I would disagree. Having this data available to crunch the numbers would definitely benefit healthcare (in the saving lives aspect). Currently (perhaps forever) the dangers probably outweigh the benefits. There is far too much incentive to abuse this data and we require more than some guy saying "hey, it's totally going to be fine" to convince us.
It's like storing passwords as plaintext. It is super convenient for everyone involved as long as everyone involved is altruistic. But assuming everyone is altruistic is stupid so storing passwords in plaintext is generally regarded as stupid.
They are cliches as you are using them. Just like "don't you read books?" is a cliche. You do not think- you regurgitate. These concepts have only been "discussed" in that any criticism of the concept is immediately labeled as:
Especially when people go out of their way to try not to admit that class or race privilege exists. Even more so when said people are obviously trying to get out of admitting they have it or that they have any responsibility to the future to get rid of it.
Translated into Christian to exemplify its stupidity:
You're only an atheist because you want to sin.
Fools like you cling to "privilege" as an argument because it is designed to be unfalsifiable. "What? Denying privilege? That just means you're the most privileged of all". There is no meaningful discussion that can be had about the topic because the concept is self-referential in nature. Like a racist dismissing anything black people said because they think they are less intelligent.
Yes, everybody that disagrees with you and calls you on your bullshit is overprivileged and that's why they do it. Keep safe from that cognitive dissonance. I wouldn't want you to suffer an original thought.
People get called out for being idiots all the time. I'm calling you out because all you've offered is cliches and pejoratives and you act incredulous when people don't just accept your assertions. Then stamped your feet and whined: "but the conservatives did it first!"
I don't know how big your pockets are but I've always had trouble fitting laptops in them. Maybe they're fit if they were "tiny"? Like cellphone sized maybe?
No we really don't. Infecting another device from standard contact is pretty much exactly what we call a virus. This is like auto-running USB sticks on Windows XP.
"Over literal"? Please explain. "Leveling the playing field" and "unearned privilege" are cliches that are essentially meaningless. I cannot literally (overly or otherwise) take them to mean anything because they do not mean anything. They are brandished almost entirely by completely ignorant people that think insulting anyone that disagrees with them and saying "fuck" a lot are valid forms of discussion.
it is not bigoted or racist to assume that someone of a different skin color may have had a different upbringing than you
Which is why nig^H^H^H people of color steal cars. That's what you're getting at right? That people should lock their doors if they see one of these people. And that "driving while black" is totally grounds for being pulled over.
Those are some pretty big assertions you've got there. Care to back them up with a little more than cliches typically rattled off by early-twenty coffee shop liberal arts majors?
You keep acting condescending as if you think it will make your position stronger. I'm sorry you got conned by these solar friggen roadways but digging yourself deeper isn't going to help.
Every time there is a problem brought up you just heap some other advanced technology on top as if that's going to fix everything. Now we're on to transparent aluminum (you know Star Trek was just a movie right?). As if that's so "easy" to manufacture we can just use it to replace all road surfaces. I will reiterate, read this very slowly if you have to. If not even Apple can afford to use this mystical material to stop their $700+ cellphones from smashing and cracking then how the hell are we going to afford to use it for road construction? Noting that currently we use basically recycled waste material to keep costs down.
If I mention how much soot builds up on roads what is your solution to that? "Well duh, automatic windshield wipers have been around for decades"? This is just so obviously a bad idea.
I am paying attention to what you are saying. What you are saying is just stupid. LEDs are just not that visible in sunlight- even ambient sunlight usually overpowers them. Which is why they are absolutely always directed and shrouded from direct sunlight when used outdoors. Even LED stop lights are nearly impossible to see if the sun hits them directly and they're pointed right at the driver. Why aren't they using these magic low-power, high-heat tolerance, long-lasting, super-mega-OVER9000-bright LEDs?
I am not failing to take anything into account. You are just grasping at straws and they're getting shorter and shorter.
