I know, maybe they could implant things in blind people's ears that alert them of an oncoming silent car...like a super loud and startling BEEP?
Yea, that's waaaay more reasonable than attaching a loudspeaker to the car...
As if being blind wasn't bad enough...
You can't count on sound, either. Would you literally trust your life to hearing a car coming? Hear both ways! I don't think so. How about instead of an inhumane implant, we go with either a removable shock collar (with id tag)
OK, first off, how is a shock collar less inhumane than your other idea? Christ, what are you, some kind of sadist? Wait... on second thought, don't answer that...
or headphones with the voice of a beautiful woman, like Siri.
Uh, dude, you do realize Siri isn't actually a woman, but rather a mathematical algorithm designed to emulate the sound of a female human voice, right? No different from ShitTalker (please tell me I'm not the only one who remembers ShitTalker!)
I'm not being hyperbolic. Lack of vaccination is literally proportionate murder in my eyes.
Well, then, if you feel so strongly about it, perhaps you should be pressuring your representatives to pass a law making refusal of vaccinations grounds for murder charges. Arguing with me isn't going to get you anywhere.
If you can't be bothered to look both ways before crossing the street, it's you who are negligent.
As with any legal matter, who would be considered negligent would be on a per-incident basis, and is a matter for the courts to decide. Personally, I like to err on the side of caution, as being hit by a car FUCKING HURTS, regardless of whose fault it is.
The only exception is the blind, and we have audible crosswalks now, so this technology is pointless.
If you can't be bothered to look both ways before crossing the street, it's you who are negligent. The only exception is the blind, and we have audible crosswalks now, so this technology is pointless.
So why fight all those texting/cellphone use-while-driving laws? I mean, the VAST majority of people blindly crossing the street are probably on their cellphones.
Uh... not the same thing? I would say equally as dangerous, but no, when you're piloting several tons of metal, glass, and plastic in a state of ACIS*, you're a hell of a lot more dangerous than some meatbag doing the same.
Perhaps we should ban all cellphone use while mobile. People can't drive and talk/text (if you think you can - you can't, and you're plainly obvious to everyone who's behind you by your erratic driving), and we know they certainly can't walk and talk/text. I think a lot of police departments are now tracking incidents like this.
Personally, I don't understand where the idea we need all sorts of new laws to cover this stuff comes from; we already have laws against negligence, careless and imprudent driving, jaywalking, etc. etc.
Essentially, if we (society) aren't willing to enforce existing laws across the board, what makes us (society) think new laws will be treated any differently?
And nevermind the idiotic redlight runners - at least you can hear a revving engine half a block away and look to see if someone will run the red. Or green if someone intends to cut off the pedestrians just starting to cross the street by turning ahead of them.
Don't know about your locale, but where I live we always just assume at least 3-5 people are going to run the red light... because they do.
Consistently.
Anyhow, having a quiet car does nothing when the car next to you at the light has their bass thumping out playing today's crappy rap/hip-hop song.
Touche, friend, although with the caveat that we both know that won't always be the case.
*ACIS: Anal Cranial Inversion Syndrome. Thanks to a childhood friend for coining the term 20 years ago.
Am I the only one who thinks it shouldn't take 3 years to figure out how to make a car produce engine noises?
No, no you are not. When I read that, I thought, really? 3 years? Uh, lemme see... loudspeaker + audio source + the tachometer = programmable sound that varies with engine speed. Took me all of 10 seconds.
Sometimes I think letting engineers have all the fun when it comes to design is part of the problem; they tend to forget Occam's Razor. Then again, with all the drive-by-wire stuff they're mucking about with these days, maybe I shouldn't be surprised the auto engineers forgot that, at it's base, a car is a mechanical device.
I'm an experienced programmer, but I really liked the step-by-step stuff on codeacademy.com, where the language du jour is javascript, actually.
