This entire post is a wonderful fantasy that is completely proven false by nearly all of the actual events of World War 2. The Rape of Nanking by itself destroys any notion that their culture had "accountability to yourself for your actions." If you weren't Japanese, you weren't
Look at the rest of the world. Power-mad leaders, self-righteous pompous bastards in the streets. We want to loudly proclaim our strong sense of right and wrong, we want to trample over everyone around us and force them to bend to our system of beliefs, and we'll use any method necessary. Our leaders will manipulate the political sphere and let innocents suffer to further our goals; they'll hire terrorists while proclaiming their vehement stance against terrorism. Accountability is only to the public eye: they only care about saving their own political face, and have no guilt over their actions.
This paragraph accurately portrays the Japanese at the start of WWII.
Read some actual history. What you described isn't even close to an accurate portrayal of mid 20th century Japan.
The quote in question mentioning the range states specifically "on our track." Not on the streets, not at a specified average speed, but on the track. Everything you said about race cars and sports cars has nothing to do with the lawsuit.
Doesn't mean what you think it means. For a Tesla Roadster, overheated means maximum power threshold has been lowered. That's not the same thing as being stuck on the side of the road, as the show clearly implied.
When my car overheats, before it stops moving entirely, it runs like crap. When a car starts running like crap, I, and most rational people, try to stop the car while it is still moving under it's own power. That absolutely counts as a breakdown.
New cars don't overheat on track days unless there's a problem with the cooling system. The Tesla overheated. They stopped to let it cool down when it did, like most rational people would.
Something which was never addressed is if they broke, or if they "broke". The later is not terribly uncommon for the show.
RTFA, the fuse for the brakes blew, by Tesla's own admission, causing the brakes not to stop the car. This is a brake failure by every rational standard that exists. This, to me, is also the most troubling reason to stay far away from the Tesla.
the number of sports cars which ever see a track is something less than 1%. Thusly, REAL sports cars are not run on tracks. Period.
Some sports cars are put on track, therefore real sports cars are not run on tracks? Question mark?
Extremely few production cars can withstand the punishment of a racetrack. Even extremely high end vehicles require tons of maintenance after a single race.
Speaking for the many people who have taken street cars regularly to the track - that's just pure bullshit. I've tracked many cars, none of the ones I've driven required tons of maintenance after a single track day. My Camaro (not even an extremely high end vehicle) has been taken to track days for 15 years now, other than the occasional brake pad, rotor (once), or quart of oil, there's no need for a post track day tear down or rebuild of anything. I've driven a Porsche at two track days, both times it was driven 6 hours to and from the event and no maintenance was needed. The vast majority of street cars are perfectly usable after a track day.
Their whole point was it sucks as a track day car, and by most objective standards, it does. Compared to most other cars, it's brakes are unreliable and doesn't go very far without needing hours to recharge.
Also, looking around the internet for actual experience, Top Gear's numbers sound a lot closer to accurate than Tesla's, even on Tesla's own message board:
The last one states that he got 30 track miles and 30 road miles, an that the range said he had 35 miles left (based on the combined usage.) If you assume that the track miles use twice as much battery power as the road miles (and this is an estimate that is extremely in Tesla's favor, most cars are much worse,) the track range works out to just over 50 miles.
Air conditioning, lights, heater, radio all drain the battery faster. I'd bet on the right track with the lights, air con. and radio running, you could get a range in the 40s or 30s.
The brakes broke. The engine overheated. These aren't disputed by Tesla, they just want to redefine the term 'breakdown' to not include them (again, on every other car in the world, those are breakdowns.) They will be destroyed in court, they're just trying get some publicity by sow doubt in the largest review of their only, and significantly flawed, product.
Which of Google's products don't have dozens of competitors right now?
Which of those products has a barrier to entry beyond writing and putting it on the web?
Which competitors have Google actively shut down? (This does not include being better or more popular.)
Did everyone forget that Yahoo was #1 in search not too long ago? That Google took the #1 spot with no advertising? That another company is free to do so if they can come up with a better product?
Google fails every test for a monopoly. I have no idea why people are continually calling for anti-trust investigations other than jealousy.
I'm kind of confused, why is everybody talking as if Tesla had been proved right in any way? They've made a claim in a lawsuit. They haven't proved it, or even given any real information about it.