I'm going to go sum just the top layer that you have admitted they need:
"transparent aluminum" (we'll just assume for a second this works and will stand up to real-life traffic)
As close to fully transparent as possible so light can get to the PV
Must be textured (hurts transparency but friction is important for a road surface)
Must be a specially crafted lens to counteract the poor horizontal placement of solar panel (subnote 1: how well does a textured lens work?)
(subnote 2: no more mass-production if each panel must be tuned exactly to its position)
(subnote 3: how exactly does a textured lens affect the LED markers shining up through it?)
Must be cheap enough to replace asphalt
How can you possibly think that that sounds reasonable? It sounds like a bad Hollywood movie trying to explain technology.
So now your solution is to use a magic type of glass that you assert exists that will stand up to the wear and tear of traffic and also make it into a state of the art, finely tuned lens? That sounds realistic.
The LEDs are angled and directed at the vehicles that have to see them. Otherwise they would mount them like pot-lights and they would look much nicer.
How do you properly angle an LED that has to be visible from every direction? Notice how headlights and brake lights are pointed directly at the people that need to see them? Maybe you think it would be a good idea to mount them into the roof? That way you'd only need one brake and one headlight and everyone around would see them easily.
Even if you crank up the power in the LEDs to overpower the sun it is still a losing scenario. You are trying to overpower the light-source that you are using to power your light-source. Like using a windmill to power a fan to blow a sailboat.
Let's use state of the art optics technology and then drive transport trucks over it. There's a winning strategy.
Those LEDs are directly aimed at the cars so that they are visible! Directly aimed and shielded from direct sunlight! Now lay them under glass under the road- how are they going to be visible from all directions? They won't. That's what I am saying. LEDs have to be aimed to be visible. They also don't like to get hot but that's a whole other problem with this nonsense.
If we had glass that was hard and robust enough to support a road that maintains optical clarity enough to be useful for a PV then why the hell are so many people walking around with smashed iPhone screens? We don't have this magic glass you say we do. There is very little that takes as much wear and tear as a road. Which is why we make them out of rock and concrete and not out of glass.
They can only direct light that hits them smart guy. If the light is already hitting the solar panel why would you redirect the light through more glass (which will reduce its efficiency)? So unless you are suggesting putting magnifying glasses over the roads (which is pretty stupid suggestion) optics are not going to do anything to counteract the loss of efficiency from placing solar panels flat on the ground where they are getting less sun.
So I looked these "Smart Crosswalks" up and as far as I can see they are shrouds that stick out of the road to direct the light toward the car. Which is exactly how these solar friggen roadways don't work. They can't work that way because road lines have to be visible to people other than the car stopped at the "stop here at red signal" line. Large LED directional shrouds would also get in the way of a solar panel I would tend to think.
These things are bunk and you know it. If you have to grasp at straws to say "it might be possible" then it is fairly safe to assume that it is not.
We have extremely expensive and extremely brittle glass that has a high hardness. That sure sounds like it would work great for a road...
Optics don't magically direct more sunlight! What are you even talking about. That has to be one of the most ignorant things posted as authority I've ever seen.
Are you saying your LED-lit crosswalks are inset into the ground? Or are you talking about the indicators with the huge shades on them to block the sun?
How much nuance do you need? The policy is, quite literally, textbook sexism.
You getting upset and belligerent isn't going to make your case stronger. In fact you never even tried to deny that it is sexism- you wouldn't be able to so you just tried to excuse it. So how exactly is calling it sexist unthinking and moronic?
The "society doesn't encourage girls to be computer programmers" or "society discourages women from being into computers" memes have always frustrated me. As if nerdy guys got praise and encouragement growing up. As if nerdy guys weren't constantly told "get off that damn computer and go outside".
Boys are not encouraged to be into computers- they are shamed for it. Even in this thread there are several instances of people talking about socially awkward basement dwelling nerds. There is all this effort to put the nerd into the girl but no one ever stops to think about why it is impossible to take the nerd out of the boy. Nerdy girls weren't bribed or convinced to be nerds any more than their male counterparts. There are just fewer of them.
