Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Submission + - New GMail compose inspires user backlash 1

s13g3 writes: Yesterday, Google finally rolled out the "new compose" as a mandatory change to all users, eliminating the "old" compose option with no way to revert. The move has sparked such a significant amount of user backlash on Google's product forums that moderators are having to close hundreds of "I hate the new compose" threads as "duplicates" and are directing people to the main feedback thread, which is currently over 21 pages some 24 hours later. So far, there appears to be nothing in the way of a response or recognition from Google of the amount of hate the change has inspired, only an insistence that somehow the input of "Top Moderators" from their forums since October 2012 resulted in a number of "improvements" to the new compose in response, which supposedly makes it easier to use, but does nothing to address the laundry list of complaints and issues people have with it: simply put, no one likes the new compose, and significant numbers of users are threatening to abandon the service as a result of this forced change.

Comment Re:Please (Score 1) 151

Explain how "Consciousness evolved in much simpler animals" is "woo-woo" or "magical thinking".

It's a belief held without evidence. You might as well posit fairies and elves. There's just as much evidence for their existence as there is for the parents claim.

Everything else evolved from simpler animals, why not consciousness?

I never made any such claim. I didn't say that he was right or wrong, only that there was no evidence to support his wild speculation. You woo woo's don't seem to care about evidence, you just believe whatever makes you feel good. It's sad, really, seeing you live in a fantasy world.

Believing otherwise is as "woo woo" as it gets.

I see. You think that your evidence-free beliefs are unquestionably true and above scrutiny. Do you think Jesus told you or something? You woo woo's are lost cause!

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 1) 151

2000 years ago dualists would have put disease, lightning and thunder under the 'not explained by physical reality and constructive math' category

2000 years ago, everyone else would have as well. What nonsense "point" are you failing to regurgitate?

The null hypothesis is not 'god did it'.

Where did this come from? It looks like a desperate attempt to drag god in to the conversation, or you're terribly confused about what "dualism" means and entails. Perhaps both?

Oh, I should probably point out that the parent was agreeing with you. In your rush to fight the enemies of reason (which you are, ironically) you've managed to attack an ally.

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 1) 151

When the complexity of the mechanism falls below a certain threshold, it makes sense that consciousness is not generated/emerged/attached/whatever anymore.

Sounds like magical thinking to me.

But you know this already:

current state of research: nobody has a clue

Fascinating research, and may be a first step into finding out what consciousness actually is

It's not a first step towards that at all. Not even a little bit.

Comment Re:Please (Score 1) 151

Consciousness evolved in much simpler animals (which to be sure have most specialized areas) but massive brain is not required.

Ugh. Why do you woo woo believers always jump to the first "conclusion" that makes you feel good? Why don't you base your beliefs on evidence instead? You'll find reality is more interesting that whatever magical nonsense you're going to promulgate next.

You're the most dangerous type of magical thinker -- you actually believe that there's science behind your wildly speculative beliefs.

Comment Re:You sire you are just plain wrong, not insightf (Score 2) 351

Consciousness is the emerging process of all brain process.

Assuming you're a physicalist: If that were true, how is it that we're able to accurately report on the content of our subjective experience?

That is, if consciousness is merely epiphenomenal, and thus supervenes on the brain, the content of such experiences would necessarily be inaccessible to the brain. That you can report on the content of your subjective experience suggests that it is accessible to the brain and, consequently, that your emergent hypothesis is untenable.

(It's a simple argument, but should be enough to keep you too busy to go around making further bold pronouncements unsupported by any actual science for a while.)

Comment Re:Out of Body? (Score 1) 351

There is no such thing as a non-verifiable event.

Of course there is! Here's an easy example: My wife says she saw a mouse in the laundry room.

No mouse droppings, no gathered bits of fluff, no teeth marks on wires, boxes, etc, no smiling cats -- no evidence of mice or mouse-like activity could be found. It doesn't mean that there wasn't a mouse in the laundry room, only that her story could not be verified.

I know, it's probably not what you intended to say. It bugged me for some reason.

The rest of your post is spot on. I couldn't agree more.

Comment Re:Cool, But... (Score 1) 351

The tunnel effect I think was explained by neuro-scientists as the firing of the cells in the visual cortex.

As it turns out, that was just a bit of wild speculation offered by Susan Blackmore during an interview.

It's amazing how common that explanation is, and how firmly people believe it, even though there's absolutely no science behind it.

Comment Re:Hmmm .... (Score 1) 351

. crazy brain activity, which may or may not equate to something experiential ... or magic

And you came to this conclusion ... how? I'm guessing "these are the only two possibilities I can think of, therefore it must be one of these!"

You, apparently, have already made lots of assumptions about me.

Actually, I asked if I could make those assumptions. Those assumptions were made on previous experiences I've had with non-religious people who seem to desperately need to insert God in to the conversation at every opportunity.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never ask two questions in a business letter. The reply will discuss the one you are least interested, and say nothing about the other.

Working...