I'm not a programmer, and I find the cobbled together, unforgiving, often poorly written lessons on codecademy.com, many of which will allow bad code to pass but fails good code, to be quite frustrating at times. Also, I doubt I'm actually learning much, as I have yet to be able to apply any of the material from the lessons to a real world situation.
And yet, I still enjoy going through them (the Q&A section is typically far more informative than the lessons themselves), and keep finding myself going back for more. I would recommend anyone using the site develop a good understanding of programming structure and syntax before starting the lessons.
I'm glad you found an excuse to justify the intentional murder of other human beings. It's always nice to see horrible inhuman monsters who feel they have the moral high ground.
Ah, no. BTW, if you hear a knocking, that's probably the Hyperbole Police coming to take you to Exaggeration-Traz. Pro-birther, I presume? The rhetoric fits...
The consequences delineated in the article are the inevitable consequence of non-vaccination by a statistically significant portion of the populace. That's just the nature of diseases.
If a society has guns/cars/unhealthy foods/scientific research/etc., inevitably one individuals use of them is going to negatively affect someone else, and possibly the population at large. That's the nature of humanity.
You got it right but you could have just used one sarcastic example of the over simplified idiocy of some Public Health arguments:
- Women have babies that can lead to them becoming sources of communicable diseases or even worse, murderers, we should enact a law that vaccinates all women from having children in the name of 'Public Health'.
Wrong... If YOUR decision only affects YOU I don't care. But it affects others too, and that's when you lose the right to make it on your own.
You drive a car. Your car outputs poison into the shared atmosphere, meaning your driving a car affects the health of others. Therefore, by your reasoning, YOU don't have the right to decide where and when you drive, but rather society does. That's just one example from my list; there are several others.
By the way, if anyone here is in marketing or advertising...kill yourself. Thank you. Just planting seeds, planting seeds is all I'm doing. No joke here, really. Seriously, kill yourself, you have no rationalisation for what you do, you are Satan's little helpers. Kill yourself, kill yourself, kill yourself now. Now, back to the show. Seriously, I know the marketing people: 'There's gonna be a joke comin' up.' There's no fuckin' joke. Suck a tail pipe, hang yourself...borrow a pistol from an NRA buddy, do something...rid the world of your evil fuckin' presence. -- Bill Hicks
Thank goodness Bill isn't around to see this sad shit...
I understand it's just another port to plug things in. Just what we need, laptops with fifteen different input and output ports. VGA, DVI, HDMI, DP, USB3, whatever thunderbolt is, FW, eSATA, unique docking connector, Ethernet, unique power socket, and a card reader for eighteen different cards. I'm sure I've missed a few.
Kinda makes you long for the days of PCMCIA cards, eh? Does me.
One of humanity's greatest advantages, as well as one of our greatest pitfalls - the ability to rationalize anything. Saying "Oh, it's a 'public health' issue, so we have the right to tell you what to do" is undeniable, abject nonsense; at least, in the way it's typically applied. Taking into account the aforementioned power of universal rationalization, one could argue for the ban of literally everything based on "public health;"
- People get shot, which affects their health, so gun ownership is a public health issue, and thus we can ban guns.
- Materials with BPA as a chemical component can leach dioxins into food, which affects public health, so we can ban everything with BPA.
- Food that does not meet federal guidelines for healthy food is bad for public health, so we can ban food that does not meet federal guidelines.
- Pigeons (and most other birds) carry parasites such as lice, which can be spread from human to human, which makes the presence of birds a public health risk, so we can ban birds.
- Stepping on a pine needle can cause a puncture, which can get infected, which can spread to other people if not treated promptly, so therefore we can ban coniferous trees.
- Cars produce toxic exhaust, as well as having the potential to hit people, thus affecting public health, therefore we can ban cars.
- Electronic devices produce various forms of radiation, and can release toxic chemicals when they burn out, which affect public health, so we can thus ban electronic devices.
- Televisions and computers lead to sedentary lifestyle, which burdens the healthcare system and is thus a public health risk, so we can ban televisions and computers.