Sinking money into it will not make people interested in something if they are fundamentally uninterested in it. Constantly labeling the people in the industry horrible people certainly won't help spark interest either.
Your major flaw is the presupposition that sexism is the reason there are relatively few women in technology. You are excusing dictionary sexism based on assertions of past sexism with no proof of its existence.
Secondly, no it isn't fair to hand people a proportional part of any pie. Not when they have the same opportunities to earn it like everyone else.
They don't talk about tubectomies either and there are plenty of female pro-lifers (I guess you want to take away their vote because they're electing people you don't like to represent them?). I'm not sure why any politician would be talking about something that happened to women 100 years ago nor why you are bringing it up. I am assuming that you mean about the time men got conscripted to go die and shortly thereafter women were given the vote.
51% of the population can hardly be considered a minority. Get over yourself and your simplistic worldviews and start doing something more positive than calling people names.
Insult, use key phrase "historical context" then equate to latest "bad person". Do you SJWs have a script or do you just have the IQ of a Markov chain? Always parroting the exact same drivel. You also seem to have a policy of being wholly inaccurate.
And the remaining define it as "whatever I like" and ignore and fallasate away the bad parts. Ideologies and integers do not compare well. Pretty easy to tell if an integer is a 1 or not. Although I guess it's pretty easy to tell if it's a "True Marxist" as well: it's not.
So it might be a little harder for you to lose weight than someone else. That doesn't make it not possible. It is not a lack of compassion to tell someone that their weight loss is their own responsibility along with their own weight gain. Hell- with half the effort to lose weight as you've put into making excuses in this thread anyone would be well on their way to fitness.
Slashdot Mirror
I would disagree. Having this data available to crunch the numbers would definitely benefit healthcare (in the saving lives aspect). Currently (perhaps forever) the dangers probably outweigh the benefits. There is far too much incentive to abuse this data and we require more than some guy saying "hey, it's totally going to be fine" to convince us.
It's like storing passwords as plaintext. It is super convenient for everyone involved as long as everyone involved is altruistic. But assuming everyone is altruistic is stupid so storing passwords in plaintext is generally regarded as stupid.
Yes it really does. You are trusting and executing code from a foreign and untrusted device. You do understand that drivers are software right?
They are cliches as you are using them. Just like "don't you read books?" is a cliche. You do not think- you regurgitate. These concepts have only been "discussed" in that any criticism of the concept is immediately labeled as:
Especially when people go out of their way to try not to admit that class or race privilege exists. Even more so when said people are obviously trying to get out of admitting they have it or that they have any responsibility to the future to get rid of it.
Translated into Christian to exemplify its stupidity:
You're only an atheist because you want to sin.
Fools like you cling to "privilege" as an argument because it is designed to be unfalsifiable. "What? Denying privilege? That just means you're the most privileged of all". There is no meaningful discussion that can be had about the topic because the concept is self-referential in nature. Like a racist dismissing anything black people said because they think they are less intelligent.
Yes, everybody that disagrees with you and calls you on your bullshit is overprivileged and that's why they do it. Keep safe from that cognitive dissonance. I wouldn't want you to suffer an original thought.
People get called out for being idiots all the time. I'm calling you out because all you've offered is cliches and pejoratives and you act incredulous when people don't just accept your assertions. Then stamped your feet and whined: "but the conservatives did it first!"
Write can be used as a synonym for compose. People "write an email" all the time. How many people that write books do you think do so with a pen?
I don't know how big your pockets are but I've always had trouble fitting laptops in them. Maybe they're fit if they were "tiny"? Like cellphone sized maybe?
No we really don't. Infecting another device from standard contact is pretty much exactly what we call a virus. This is like auto-running USB sticks on Windows XP.