Top Gear's claim about range specifically states that they calculated the range on the track to be 55. They didn't state the method of calculation. Did they drive it until the gauge read half full and double it? Then if their calculation is incorrect, then Tesla's gauge is incorrect, not their calculation. Unless there's proof that you can flog a Tesla on a track and get significantly more mileage out of it, then Top Gear's claim is valid and correct. Note that Tesla does not give a fuel economy estimate for driving their sports car agressively on a track, just that driving carefully can increase the range by 50%. I know I've driven my car carefully on the highway and gotten 28MPG, but on a track I get a little less than 4MPG.
This doesn't require a lawsuit. It requires an independent race car driver, one Tesla, a track, and a video camera. They've had two years. If they haven't done this, then their claim is BS.
There doesn't seem to be any dispute that the brakes stopped working on one and the engine overheated in the other. Claiming the engine overheating is not a breakdown is ludicrous, if the car stops running on it's own (or slows down enough that it's obviously having a problem), it's a breakdown, even if the solution is just to let it cool down. It would definitely count on a gasoline car, why anyone would think it doesn't on an electric is beyond me.
As far as the car being shown to coast to a stop on the track, unless they specifically pointed out each one as a breakdown, there's nothing libelous about it.
They are entirely accurate in their claim that it doesn't work in the real world. If it did, why did Tesla feel the need to give them two so one could charge while the other was running? Is there any other real world car that you'd need two of for a day's driving?
When it's 90+ degrees and raining, I hate coats. And If it's 15 degrees, snowing, I have a cold and I would have to walk 8 blocks to the bus stop and stand around for 20 minutes waiting for a bus, I'd not only hate but be pretty much ready to stab anybody that ever suggested a car-free city.
A coat isn't really a substitute for a mobile climate controlled enclosure.
I'm a little confused. The Simpsons episode with the World Trade Center shows Homer outside them, going to the top floor of one tower to use the bathroom only to find out it's out of order, then he goes to the top of the other tower to use the bathroom and see's his car get ticketed from the top. That's it. No terrorists. No mention of any violence.
Since 9/11 do we have to pretend the World Trade Center never existed? We can't have any pictures or cartoons of it on a TV show? What the hell?
Meanwhile, the news program that runs before it had no problem showing many replays of the towers getting destroyed (and still run them from time to time) and there are commercials that run during the show selling the World Trade Center attack commemerative coin.
Selling a worthless coin commemorating the WTC attack? Fine. Showing the video of the attack? Completely acceptable. Showing the WTC as a building not being attacked or threatened? Offensive.
I've driven distances over 1,000 miles at least 20 times in my life so far, and twice I've gone over 2,200 one way. The two 2,200 milers and one of the shorter ones were the only trips that took 2 days, the rest I drove in 1 day.
Does the man in the van pick out the lean steak over the one that's half fat? Does he skip over the pepper with the brown spots and grab the normal one? Get the least bruised bananas? The carton of milk that expires in 2 weeks over the one that expires in 2 days? Tell you about anything new? Explain that the tomatoes on special look like crap and that you should just buy the regular price one? Advise you the sushi doesn't look too good today? Check your eggs and make sure none are cracked?
No?
Then it's not an acceptable substitute. You might be satisfied if everything you buy comes in a sealed box and you make a list for everything you buy, but not everyone shops that way.
You could also say you chose not to be a eunuch monk and that you're paying the price for it, but that doesn't make it a realistic choice. If the OP is married and has kids, then it is not just his choice. There are dozens of possible reasons why it's not a realistic option to move. Could he? Absolutely. Could he and keep the majority of his life intact? Probably not.
Besides, we're talking about a city changing and screwing up his life without him moving, not him moving somewhere and then bitching about it.
Unless you're disabled. Then it would be a nightmare.
Or if you lived in a city where it rains a lot. Then it would completely suck at nearly all times of day.
I don't think it would be a nicer place to be, it would be a massive change for the worse. My enclosed, environmentally controlled transportation method is within 30 feet of both my doors (home and work.) Moving it farther away from me on any day that it's raining or snowing would just plain suck. Having to walk several blocks and then wait for a bus even if it's just cold would not make me happy at all. The traffic nightmare at the train stations outside the city would be worse than city traffic since it would concentrate the traffic spread throughout the city into several extremely dense points.
I like walking, I live in a neighborhood that I can walk to nearly everything and leave the car at home whenever it's nice out. But if it's raining or really cold, I drive the car. Take away that option, and you've just killed every store/bar/restaurant's business when it rains or if it's cold.
