why I have faith that others are conscious too. I don't see such a big difference between humans and many other animals.

From what I gather we don't even know in detail how single celled creatures make decisions! Testate amoebas build distinctive shells for themselves, putting particles in the right places. Some can even decide to not reproduce if there's not enough material for daughter cells to have their own shells. Maybe they experience consciousness too, just limited in their capabilities and senses?

Comment: Re:What if there is no reason? (Score 1) 392

by TheLink (#46681093) Attached to: Why Are We Made of Matter?
But couldn't a machine do the same things without generating/causing/experiencing the same consciousness effect I experience? Couldn't something behave as if it was conscious without that consciousness effect emerging? Why not?

Are you claiming that a conventional computer would actually experience "consciousness" and not just behave as if it was conscious when it runs a self-predicting program that's "complex enough"? It'll be interesting if someone can describe the laws of physics/this universe that would cause some NOR gates to generate consciousness... Or would all physical operations generate it?

Or would it only happen to a quantum computer (e.g. the sort of that does quantum superpositions) simulator that also recursively simulates itself?

Comment: Re:easy! (Score 1) 392

by TheLink (#46677991) Attached to: Why Are We Made of Matter?
Yeah we might be in a simulation (that's in another simulation and so on) but why do we experience this consciousness thing? Not talking about free will, but the experience of awareness itself.

Are the rules of this universe such that no matter what as long as you have certain processes, consciousness will arise as an emergent phenomenon? And what would those certain processes be?

Could it be extinguished and yet the person still continues on "living" and moving as before? For example say a person went to sleep, and woke up the next day but never had the consciousness thing anymore - but just walked and talked etc like before as if he/she still had it.

Comment: Re:What if there is no reason? (Score 1) 392

by TheLink (#46677879) Attached to: Why Are We Made of Matter?
Here's another thing for you to work out while you're at it:

Why are you even conscious? Couldn't a machine exist like you that did the exact same things you'd do but wasn't conscious at all?

Note: I'm not talking about "free will". I'm talking about the subjective experience that I have (and I believe you have) of being aware. I don't think I'm the only conscious being in this universe.

To me the two amazing things are:
0) That there is anything at all in the first place.
1) That there is this consciousness phenomenon that I'm experiencing.

Comment: Re:OMG FAG LOL (Score 1) 183

by TheLink (#46593799) Attached to: Xbox One Reputation System Penalizes Gamers Who Behave Badly

Have you seen any alternatives to moderation/meta-moderation schemes that exclude this?

I haven't seen any implemented but a possible way is to keep the opposing groups apart.

If "A" doesn't like "B" just make it less likely that "A" and "B" end up in the same match (or see each others posts).

If "A" starts getting too picky "A" might end up in fewer matches. If "B" really is an asshole, then "B" might end up in fewer matches too.

I've proposed this before to an MMO and also a related "Points of View" method for reviewing products: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

After a while you might end up with distinct groups and then you can do some research and datamining on them ;).

FORTRAN rots the brain. -- John McQuillin

Working...