Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Reply to rx480 comment over at wccftech

DX 12 games my friend, and 1080p gaming.

In some dx 12 games the gap with gtx 1080 at 1080p is around 30%. AIBs are rumored to get 26% overclock, and even now at 8-10% OC some say it's getting around 10% improved performance. If it gets 26% improved performance, the gtx 1080 would just be 4% faster at 1080p in these games.

In some of these games the 1070 is just 21% faster than a 480, so a 26% rumored OC AIB if it provides near 26% improved performance will put it above 1070 at these games at 1080p.

I'm not buying intermediate rez 1440p monitors, waiting for 4k TVs or monitors with Ultra HD standard 60fps and freesync support. For now I game at 1080p.-link to original article

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

nice kickstarter going on right now

System shock was a nice game, and this kickstarter looks ace.  Will get the new remake version when it's out.

Nice computing tech

The intel NUC, a nice compact pc, iirc it can be augmented with an external graphic card if more power is desired.   Has decent ram capacity and is pretty powerful for the small form factor.  I like the look of the case quite a lot.

Link to intel site with more info

cool kickstarter tech from 2 years ago

Sunday, June 26, 2016

kurzweil ai post on mathematical realism

By that reasoning all art is "discovered".
Animals have a sense of numerosity, and can be tested on numerical competence, their competence is not zero. This suggests evolution happened upon hardware able to handle numerical quantities to some extent, humanity's mathematical abilities rest on biological hardware able to handle numerical concepts and quantities, damage to the tissue performing this function can have profound consequences(as seen in the book The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics).
So if numbers and numerical competence are a man made invention on what exactly did evolution happen upon? Were cometh animals competence which predates man?
The answer is that man made symbols, and man made rules to define what can be considered a "number", these rules, iirc, have expanded over time. Like the physical laws, man attempts to define what governs nature, but these rules the physical laws obviously exist and operate independent of 'discovery'. Thus man's definitions tend to be an approximation to the truth, but the truth must obviously underlie reality. Man's abilities rest on biological hardware that provides a basic sense of numerosity and small numerical quantity, this serves as a foundation to all higher numerical thought, even as a baby man's numerical competence is not zero.
As for art, again, afaik, all art can be stored as digital files in a digital system. This being the case, even a procedure as simple as repeated addition will generate ALL POSSIBLE art past present or future(this includes all video, all qualia representations for BCI devices, all sound, all texts, all images, all everything). If we take any finite device of finite resolution, such as a modern TV, this will be the case, also for any finite resolution full brain BCI thus encompassing all possible thought and sensation by a finite brain. The number of images and sounds a modern TV can produce is finite, and this includes all possible past present future or imaginary content as the form of videos, sound or still images(including pictures of all possible events and book and journal pages in all possible languages).
Again numerical relations exist in the outside world, nature developed hardware to perceive these existing relations and behave accordingly. When I see a binary sequence, it doesn't seem sensible to say that it was "invented", the possibility of a system with two types of values likely exists independently of all implementation as a possibility, digital systems also have plenty of naturally occurring implementations(for example using more types of values in dna.). There is something that makes 4 billiard balls similar to 4 legs similar to 4 apples similar to 4 planets, something that makes 3 candies more similar to 3 towers than 4 candies in some aspect, whether a human or animal can perceive this or not, there is a relationship between these, and it can only be seen as numerical in nature.
All one needs is an immortal indestructible machine with infinite computation and a similar body for one's self, which might be one and the same if there's no (hidden) fundamental physical property behind the brain's production of consciousness. Such a machine would allow one to experience all possible experience and have all possible knowledge. If digital physics is true, then that would be equivalent to attaining godhood, the ability to know everything, be everywhere and be all powerful. You wouldn't need to conquer anything or fight anyone, in isolation such a system will make the wielder the absolute embodiment of the law.
An interesting thing is as I mentioned previously, all the content that is in a single 4k(at least one of the 4k definitions if we keep color fidelity the same.) image is already contained in the set of all 1080p images, albeit in 4 different 1080p images, the set of 4k images contains no additional information, also a scaled down single 1080p image exists which provides the gist of the 4k image. The obvious question is what happens with regards to things like journal papers, would adding resolution provide additional content? Again it doesn't seem likely as said all the visible content of a single 4k image is available in the set of 1080 images. All 4k can do is combine a set of 1080p images in different orders, and there's a finite number of 1080p images and a finite number of combinations. So returning to the question again, it seems that eventually the set of images of journal pages will start repeating large quantities of content, the higher the resolution you go, it is still finite but changing to a significantly higher resolution will only provide reorganization of a finite number of pages you would have already seen at a lower resolution.
Can you imagine that entire pages with exactly the same say Billion lines of texts repeating with copies of themselves, in a finite number of combinations of the same blocks of a billion lines of text(or empty space, etc.) for a given resolution. This would give the illusion of infinity, but it would seem in my eyes like a house of mirrors, simply repeating what would seem like an amount of finite content repeated in different orders. Eventually the moment you start repeating not just words, sentences, paragraphs, but entire books worth of unchanged content, well there comes a point where any reader has seemingly already experienced it all.- link to thread