I also have a band. I'm not sure how I would get a few 100+ lb. speaker cabinets to the gig in that world. Or a shopping cart full of groceries all the way home, for that matter (including the 5 blocks to the bus station.)
If you need a car because you need or just like to travel to places without bus and train lines, then you would have to find parking outside city limits if you want to live there, or live outside city limits and commute, while still probably using the car to get to the bus/train stop.
I think the main effect of this will be to depopulate the cities of people in addition to cars. Companies will move to the suburbs or rural areas to avoid it, and the cities will wilt. So rather than make the cities better places to be, I believe it will lead to a mass exodus of jobs and people, which will kill the tax base and result in a reduction of all the city services, which means less busses and trains, which means it will take longer to get anywhere, so less people will want to move there and more people will want to leave, Goto 10.
Then people would avoid major intersections. I live near the center of a decent sized city, I can travel 8-10 miles in several directions without getting on a highway or encountering traffic light. Most side roads would be used as major thoroughfares to avoid the tax. Plus, the number of times the cameras would need to be replaced would be incredibly high. They'd keep accidentally falling into baseball bats, or running into paintball guns, especially in rural areas.
That's pretty much direct police surveillance of everywhere you go, not something they can be that overt about. Not yet, anyway.
It doesn't matter, it will fail if they pass it when they try to implement it.
If they require it on new cars, used cars will become more valuable, to the point new car sales would come to a near complete stop. Would you buy the 2015 with built in tax instead of a used 2014 with no tax counter? Would anyone?
They could require a device in used cars. On post-1996 cars, they could use the OBDII port, but a lot of them (if not all) can be reprogrammed to correct the speedometer anyway. Set the final gear ratio to 0 and drive tax-free.
A different gear in the transmission or on the differential will change the measurement. Even if they installed sensors on the axles (not a cheap proposal), you can make it read less mileage if you used larger wheels or tires.
You can easily block a GPS or transmitter antenna.
I don't see how they would implement it in a way that isn't easily and simply defeated.
Version numbers with decimal points and failing to use "App" to describe everything and anything more than basic HTML both prove that Firefox is dying.
Go ahead and make that list. I'll make my own list here.
Alternatives when you need a new laptop and all your software is for Mac and Apple's manufacturing and/or design has serious flaws:
I hope this passes, because no one attempting it will be able to get past this part of the research grant application:
Observations and measurements: Hypothesis: Predicted outcome: Testing methods:
If they could ever get to step 2, they're quite creative and well practiced at it, but they can't seem to ever do steps 1 or 3, and act like they've never heard of step 4.
You've failed to point out any "Massive failure of deductive closure," although you have committed that by assuming everyone will have the same amount and type of deviation from the norm in that fictional society.
That utopian society will never develop. Petty jealousy will not just go away on it's own. The completely uninteresting person who does little wrong will still rant loudly about those they don't like who do a little more wrong.
You can be fired for anything and everything. If you are curious or adventurous, those who are not will have power over you. The entire society would be an HR department.
The person who never drinks or touches drugs will be able to crush those who've gotten drunk even once.
"Live and let live" is most decidedly NOT the direction we're headed. Increasing surveillance will not help, even if it's universal. It will only give power to the most straight-laced people who have lived absolutely boring lives, not exactly the type that will understand why there needs to be swearing in that song or that strung-out crackheads and people who smoke pot once a year are completely different cases.
I would absolutely be in jail if I someone could watch me 24/7 for my whole life. Anyone who I irritated slightly once could make it happen.
Kids will make fun of other kids for even the slightest deviation from the norm, you think this wouldn't make it thousands of times worse for the kids who weren't into "normal" things?
Transparent government is a good thing. A transparent society would kill creativity, exploration, discovery and invention. Every deviation from the norm would be discovered and punished (by your peers if not your teachers, employers or the law) from birth on.
There will be no magic, unprecedented transition to understanding and acceptance. There will only be the continuation of what's known about human nature - power corrupts. And the worst sort of boring, petty people in that society will have all the power.
That society would be a living hell. There would be no creativity, no chance for exploration, nothing new would ever be produced. Every deviant behavior would be punished, everyone forced to fit into a mold of what the majority thought was "right." I, and most people I know, would be in jail or dead in that world.
Even in theory, it would be a incredibly unfair society. It would be a very equal society, but that's not even close to the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
The Neorest 600 has been out for years with the same features and is over $2,000 cheaper.
