"it’s been shown that being deaf has no negative impacts on your ability to drive. "
"many ways that deaf drivers do so safely. Drivers who are deaf utilize special devices that alert them when emergency vehicle sirens are nearby. Car horns can also be detected using this system and give deaf drivers the notification they need to proceed with caution. Some devices are able to distinguish the sound using a panel with multiple indicators. Panoramic mirrors can also be used to enhance the visual perception of deaf drivers, and give them a better sense of the other vehicles and objects around their automobile."
"Research has indicated that being deaf enhances the peripheral vision of individuals. Because driving is primarily a visual activity, this supports the ability of deaf drivers to effectively operate a vehicle."
While checking for comments this morning I was surprised to see that the user I quoted had actually said "wired", and that the idea of hardwired wasn't implied by what he wrote. My assumptions of context and things like his intentions made me 'see' what wasn't there, making my comment more about my interpretations than about what he actually wrote, which I don't disagree with.
Even though I often see others doing this, I have trouble noticing when I do it myself.
"the same technique will highlight differences in the brains of convicted criminals, psychopaths, pedeophiles and those with a predisposition to violence are really wired differently to the rest of us."
He's wrong 99% of the time and more, because the differences are hardwired but 'soft' wired through development.
"Human's are the product of their social experience, their education, and the contacts they have with those who we all share the world with"
Changes happen through those avenues too, and positive experiences catalyze them.
And like you said, that's so much more productive.
"so the problem is not the regulations but that people do not give a shit."
Actually I think it's both. The FDA getting more lax, and people giving 'less of a shit'. And if that's the case, then the thing to work on is the causes contributing to both situations.
"but if they ever do make it work, they have realized that they need significantly more computing power than is available in the current system."
Yeah, and in the mean time you have to drive keeping your hands positioned on the steering wheel fully ready to take over from the so called self driving mode. Which is clearly not what the driver in the video is doing by placing both hands on the bottom of steering, placed close together and holding it lightly from underneath :
"Older folks on the other hand that see their doctor monthly or more were greatly affected by not getting to see their same doctor."
Curious what stopped them seeing their doctor as usual?
Looking at the video they didn't explain anything and in the comments the only clear complaint was a two month old comment by someone saying their deductible had doubled - which sounds like something that Trump caused. https://www.cbpp.org/sabotage-...
Like with Trump media often take what he said way out of context. On pronouns I just watched a few videos on youtube and he says he always uses "whatever pronoun goes along with the persona the person is projecting". From the bits in the media a few years ago that's not the impression I got. So thanks for clarifying that.
"But not when the powers that be force to do it...."
In one video he explained that he's fine with laws that compel you to not say certain things, like other harassment and hate speech laws, but not with laws that "compel you to use their choice of words" which he explains as how someone could pick a word from a list of 50, like xi or hir, and then he'd be legally forced to use that word.
But I don't think the Ontario policy does that :
"Gender-based harassment can involve: Derogatory language toward trans people or trans communities ; Insults, comments that ridicule, humiliate or demean people because of their gender identity or expression ; Behaviour that “polices and or reinforces traditional heterosexual gender norms” ; Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun... "
That and after reading the examples in section 7.4, I don't think the policy's intention compels him to use words like ze or hir, but rather, what he does, using the 'regular pronoun' the person is projecting or prefers, is the kind of thing the policy suggests doing.
I understand that someone can be worried the policy will be abused and I get the impression he's being honest but I think he's mistaken about the law's intent and also about how it will be interpreted especially in the context of provincial charter of human rights and the legal definition of harassment, and if the law needs to be clarified I'm sure it will be.
"J. Peterson had misrepresented Bill C-16, Pronoun Use. That he had lied since none was going to be compelled to use certain pronouns."
I don't understand what Peterson is complaining about. Using what he calls the 'wrong' gendered pronoun in someone's presence seems to require special effort on his part.
And if that's the case, in the very rare situations where he could use a gendered pronoun in public when the other person is present he can always bypass gender by using they.
It's also a question of marketing and not losing face (and hence future profits) : Alphabet doesn't want the general public to know how restricted the car's abilities are.
"Yeah you probably also believe that you shouldn't wash your hands ever because washing them removes dirt and dirt is what your immune system needs to be strong. Right!?"
Wrong. In this context, saying "you probably also believe", is a sign a conclusion that doesn't follow is coming along with of an attempt at denigration.
"C'mon read up on why people have a life expectancy well over 60 *everywhere* where there is proper hygene and sanitation, with country after country reaching 85 to 90 *on average*. Those are facts."
Yes, but he's not arguing those facts, and implying otherwise is more denigration and artifice.
"Those claiming video games cause violence are politicians and publicity seekers, not scientists."
Violence begets violence, no ? Isn't also possible to always reject Causality when it comes to behaviors that are driven by multiple complex factors.
And superficially (I didn't look at the study) how is a parent's evaluation of their children's level of violent behavior a sound measure in the studie's context.