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Censorship continues to exist in some places on earth

Originally Posted by Ragnar Blackmane 
"Holy shit, this is hilarious. I take back everything bad I ever said about German censorship and rating of games back, Australia absolutely takes the cake. 
They manage to out-puritan the Americans, I didn't even believe that was possible."-link

When nations implement such censorship, such an attack on the freedom of the population, such terrorism.  Well, I believe they lose the right to self govern, and should be open to military intervention

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

nice quote on toy story

"Smith's Law. In 1999, Alvy Ray Smith, Microsoft graphics guru and co-founder of Pixar, said "Reality is 80 million polygons." Joi Ito notes that Toy Story had 5-6 million polygons per frame. Toy Story 2 had twice that. Our best digital faces today have 100 motion control points. The actual Reality Transition may be 800 million polygons per frame and thousands of control points. We will reach that threshold within 15 years. What then?"-link

It has been said that games in the xbox 360 ps3 era were already near the toy story polygon per frame figure, some clocking 4 million polygons per frame according to sources.   The ps4 and xbox one are several fold stronger.  PCs stronger still.   Right now, year 2016, realtime graphics are mind blowing.    I believe when we reach 100Tflops we will be seeing realtime graphics that can easily pass for real in many occasions.

Over at neogaf(thread link), they're arguing whether the subHD toy story 1 competes with today's games.   I believe it has been surpassed in most respects, probably all if you use pcs.  The differences in image quality between a 4k image with AA at 6 feet and a ridiculously supersampled CG image, are not that noticeable, especially in gameplay.

PS comment on star citizen vs god of war ps4.  While the close up of the star citizen  old man face looks ace*(still have trouble seen mark there), most of the other characters seen(2016) show a far lower quality with more plastic and less detailed look.  Even the character with the superimpressive armor, has hair that reminds of last gen.   That is there is inconsistency between characters and even within the same character, and the environments look less impressive in gameplay than god of war( saw a few months ago, don't know if things have changed).   In gameplay, don't know if things have changed but when I saw star citizen gameplay a few months ago it looked rather unimpressive.

Monday, June 13, 2016

“We already know that many important parts of the old testament are either fiction or likely fiction by our knowledge of scientific facts.  When the teachings of man contradict reality, the ultimate testament of truth, they are not divinely inspired, they are nothing but falsehoods.  That is the foundation of the abrahamic faiths, fiction, and upon it rests the beliefs of billions.  A God of fictional tales is nothing more than a fictional God.”-DSS

Saturday, June 11, 2016

Nice quote

In a family young children's interests are taken into account, some times their whims are followed. But in the end all real decision making rests with the parents.
Likewise those of greater capability by natural right they have or obtain the means to dominate all lesser beings. Man rose from the beasts to dominate them all, just as man rose so too will God rise from man to dominate mankind.-R Destroy