OK, it doesn't have the MP3 player, but I think you'll still have change left after you buy one.
That's just the only one I know of, I'm sure there's other advanced toilets available.
It's a miracle. You know, like magnets.
Which countries don't fall into this category?
This entire post is a wonderful fantasy that is completely proven false by nearly all of the actual events of World War 2. The Rape of Nanking by itself destroys any notion that their culture had "accountability to yourself for your actions." If you weren't Japanese, you weren't
This paragraph accurately portrays the Japanese at the start of WWII.
Read some actual history. What you described isn't even close to an accurate portrayal of mid 20th century Japan.
I knew Kia's were small cars, but I had no idea you could fit so many on a plane.
The quote in question mentioning the range states specifically "on our track." Not on the streets, not at a specified average speed, but on the track. Everything you said about race cars and sports cars has nothing to do with the lawsuit.
When my car overheats, before it stops moving entirely, it runs like crap. When a car starts running like crap, I, and most rational people, try to stop the car while it is still moving under it's own power. That absolutely counts as a breakdown.
New cars don't overheat on track days unless there's a problem with the cooling system. The Tesla overheated. They stopped to let it cool down when it did, like most rational people would.
RTFA, the fuse for the brakes blew, by Tesla's own admission, causing the brakes not to stop the car. This is a brake failure by every rational standard that exists. This, to me, is also the most troubling reason to stay far away from the Tesla.
Some sports cars are put on track, therefore real sports cars are not run on tracks? Question mark?
Speaking for the many people who have taken street cars regularly to the track - that's just pure bullshit. I've tracked many cars, none of the ones I've driven required tons of maintenance after a single track day. My Camaro (not even an extremely high end vehicle) has been taken to track days for 15 years now, other than the occasional brake pad, rotor (once), or quart of oil, there's no need for a post track day tear down or rebuild of anything. I've driven a Porsche at two track days, both times it was driven 6 hours to and from the event and no maintenance was needed. The vast majority of street cars are perfectly usable after a track day.
Their whole point was it sucks as a track day car, and by most objective standards, it does. Compared to most other cars, it's brakes are unreliable and doesn't go very far without needing hours to recharge.
Also, looking around the internet for actual experience, Top Gear's numbers sound a lot closer to accurate than Tesla's, even on Tesla's own message board:
http://www.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/milage-range-track-speeds
The last one states that he got 30 track miles and 30 road miles, an that the range said he had 35 miles left (based on the combined usage.) If you assume that the track miles use twice as much battery power as the road miles (and this is an estimate that is extremely in Tesla's favor, most cars are much worse,) the track range works out to just over 50 miles.
Air conditioning, lights, heater, radio all drain the battery faster. I'd bet on the right track with the lights, air con. and radio running, you could get a range in the 40s or 30s.
The brakes broke. The engine overheated. These aren't disputed by Tesla, they just want to redefine the term 'breakdown' to not include them (again, on every other car in the world, those are breakdowns.) They will be destroyed in court, they're just trying get some publicity by sow doubt in the largest review of their only, and significantly flawed, product.
Which of Google's products don't have dozens of competitors right now?
Which of those products has a barrier to entry beyond writing and putting it on the web?
Which competitors have Google actively shut down? (This does not include being better or more popular.)
Did everyone forget that Yahoo was #1 in search not too long ago? That Google took the #1 spot with no advertising? That another company is free to do so if they can come up with a better product?
Google fails every test for a monopoly. I have no idea why people are continually calling for anti-trust investigations other than jealousy.
I'm kind of confused, why is everybody talking as if Tesla had been proved right in any way? They've made a claim in a lawsuit. They haven't proved it, or even given any real information about it.
Top Gear's claim about range specifically states that they calculated the range on the track to be 55. They didn't state the method of calculation. Did they drive it until the gauge read half full and double it? Then if their calculation is incorrect, then Tesla's gauge is incorrect, not their calculation. Unless there's proof that you can flog a Tesla on a track and get significantly more mileage out of it, then Top Gear's claim is valid and correct. Note that Tesla does not give a fuel economy estimate for driving their sports car agressively on a track, just that driving carefully can increase the range by 50%. I know I've driven my car carefully on the highway and gotten 28MPG, but on a track I get a little less than 4MPG.
This doesn't require a lawsuit. It requires an independent race car driver, one Tesla, a track, and a video camera. They've had two years. If they haven't done this, then their claim is BS.