Stronger governments can take the life out of weaker governments, whether they lean more towards socialism or more towards capitalism, doesn't really seem to matter.
"But the whole premise is that these people will continue to drive no matter what"
Yes, in that situation, in the short term, something like autopilot will help avoid some crashes.
But by avoiding some accidents autopilot will also be encouraging these seniors to drive longer while their abilities are continuing to degrade, making it increasingly possible, autopilot or not, for them to get into worse and worse accidents, and I don't see how that can be "really good for elderly people".
Yeah, but if their driving is bad enough they should stop doing it or be stopped, I don't think things like autopilot are going to make it more more acceptable for other road users to have their lives put in danger in all the other situations where autopilot won't help.
"it will soon become almost impossible to avoid this neocon-approved news site’s ranking systems on any technological device sold in the United States... the latest venture to result from the partnership between Steven Brill and Louis Gordon Crovitz"
"Our Advisory Board - Tom Ridge, the first Secretary of Homeland Security (George W. Bush administration) - Richard Stengel, former editor of Time magazine and Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy (Obama administration) - (Ret.) General Michael Hayden, former Director of the CIA, former Director of the National Security Agency and former Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence (George W. Bush administration) - Don Baer, chairman of Burson, Cohn & Wolfe and former White House Communications Director (Clinton administration) - Elise Jordan, political analyst, NBC, and former speechwriter for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice - John Battelle, co-founding editor of Wired and founding chief executive of Industry Standard magazines - Jessica Lessin, founder and editor-in-chief of The Information"
Slashdot Mirror
"it’s been shown that being deaf has no negative impacts on your ability to drive. "
"many ways that deaf drivers do so safely. Drivers who are deaf utilize special devices that alert them when emergency vehicle sirens are nearby. Car horns can also be detected using this system and give deaf drivers the notification they need to proceed with caution. Some devices are able to distinguish the sound using a panel with multiple indicators. Panoramic mirrors can also be used to enhance the visual perception of deaf drivers, and give them a better sense of the other vehicles and objects around their automobile."
"Research has indicated that being deaf enhances the peripheral vision of individuals. Because driving is primarily a visual activity, this supports the ability of deaf drivers to effectively operate a vehicle."
https://hearingsolutions.ca/ca...
While checking for comments this morning I was surprised to see that the user I quoted had actually said "wired", and that the idea of hardwired wasn't implied by what he wrote. My assumptions of context and things like his intentions made me 'see' what wasn't there, making my comment more about my interpretations than about what he actually wrote, which I don't disagree with.
Even though I often see others doing this, I have trouble noticing when I do it myself.
correction
"because the differences ***aren't*** hardwired but 'soft' wired through development"
Exactly. And when the first comment said:
"the same technique will highlight differences in the brains of convicted criminals, psychopaths, pedeophiles and those with a predisposition to violence are really wired differently to the rest of us."
He's wrong 99% of the time and more, because the differences are hardwired but 'soft' wired through development.
"Human's are the product of their social experience, their education, and the contacts they have with those who we all share the world with"
Changes happen through those avenues too, and positive experiences catalyze them.
And like you said, that's so much more productive.
"so the problem is not the regulations but that people do not give a shit."
Actually I think it's both. The FDA getting more lax, and people giving 'less of a shit'. And if that's the case, then the thing to work on is the causes contributing to both situations.
"but if they ever do make it work, they have realized that they need significantly more computing power than is available in the current system."
Yeah, and in the mean time you have to drive keeping your hands positioned on the steering wheel fully ready to take over from the so called self driving mode. Which is clearly not what the driver in the video is doing by placing both hands on the bottom of steering, placed close together and holding it lightly from underneath :
https://youtu.be/knaskUXb12A?t...
That's *Archangel Michael's* video.
"Older folks on the other hand that see their doctor monthly or more were greatly affected by not getting to see their same doctor."
Curious what stopped them seeing their doctor as usual?
Looking at the video they didn't explain anything and in the comments the only clear complaint was a two month old comment by someone saying their deductible had doubled - which sounds like something that Trump caused. https://www.cbpp.org/sabotage-...
"I managed to achieve fusion with ice bags taped to my diffusion pump to cool it before January 19th at 3:38pm (my birthday/time)"
http://www.fusor.net/board/vie...
Like with Trump media often take what he said way out of context. On pronouns I just watched a few videos on youtube and he says he always uses "whatever pronoun goes along with the persona the person is projecting". From the bits in the media a few years ago that's not the impression I got. So thanks for clarifying that.
"But not when the powers that be force to do it...."
In one video he explained that he's fine with laws that compel you to not say certain things, like other harassment and hate speech laws, but not with laws that "compel you to use their choice of words" which he explains as how someone could pick a word from a list of 50, like xi or hir, and then he'd be legally forced to use that word.