Thursday, June 9, 2016

Nice quote on sexualization in video games

"And that's where I am at with Sarkeesian's whole argument, a naked, "sexualized", or "hyper-sexualized" design is never harmful or valueless, it is neither good nor bad. The girl designing Bayonetta didn't do a worse job than the team that designed Nathan Drake. They are all good at their job, they all created something of value, no one did something immoral or harmful. They used their talents as artists and they all should be encouraged."-Kagutaba, excellent response over at neogaf, threadlink 

 The thing is sexualization is not bad, artists should be free to create what they want when they want.  As to the argument that there is too much, or that it is too sexualized, well that's a matter of preference or opinion(one man's excess is another's moderation, all in the eye of the beholder).  The games market is open, it is not closed, there are countless indie developers, and as games like minecraft show if you've got an excellent idea it will sell like hotcakes, even better than many big studio titles.   Nothing stops conservative, or puritanical designs, from being implemented in countless indie titles.  Now will that sell?  Well if it is what you want you can at least buy it or make it.

The idea of reducing sexualization, at least as intended by a company or artist, is a form of censorship.  Which is something that I abhor.  Censorship, and the need to self-censor at times at threat of incarceration or death is quite unacceptable.   

Again no one is forcing you to buy the product, don't like it don't buy it.   Stop trying to censor and screw with other people's art. 

edit update:

Can't believe people continued in that thread to argue "but it's sexist!" as if to say it is wrong in some form to dress females provocatively.   "it's objectifying" as if previous more puritanical cultures might not say the same about ours.   There's nothing wrong with sexy clothing, no matter how much your sick and twisted corrupted(most likely by religion) mind thinks there is something wrong with sex itself or sexual attractiveness or showing sexually attractive images.   You know attractive faces and shapely bodies are also sexually attractive, and the level of revealingness of clothing varies from culture to culture, from gender to gender, what is appropriate for one is not for another, it is subjective.

You are trying to bring your moral compass and expecting the artists to compromise on your moral handicaps.   There is nothing sexist with portraying one sex in sexy clothing.  In real life when women go out with shorts and tight shirts showing their belly button, are they objectifying themselves? are they wrong to dress like that?  When using such type of clothing most anywhere is rare among men, is that not also a fact?   Is it sexist to show a woman with lipstick and a man without?  

These kinds of people should know where their BS belongs, and put it in its place.  They need to know their place, and hopefully their pathetic censorship crusade, and that is what it is, an attempt to ban sexy clothing, sexy clothing which is not sexist and is not wrong,  using censorship which is wrong.  It is an attempt to forcefully silence another human being, a denial of freedom of expression.  It is no different from taking something without consent, some may find these intellectual manhandling even as traumatic and painful or even more so than a physical act of nonconsent.

"Oh but the publisher caved to our loud obnoxious noises!   See it's not censorship!" .   It is sad that corporations continue to bow down to social media, even the most minute offense and they go off apologizing(while working behind the scenes to remove the rights of the populace and promoting legislation against their interests.).   Corporations need to stand their ground, against those who seek censorship and would actively campaign against a harmless product, they also need to be rewarded by those who approve this firm stance with sales and positive social media.

When a terrorist threatens violence to silence free speech, we must praise those who practice free speech and stand their ground.   When a group of who knows what to call them wants to employ public relations terrorism on an innocent company to force an artist to censor their work, well censorship is a form of terrorism, an attack on freedom. 

Saturday, June 4, 2016

interesting vid

Europe needs order, censoring is not the way.   The whole of it needs a firm, a just, a strong hand to guide it.  Let's hope that power can concentrate in those who're fit to lead such that the unfit to lead no longer lead but are led instead.   Technology is the key for the world to be brought to the light of true divine order, for the superstitions, the shadows, the lies, that plague man to be burnt asunder by the light of truth.