"Over literal"? Please explain. "Leveling the playing field" and "unearned privilege" are cliches that are essentially meaningless. I cannot literally (overly or otherwise) take them to mean anything because they do not mean anything. They are brandished almost entirely by completely ignorant people that think insulting anyone that disagrees with them and saying "fuck" a lot are valid forms of discussion.
it is not bigoted or racist to assume that someone of a different skin color may have had a different upbringing than you
Which is why nig^H^H^H people of color steal cars. That's what you're getting at right? That people should lock their doors if they see one of these people. And that "driving while black" is totally grounds for being pulled over.
Those are some pretty big assertions you've got there. Care to back them up with a little more than cliches typically rattled off by early-twenty coffee shop liberal arts majors?
They are not our ancestors. We share a common ancestor.
"smartest person of a random group of 50" != the top 2% of a total population.
The top 2% can be worded as 1 in 50 of a total population.
There is somewhat of a difference between a sample size of 50 and one of 300 million.
116 is not a "very low" IQ score. It is above average in fact. Whoosh?
You keep acting condescending as if you think it will make your position stronger. I'm sorry you got conned by these solar friggen roadways but digging yourself deeper isn't going to help.
Every time there is a problem brought up you just heap some other advanced technology on top as if that's going to fix everything. Now we're on to transparent aluminum (you know Star Trek was just a movie right?). As if that's so "easy" to manufacture we can just use it to replace all road surfaces. I will reiterate, read this very slowly if you have to. If not even Apple can afford to use this mystical material to stop their $700+ cellphones from smashing and cracking then how the hell are we going to afford to use it for road construction? Noting that currently we use basically recycled waste material to keep costs down.
If I mention how much soot builds up on roads what is your solution to that? "Well duh, automatic windshield wipers have been around for decades"? This is just so obviously a bad idea.
I am paying attention to what you are saying. What you are saying is just stupid. LEDs are just not that visible in sunlight- even ambient sunlight usually overpowers them. Which is why they are absolutely always directed and shrouded from direct sunlight when used outdoors. Even LED stop lights are nearly impossible to see if the sun hits them directly and they're pointed right at the driver. Why aren't they using these magic low-power, high-heat tolerance, long-lasting, super-mega-OVER9000-bright LEDs?
I am not failing to take anything into account. You are just grasping at straws and they're getting shorter and shorter.
I'm going to go sum just the top layer that you have admitted they need:
"transparent aluminum" (we'll just assume for a second this works and will stand up to real-life traffic)
As close to fully transparent as possible so light can get to the PV
Must be textured (hurts transparency but friction is important for a road surface)
Must be a specially crafted lens to counteract the poor horizontal placement of solar panel
(subnote 1: how well does a textured lens work?)
(subnote 2: no more mass-production if each panel must be tuned exactly to its position)
(subnote 3: how exactly does a textured lens affect the LED markers shining up through it?)
Must be cheap enough to replace asphalt
How can you possibly think that that sounds reasonable? It sounds like a bad Hollywood movie trying to explain technology.
So now your solution is to use a magic type of glass that you assert exists that will stand up to the wear and tear of traffic and also make it into a state of the art, finely tuned lens? That sounds realistic.
The LEDs are angled and directed at the vehicles that have to see them. Otherwise they would mount them like pot-lights and they would look much nicer.
How do you properly angle an LED that has to be visible from every direction? Notice how headlights and brake lights are pointed directly at the people that need to see them? Maybe you think it would be a good idea to mount them into the roof? That way you'd only need one brake and one headlight and everyone around would see them easily.
Even if you crank up the power in the LEDs to overpower the sun it is still a losing scenario. You are trying to overpower the light-source that you are using to power your light-source. Like using a windmill to power a fan to blow a sailboat.
Let's use state of the art optics technology and then drive transport trucks over it. There's a winning strategy.
Those LEDs are directly aimed at the cars so that they are visible! Directly aimed and shielded from direct sunlight! Now lay them under glass under the road- how are they going to be visible from all directions? They won't. That's what I am saying. LEDs have to be aimed to be visible. They also don't like to get hot but that's a whole other problem with this nonsense.