- Tall buildings can cause extensive damage to nearby structures when the collapse, which is a public health risk, so we can ban tall buildings.
- Scientific research can lead to discoveries that can cause major public health issues, so we can ban all scientific research.
I could literally go on like this for hours; Not that I believe the government should do nothing to help assuage public health risks (although I do believe people should take responsibility for their own dumb asses, and not expect Big Brother to coddle them every day of their lives), but rather am pointing out that the slippery slope is ridiculously slippery, indeed.
What I find sadly ironic is how the guy making a valid point about the untrustworthyness of politicians gets modded "Troll," whereas the troll making lewd comments that contribute nothing useful to the conversation gets modded "Insightful."
... is the same problem pretty much every study has -- it's based on the concept of ceteris paribus, which does not exist in reality.
...unless you're trying to create artificial intelligences. Knowing the minimum number of generations it might take for a particular method to produce emergent increases in general intelligence would seem to be handy information in that case.
How so? To me, all this proves is that, under controlled laboratory circumstances, "AI" will develop in the way you designed the experiment for them to develop.
That, numbnuts, is called Wikipedia, which is oft billed as the "Encyclopedia anyone can edit," hence the questionable nature of its content.
Did you have a point? Perhaps, since you're obviously in opposition to my opinion, you can give some examples of real life situations in which all but a single variable are held equal?
Slashdot Mirror
I know, maybe they could implant things in blind people's ears that alert them of an oncoming silent car...like a super loud and startling BEEP?
Yea, that's waaaay more reasonable than attaching a loudspeaker to the car... As if being blind wasn't bad enough...
You can't count on sound, either. Would you literally trust your life to hearing a car coming? Hear both ways! I don't think so. How about instead of an inhumane implant, we go with either a removable shock collar (with id tag)
OK, first off, how is a shock collar less inhumane than your other idea? Christ, what are you, some kind of sadist? Wait... on second thought, don't answer that...
or headphones with the voice of a beautiful woman, like Siri.
Uh, dude, you do realize Siri isn't actually a woman, but rather a mathematical algorithm designed to emulate the sound of a female human voice, right? No different from ShitTalker (please tell me I'm not the only one who remembers ShitTalker!)
Hate to burst your robotophilic bubble...
I'm not being hyperbolic. Lack of vaccination is literally proportionate murder in my eyes.
Well, then, if you feel so strongly about it, perhaps you should be pressuring your representatives to pass a law making refusal of vaccinations grounds for murder charges. Arguing with me isn't going to get you anywhere.
If you can't be bothered to look both ways before crossing the street, it's you who are negligent.
As with any legal matter, who would be considered negligent would be on a per-incident basis, and is a matter for the courts to decide. Personally, I like to err on the side of caution, as being hit by a car FUCKING HURTS, regardless of whose fault it is.
The only exception is the blind, and we have audible crosswalks now, so this technology is pointless.
Helen Keller. 'Nuff said?
So why fight all those texting/cellphone use-while-driving laws? I mean, the VAST majority of people blindly crossing the street are probably on their cellphones.
Uh... not the same thing? I would say equally as dangerous, but no, when you're piloting several tons of metal, glass, and plastic in a state of ACIS*, you're a hell of a lot more dangerous than some meatbag doing the same.
Perhaps we should ban all cellphone use while mobile. People can't drive and talk/text (if you think you can - you can't, and you're plainly obvious to everyone who's behind you by your erratic driving), and we know they certainly can't walk and talk/text. I think a lot of police departments are now tracking incidents like this.
Personally, I don't understand where the idea we need all sorts of new laws to cover this stuff comes from; we already have laws against negligence, careless and imprudent driving, jaywalking, etc. etc.
Essentially, if we (society) aren't willing to enforce existing laws across the board, what makes us (society) think new laws will be treated any differently?
And nevermind the idiotic redlight runners - at least you can hear a revving engine half a block away and look to see if someone will run the red. Or green if someone intends to cut off the pedestrians just starting to cross the street by turning ahead of them.