Thursday, June 2, 2016

comment on consciousness

Interesting that someone who believes in quantum mysticism would defend traditional computational views. His escapades regarding an open universe depend on neither something causing the universe to re-collapse, nor there being a physical way for intelligent entities to remold the universe such that its spatial configuration changes. In any case fundamental unpredictability rests on true randomness, which is magic, and can't reasonably be taken seriously. There are an infinite number of irrational numbers, there's also a finite number of possible configurations of the universe, it doesn't matter what sequence of actions you do, there's a number which represents that exact sequence from birth to death, it is was and ever will be, it thus serves as a perfect prediction of whatever it is you've done and will do for the rest of your life, it exists out there. Likewise there's a prediction for the evolution of the entire planet in existence somewhere out there, there are predictions for any possible sequence of events.
Still I found the whole idea of bringing quantum phenomena into this to be unacceptable. Consciousness has content, it has correspondence with macroscopic phenomena, saying that if in someway we made it predictable it would suddenly not be conscious despite being causally and physically identical seems nonsensical and superstitious.
Here's the thing, we have no reason to believe that consciousness can't expand or contract while retaining uniqueness of identity, so we have additional tissue that will acquire identity and tissue that will lose identity depending on the case... While a hypothesis, I believe it might even be possible to connect two brains such that they share one identity, if this actually is the case, there would be no reason to suppose that separate identities are nothing more than an illusion given by limitations of nonshared memory.
As for computers, it is said that universality is possible with just addition and branching. Meaning that basically moving from one number to another is enough to replicate all possible computations. That suggests that whatever is consciousness likely resides not in the process of computation, that is equivalent to moving from place to place and performing addition, but in the actual patterns embodied by the numbers themselves. We already know that depending on the way you analyze a number quite a variety of possible interpretations are possible. There are interpretations that basically emerge out of it with minimal or simple analysis, other interpretations might require more elaborate analysis, in some sense depending on the procedure the procedure itself might introduce what you're looking for. A question is can we say that the pattern contains an essence, some information? is the mere presence of patterns enough to correspond and contain consciousness itself? or is there a physical process or phenomena, perhaps uncomputational that actually manifests as conscious sensation?
Basically every sensory modality is likely encodable in digital form, no reason to doubt this, and from digital form connected to the brain expressible as qualia. Does this process of brain activity add something more, something fundamental? I've doubts about that, and also about anyone who considers true randomness as something that is sensible.
so too I can declare, “give me a big enough computer and the relevant initial conditions, and I’ll simulate the brain atom-by-atom.” The Church-Turing Thesis, I said, is so versatile that the only genuine escape from it is to propose entirely new laws of physics, exactly as Penrose does—and it’s to Penrose’s enormous credit that he understands that.
That was a nice comment. What people have to understand is that the only things that don't truly need an explanation to exist are the abstract, the truths, the patterns. The idea that something could come from nothing seems nonsensible. Only something that is eternal, and something that is equivalent to nothingness can actually exist, something like truth.
Some people will object to platonic ideas, but in the end mathematics is discovered not created, you may choose arbitrary rules like an author chooses arbitrary words but the set of combinations of patterns is finite, the patterns already exists in myriad numerical sequences, only the length along dimensions varies, and this infinity often merely results in endless repetition of the finite in different orderings.
A simulation need no explanation to exist, the entire sequence of patterns can exist at the same time atemporally. Trying to bring notions such as free will and true randomness in just results in nonsense.
Regards predictability what you have to ask is whether what you did yesterday is predictable to you today, of course it is, and can be easily verified by taking a live camera around. You have to say the nature of the present and future are fundamentally different from the past, and that there is some mechanism or phenomena that transitions between them and fundamentally changes the nature of one to that of the other, such that future becomes present becomes past.
On the other hand a block time view based on simulation only requires that some pattern exist as a possibility, and it simply is with all its glory.-link