We apparently cannot discern latency below 80ms

Check This Out

jamesg1213


He's far too irritating to watch, sorry.

You can always go listen to The Forum Monkeys then mate. 

jamesg1213


Is it just those two options?

Mooch says the answer is C.

Always C.

"The taller you are the further back in the past you live."

For those who've not met bapu in person, he is above-average in height. Draw your own conclusions.

OTOH, a tall person is always the first to know when it starts raining.

I loved it.

Thanks for the link.

I'm glad I'm getting shorter.



best regards,
mike

Bollocksency?

mike_mccue


I loved it.

Thanks for the link.

I'm glad I'm getting shorter.



best regards,
mike

I knew you were gonna say that 160 ms before you did.

Bit, you're gonna have to actually blame Beagle.

It was his link to the "will we ever run out of music?" vid that got me to post my fav (after wasting a goodly part of the morning). 

"The taller you are the further back in the past you live."

Actually, tall people experience a stubbed toe further in the past. If they are punched in the nose they are about on a par with the rest of us as far as the timeliness of their pain.

http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/

I got carried away.

:-)

You might want to consider smaller fonts as it took me 162ms to read that one.

 
Wow! the one heal of stop watch you got there.

bapu

mike_mccue



http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/

McQ,


You might want to consider smaller fonts as it took me 162ms to read that one.

Freddie?? is dat ewe?

214. If we didn't make it happen, we really don't know when it started. If we did make it happen we don't spend the time interpreting what it is first.

I'm quite fond of the current theory that holds that there is no such thing as free will.

It has been proved that we react to situations faster than the information needed to allow us to make that particular decision can physically reach our brains from the relevant stimulus. And these situations are not those we normally associate with autonomic 'reflex' actions, such as (unconsciously) withdrawing one's hand from a flame, or breathing, or the beating of our hearts, but actions that we believe we are consciously thinking about and deciding to make.

That we appear to react automatically to such stimuli, but then our brain tricks us into believing that we actually performed the act because we thought about, and then decided to perform that act.
If this theory holds water, the ramifications are incredibly far reaching. Imagine a situation where you stand in the dock accused of a crime. The evidence against you may be water tight, but you could argue that science has proved beyond doubt that you cannot have consciously decided to commit the crime.
 
I love the idea that we all think we're in complete control of our lives, but in fact we are being 'driven' by a series of automatic responses, and that conscious thought is merely an elaborate illusion.
 
On an evolutionary basis, it makes a lot of sense really. Our genes are far too clever to allow genuine conscious thought to threaten their continued survival.