Don't know about your locale, but where I live we always just assume at least 3-5 people are going to run the red light... because they do.
Consistently.
Anyhow, having a quiet car does nothing when the car next to you at the light has their bass thumping out playing today's crappy rap/hip-hop song.
Touche, friend, although with the caveat that we both know that won't always be the case.
*ACIS: Anal Cranial Inversion Syndrome. Thanks to a childhood friend for coining the term 20 years ago.
FLASH!!! AAaaaaAAA!!!!
Am I the only one who thinks it shouldn't take 3 years to figure out how to make a car produce engine noises?
No, no you are not. When I read that, I thought, really? 3 years? Uh, lemme see... loudspeaker + audio source + the tachometer = programmable sound that varies with engine speed. Took me all of 10 seconds.
Sometimes I think letting engineers have all the fun when it comes to design is part of the problem; they tend to forget Occam's Razor. Then again, with all the drive-by-wire stuff they're mucking about with these days, maybe I shouldn't be surprised the auto engineers forgot that, at it's base, a car is a mechanical device.
I know, maybe they could implant things in blind people's ears that alert them of an oncoming silent car...like a super loud and startling BEEP?
Yea, that's waaaay more reasonable than attaching a loudspeaker to the car...
As if being blind wasn't bad enough...
You're actively endorsing the death of other people. You're just happy about it.
Didn't your mother ever tell you, if you can't say something without being a hyperbolic douche about it, don't say anything at all?
Jetson's car.
FTW.
Yeah, exactly. And if there is a law, how can we either circumvent it (no, sorry, that speaker broke just some minutes ago Officer) or get rid of it.
I doubt you would be prosecuted for having "too quiet" a vehicle... that is, until you hit someone with it because they couldn't hear you coming.
That happens, be prepared for a criminal negligence charge.
Lack sense of humor, you do.
Or, he's googled too much, and is suffering from information overload.
You don't have to be a dick about it.
I'm an experienced programmer, but I really liked the step-by-step stuff on codeacademy.com, where the language du jour is javascript, actually.
I'm not a programmer, and I find the cobbled together, unforgiving, often poorly written lessons on codecademy.com, many of which will allow bad code to pass but fails good code, to be quite frustrating at times. Also, I doubt I'm actually learning much, as I have yet to be able to apply any of the material from the lessons to a real world situation.
And yet, I still enjoy going through them (the Q&A section is typically far more informative than the lessons themselves), and keep finding myself going back for more. I would recommend anyone using the site develop a good understanding of programming structure and syntax before starting the lessons.
I'm glad you found an excuse to justify the intentional murder of other human beings. It's always nice to see horrible inhuman monsters who feel they have the moral high ground.
Ah, no. BTW, if you hear a knocking, that's probably the Hyperbole Police coming to take you to Exaggeration-Traz.
Pro-birther, I presume? The rhetoric fits...
The consequences delineated in the article are the inevitable consequence of non-vaccination by a statistically significant portion of the populace. That's just the nature of diseases.
If a society has guns/cars/unhealthy foods/scientific research/etc., inevitably one individuals use of them is going to negatively affect someone else, and possibly the population at large. That's the nature of humanity.
You got it right but you could have just used one sarcastic example of the over simplified idiocy of some Public Health arguments:
- Women have babies that can lead to them becoming sources of communicable diseases or even worse, murderers, we should enact a law that vaccinates all women from having children in the name of 'Public Health'.
Damn, that is a good one!
Wrong... If YOUR decision only affects YOU I don't care. But it affects others too, and that's when you lose the right to make it on your own.
You drive a car. Your car outputs poison into the shared atmosphere, meaning your driving a car affects the health of others. Therefore, by your reasoning, YOU don't have the right to decide where and when you drive, but rather society does. That's just one example from my list; there are several others.
The slope, she is slippery.