There doesn't seem to be any dispute that the brakes stopped working on one and the engine overheated in the other. Claiming the engine overheating is not a breakdown is ludicrous, if the car stops running on it's own (or slows down enough that it's obviously having a problem), it's a breakdown, even if the solution is just to let it cool down. It would definitely count on a gasoline car, why anyone would think it doesn't on an electric is beyond me.
As far as the car being shown to coast to a stop on the track, unless they specifically pointed out each one as a breakdown, there's nothing libelous about it.
They are entirely accurate in their claim that it doesn't work in the real world. If it did, why did Tesla feel the need to give them two so one could charge while the other was running? Is there any other real world car that you'd need two of for a day's driving?
When it's 90+ degrees and raining, I hate coats. And If it's 15 degrees, snowing, I have a cold and I would have to walk 8 blocks to the bus stop and stand around for 20 minutes waiting for a bus, I'd not only hate but be pretty much ready to stab anybody that ever suggested a car-free city.
A coat isn't really a substitute for a mobile climate controlled enclosure.
I'm a little confused. The Simpsons episode with the World Trade Center shows Homer outside them, going to the top floor of one tower to use the bathroom only to find out it's out of order, then he goes to the top of the other tower to use the bathroom and see's his car get ticketed from the top. That's it. No terrorists. No mention of any violence.
Since 9/11 do we have to pretend the World Trade Center never existed? We can't have any pictures or cartoons of it on a TV show? What the hell?
Meanwhile, the news program that runs before it had no problem showing many replays of the towers getting destroyed (and still run them from time to time) and there are commercials that run during the show selling the World Trade Center attack commemerative coin.
Selling a worthless coin commemorating the WTC attack? Fine. Showing the video of the attack? Completely acceptable. Showing the WTC as a building not being attacked or threatened? Offensive.
I've driven distances over 1,000 miles at least 20 times in my life so far, and twice I've gone over 2,200 one way. The two 2,200 milers and one of the shorter ones were the only trips that took 2 days, the rest I drove in 1 day.
I'm 100% sure I will not prefer them.
Does the man in the van pick out the lean steak over the one that's half fat? Does he skip over the pepper with the brown spots and grab the normal one? Get the least bruised bananas? The carton of milk that expires in 2 weeks over the one that expires in 2 days? Tell you about anything new? Explain that the tomatoes on special look like crap and that you should just buy the regular price one? Advise you the sushi doesn't look too good today? Check your eggs and make sure none are cracked?
No?
Then it's not an acceptable substitute. You might be satisfied if everything you buy comes in a sealed box and you make a list for everything you buy, but not everyone shops that way.
You could also say you chose not to be a eunuch monk and that you're paying the price for it, but that doesn't make it a realistic choice. If the OP is married and has kids, then it is not just his choice. There are dozens of possible reasons why it's not a realistic option to move. Could he? Absolutely. Could he and keep the majority of his life intact? Probably not.
Besides, we're talking about a city changing and screwing up his life without him moving, not him moving somewhere and then bitching about it.
Unless you're disabled. Then it would be a nightmare.
Or if you lived in a city where it rains a lot. Then it would completely suck at nearly all times of day.
I don't think it would be a nicer place to be, it would be a massive change for the worse. My enclosed, environmentally controlled transportation method is within 30 feet of both my doors (home and work.) Moving it farther away from me on any day that it's raining or snowing would just plain suck. Having to walk several blocks and then wait for a bus even if it's just cold would not make me happy at all. The traffic nightmare at the train stations outside the city would be worse than city traffic since it would concentrate the traffic spread throughout the city into several extremely dense points.
I like walking, I live in a neighborhood that I can walk to nearly everything and leave the car at home whenever it's nice out. But if it's raining or really cold, I drive the car. Take away that option, and you've just killed every store/bar/restaurant's business when it rains or if it's cold.
I also have a band. I'm not sure how I would get a few 100+ lb. speaker cabinets to the gig in that world. Or a shopping cart full of groceries all the way home, for that matter (including the 5 blocks to the bus station.)
If you need a car because you need or just like to travel to places without bus and train lines, then you would have to find parking outside city limits if you want to live there, or live outside city limits and commute, while still probably using the car to get to the bus/train stop.