If we had glass that was hard and robust enough to support a road that maintains optical clarity enough to be useful for a PV then why the hell are so many people walking around with smashed iPhone screens? We don't have this magic glass you say we do. There is very little that takes as much wear and tear as a road. Which is why we make them out of rock and concrete and not out of glass.
They can only direct light that hits them smart guy. If the light is already hitting the solar panel why would you redirect the light through more glass (which will reduce its efficiency)? So unless you are suggesting putting magnifying glasses over the roads (which is pretty stupid suggestion) optics are not going to do anything to counteract the loss of efficiency from placing solar panels flat on the ground where they are getting less sun.
So I looked these "Smart Crosswalks" up and as far as I can see they are shrouds that stick out of the road to direct the light toward the car. Which is exactly how these solar friggen roadways don't work. They can't work that way because road lines have to be visible to people other than the car stopped at the "stop here at red signal" line. Large LED directional shrouds would also get in the way of a solar panel I would tend to think.
These things are bunk and you know it. If you have to grasp at straws to say "it might be possible" then it is fairly safe to assume that it is not.
We have extremely expensive and extremely brittle glass that has a high hardness. That sure sounds like it would work great for a road...
Optics don't magically direct more sunlight! What are you even talking about. That has to be one of the most ignorant things posted as authority I've ever seen.
Are you saying your LED-lit crosswalks are inset into the ground? Or are you talking about the indicators with the huge shades on them to block the sun?
How much nuance do you need? The policy is, quite literally, textbook sexism.
You getting upset and belligerent isn't going to make your case stronger. In fact you never even tried to deny that it is sexism- you wouldn't be able to so you just tried to excuse it. So how exactly is calling it sexist unthinking and moronic?
The "society doesn't encourage girls to be computer programmers" or "society discourages women from being into computers" memes have always frustrated me. As if nerdy guys got praise and encouragement growing up. As if nerdy guys weren't constantly told "get off that damn computer and go outside".
Boys are not encouraged to be into computers- they are shamed for it. Even in this thread there are several instances of people talking about socially awkward basement dwelling nerds. There is all this effort to put the nerd into the girl but no one ever stops to think about why it is impossible to take the nerd out of the boy. Nerdy girls weren't bribed or convinced to be nerds any more than their male counterparts. There are just fewer of them.
Sinking money into it will not make people interested in something if they are fundamentally uninterested in it. Constantly labeling the people in the industry horrible people certainly won't help spark interest either.
Your major flaw is the presupposition that sexism is the reason there are relatively few women in technology. You are excusing dictionary sexism based on assertions of past sexism with no proof of its existence.
Secondly, no it isn't fair to hand people a proportional part of any pie. Not when they have the same opportunities to earn it like everyone else.
They don't talk about tubectomies either and there are plenty of female pro-lifers (I guess you want to take away their vote because they're electing people you don't like to represent them?). I'm not sure why any politician would be talking about something that happened to women 100 years ago nor why you are bringing it up. I am assuming that you mean about the time men got conscripted to go die and shortly thereafter women were given the vote.
51% of the population can hardly be considered a minority. Get over yourself and your simplistic worldviews and start doing something more positive than calling people names.
Insult, use key phrase "historical context" then equate to latest "bad person". Do you SJWs have a script or do you just have the IQ of a Markov chain? Always parroting the exact same drivel. You also seem to have a policy of being wholly inaccurate.
And the remaining define it as "whatever I like" and ignore and fallasate away the bad parts. Ideologies and integers do not compare well. Pretty easy to tell if an integer is a 1 or not. Although I guess it's pretty easy to tell if it's a "True Marxist" as well: it's not.
So it might be a little harder for you to lose weight than someone else. That doesn't make it not possible. It is not a lack of compassion to tell someone that their weight loss is their own responsibility along with their own weight gain. Hell- with half the effort to lose weight as you've put into making excuses in this thread anyone would be well on their way to fitness.
You don't break an addiction by telling the addicted that it's not their fault and there's nothing they can do about it.