But I don't think the Ontario policy does that :
"Gender-based harassment can involve: Derogatory language toward trans people or trans communities ; Insults, comments that ridicule, humiliate or demean people because of their gender identity or expression ; Behaviour that “polices and or reinforces traditional heterosexual gender norms” ; Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun ... "
That and after reading the examples in section 7.4, I don't think the policy's intention compels him to use words like ze or hir, but rather, what he does, using the 'regular pronoun' the person is projecting or prefers, is the kind of thing the policy suggests doing.
I understand that someone can be worried the policy will be abused and I get the impression he's being honest but I think he's mistaken about the law's intent and also about how it will be interpreted especially in the context of provincial charter of human rights and the legal definition of harassment, and if the law needs to be clarified I'm sure it will be.
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/de...
"J. Peterson had misrepresented Bill C-16, Pronoun Use. That he had lied since none was going to be compelled to use certain pronouns."
I don't understand what Peterson is complaining about. Using what he calls the 'wrong' gendered pronoun in someone's presence seems to require special effort on his part.
And if that's the case, in the very rare situations where he could use a gendered pronoun in public when the other person is present he can always bypass gender by using they.
Am I missing something?
It's also a question of marketing and not losing face (and hence future profits) : Alphabet doesn't want the general public to know how restricted the car's abilities are.
"Yeah you probably also believe that you shouldn't wash your hands ever because washing them removes dirt and dirt is what your immune system needs to be strong. Right!?"
Wrong. In this context, saying "you probably also believe", is a sign a conclusion that doesn't follow is coming along with of an attempt at denigration.
"C'mon read up on why people have a life expectancy well over 60 *everywhere* where there is proper hygene and sanitation, with country after country reaching 85 to 90 *on average*. Those are facts."
Yes, but he's not arguing those facts, and implying otherwise is more denigration and artifice.
"Those claiming video games cause violence are politicians and publicity seekers, not scientists."
Violence begets violence, no ? Isn't also possible to always reject Causality when it comes to behaviors that are driven by multiple complex factors.
And superficially (I didn't look at the study) how is a parent's evaluation of their children's level of violent behavior a sound measure in the studie's context.
"None of this proves causation, but the correlation is "more video games" "less violence"."
Interesting, do you think that more violent video game players correlates with more violent verbal exchanges on social media.
Stronger governments can take the life out of weaker governments, whether they lean more towards socialism or more towards capitalism, doesn't really seem to matter.
"That is fine, so long as they disclose what they are doing"
Yes, but how would you go about achieving that.
If transparency is good doesn't it have to apply to every individual and entity.
"But the whole premise is that these people will continue to drive no matter what"
Yes, in that situation, in the short term, something like autopilot will help avoid some crashes.
But by avoiding some accidents autopilot will also be encouraging these seniors to drive longer while their abilities are continuing to degrade, making it increasingly possible, autopilot or not, for them to get into worse and worse accidents, and I don't see how that can be "really good for elderly people".
I also see the OP's humor.
Yeah, but if their driving is bad enough they should stop doing it or be stopped, I don't think things like autopilot are going to make it more more acceptable for other road users to have their lives put in danger in all the other situations where autopilot won't help.
I feel like autopilot will be really good for elderly people who refuse to stop driving.
How will that be good in most situations where 'autopilot' capabilities can't help.
"they just care about not being on the hook for abetting copyright infringement. Once it's in the hands of a court it's not their problem ... "
Exactly, as this guy explains: https://youtu.be/OuGPvlCVsqo?t...
Do yourself a favor and don't comment when you don't know about a subject.
At least then it won't be so PAINFULLY OBVIOUS that you're quite stupid..
Unless it's your intention, that may have the opposite effect than the one your looking for.
"People double down ... Especially when people feel threatened or if they are being treated as if they are stupid." -from another slashdot story
"Well, what do you think all these new censorship tools & systems are really for?"
Narrative control?
https://www.mintpressnews.com/...
"it will soon become almost impossible to avoid this neocon-approved news site’s ranking systems on any technological device sold in the United States ... the latest venture to result from the partnership between Steven Brill and Louis Gordon Crovitz"
https://www.newsguardtech.com/...
"Our Advisory Board - Tom Ridge, the first Secretary of Homeland Security (George W. Bush administration) - Richard Stengel, former editor of Time magazine and Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy (Obama administration) - (Ret.) General Michael Hayden, former Director of the CIA, former Director of the National Security Agency and former Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence (George W. Bush administration) - Don Baer, chairman of Burson, Cohn & Wolfe and former White House Communications Director (Clinton administration) - Elise Jordan, political analyst, NBC, and former speechwriter for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice - John Battelle, co-founding editor of Wired and founding chief executive of Industry Standard magazines - Jessica Lessin, founder and editor-in-chief of The Information"
"Yet another Facebook feature that will be overrun by Russian bots"
Why the emphasis on *Russian* bots.
0 ?
Ok. Though I haven't seen any substantiated news on whether this is really a thing, or whether Maduro is involved in some way.
But I was hoping the ongoing narrative pushed by most western governments and by most western media, could be addressed.