I think the main effect of this will be to depopulate the cities of people in addition to cars. Companies will move to the suburbs or rural areas to avoid it, and the cities will wilt. So rather than make the cities better places to be, I believe it will lead to a mass exodus of jobs and people, which will kill the tax base and result in a reduction of all the city services, which means less busses and trains, which means it will take longer to get anywhere, so less people will want to move there and more people will want to leave, Goto 10.
Complete bullshit, their excuse doesn't make any sense.
How can you fix a bug without knowing what caused it?
Didn't changing the source code to fix it give you a clue? Or does MS use the million monkey method of code generation?
Then people would avoid major intersections. I live near the center of a decent sized city, I can travel 8-10 miles in several directions without getting on a highway or encountering traffic light. Most side roads would be used as major thoroughfares to avoid the tax. Plus, the number of times the cameras would need to be replaced would be incredibly high. They'd keep accidentally falling into baseball bats, or running into paintball guns, especially in rural areas.
That's pretty much direct police surveillance of everywhere you go, not something they can be that overt about. Not yet, anyway.
It doesn't matter, it will fail if they pass it when they try to implement it.
If they require it on new cars, used cars will become more valuable, to the point new car sales would come to a near complete stop. Would you buy the 2015 with built in tax instead of a used 2014 with no tax counter? Would anyone?
They could require a device in used cars. On post-1996 cars, they could use the OBDII port, but a lot of them (if not all) can be reprogrammed to correct the speedometer anyway. Set the final gear ratio to 0 and drive tax-free.
A different gear in the transmission or on the differential will change the measurement. Even if they installed sensors on the axles (not a cheap proposal), you can make it read less mileage if you used larger wheels or tires.
You can easily block a GPS or transmitter antenna.
I don't see how they would implement it in a way that isn't easily and simply defeated.
How to skip watching ghost hunting shows:
1. Was there a massive news story about the proof of life after death?
2. They didn't find anything.
Version numbers with decimal points and failing to use "App" to describe everything and anything more than basic HTML both prove that Firefox is dying.
Go ahead and make that list. I'll make my own list here. Alternatives when you need a new laptop and all your software is for Mac and Apple's manufacturing and/or design has serious flaws:
...and I'm done. How's your list coming along?
Wouldn't they be much more effective as a distraction if they had an AK-47? The soldiers will be firing back either way.
I don't think suicide by firecracker distraction provides any strategic advantage in this scenario.
I hope this passes, because no one attempting it will be able to get past this part of the research grant application:
Observations and measurements:
Hypothesis:
Predicted outcome:
Testing methods:
If they could ever get to step 2, they're quite creative and well practiced at it, but they can't seem to ever do steps 1 or 3, and act like they've never heard of step 4.
A primary historical lesson of the 20th century is that the less Germany votes for war, the better.
You've failed to point out any "Massive failure of deductive closure," although you have committed that by assuming everyone will have the same amount and type of deviation from the norm in that fictional society.
That utopian society will never develop. Petty jealousy will not just go away on it's own. The completely uninteresting person who does little wrong will still rant loudly about those they don't like who do a little more wrong.
You can be fired for anything and everything. If you are curious or adventurous, those who are not will have power over you. The entire society would be an HR department.
The person who never drinks or touches drugs will be able to crush those who've gotten drunk even once.
"Live and let live" is most decidedly NOT the direction we're headed. Increasing surveillance will not help, even if it's universal. It will only give power to the most straight-laced people who have lived absolutely boring lives, not exactly the type that will understand why there needs to be swearing in that song or that strung-out crackheads and people who smoke pot once a year are completely different cases.
I would absolutely be in jail if I someone could watch me 24/7 for my whole life. Anyone who I irritated slightly once could make it happen.
Kids will make fun of other kids for even the slightest deviation from the norm, you think this wouldn't make it thousands of times worse for the kids who weren't into "normal" things?
Transparent government is a good thing. A transparent society would kill creativity, exploration, discovery and invention. Every deviation from the norm would be discovered and punished (by your peers if not your teachers, employers or the law) from birth on.
There will be no magic, unprecedented transition to understanding and acceptance. There will only be the continuation of what's known about human nature - power corrupts. And the worst sort of boring, petty people in that society will have all the power.
That society would be a living hell. There would be no creativity, no chance for exploration, nothing new would ever be produced. Every deviant behavior would be punished, everyone forced to fit into a mold of what the majority thought was "right." I, and most people I know, would be in jail or dead in that world.
Even in theory, it would be a incredibly unfair society. It would be a very equal society, but that's not even close to the same thing.