By the way, if anyone here is in marketing or advertising...kill yourself. Thank you. Just planting seeds, planting seeds is all I'm doing. No joke here, really. Seriously, kill yourself, you have no rationalisation for what you do, you are Satan's little helpers. Kill yourself, kill yourself, kill yourself now. Now, back to the show. Seriously, I know the marketing people: 'There's gonna be a joke comin' up.' There's no fuckin' joke. Suck a tail pipe, hang yourself...borrow a pistol from an NRA buddy, do something...rid the world of your evil fuckin' presence. -- Bill Hicks
Thank goodness Bill isn't around to see this sad shit...
00
01
10
See you on the news!
I understand it's just another port to plug things in. Just what we need, laptops with fifteen different input and output ports. VGA, DVI, HDMI, DP, USB3, whatever thunderbolt is, FW, eSATA, unique docking connector, Ethernet, unique power socket, and a card reader for eighteen different cards. I'm sure I've missed a few.
Kinda makes you long for the days of PCMCIA cards, eh? Does me.
One of humanity's greatest advantages, as well as one of our greatest pitfalls - the ability to rationalize anything. Saying "Oh, it's a 'public health' issue, so we have the right to tell you what to do" is undeniable, abject nonsense; at least, in the way it's typically applied. Taking into account the aforementioned power of universal rationalization, one could argue for the ban of literally everything based on "public health;"
- People get shot, which affects their health, so gun ownership is a public health issue, and thus we can ban guns.
- Materials with BPA as a chemical component can leach dioxins into food, which affects public health, so we can ban everything with BPA.
- Food that does not meet federal guidelines for healthy food is bad for public health, so we can ban food that does not meet federal guidelines.
- Pigeons (and most other birds) carry parasites such as lice, which can be spread from human to human, which makes the presence of birds a public health risk, so we can ban birds.
- Stepping on a pine needle can cause a puncture, which can get infected, which can spread to other people if not treated promptly, so therefore we can ban coniferous trees.
- Cars produce toxic exhaust, as well as having the potential to hit people, thus affecting public health, therefore we can ban cars.
- Electronic devices produce various forms of radiation, and can release toxic chemicals when they burn out, which affect public health, so we can thus ban electronic devices.
- Televisions and computers lead to sedentary lifestyle, which burdens the healthcare system and is thus a public health risk, so we can ban televisions and computers.
- Tall buildings can cause extensive damage to nearby structures when the collapse, which is a public health risk, so we can ban tall buildings.
- Scientific research can lead to discoveries that can cause major public health issues, so we can ban all scientific research.
I could literally go on like this for hours; Not that I believe the government should do nothing to help assuage public health risks (although I do believe people should take responsibility for their own dumb asses, and not expect Big Brother to coddle them every day of their lives), but rather am pointing out that the slippery slope is ridiculously slippery, indeed.
What I find sadly ironic is how the guy making a valid point about the untrustworthyness of politicians gets modded "Troll," whereas the troll making lewd comments that contribute nothing useful to the conversation gets modded "Insightful."
... is the same problem pretty much every study has -- it's based on the concept of ceteris paribus, which does not exist in reality.
...unless you're trying to create artificial intelligences. Knowing the minimum number of generations it might take for a particular method to produce emergent increases in general intelligence would seem to be handy information in that case.
How so? To me, all this proves is that, under controlled laboratory circumstances, "AI" will develop in the way you designed the experiment for them to develop.
Really? Then explain this, twatwaffle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus
?:/
That, numbnuts, is called Wikipedia, which is oft billed as the "Encyclopedia anyone can edit," hence the questionable nature of its content.
Did you have a point? Perhaps, since you're obviously in opposition to my opinion, you can give some examples of real life situations in which all but a single variable are held equal?
Singularity is pretty sweet. and addictive.
So is FreeCiv.
... is the same problem pretty much every study has -- it's based on the concept of ceteris paribus, which does not exist in reality.
From a purely academic standpoint, however, it is a neat experiment.