It would actually be kind of ironic if evolution was the cause for the existence of religion I guess.
Actually, evolution is most likely the cause for people to tend towards ritualistic group beliefs. I was just listening to a talk on this very subject. But I can't for the life of me remember what it was... maybe a Ted Talk or something.
Anyway, this skims some of the thought behind evolutions role in bringing about religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions
You can't prove or disprove whether some prophet was divinely inspired, so you either belief it, or you don't.
I should have noted that I bet someday we will be able to prove or disprove the above. Bring the prophet in, run a powerful new type of MRI scan of the brain, find that the vision was actually caused by some physical abnormality or other bio-chemical process.
At that point you're left with a God of the Gaps situation again. What caused the bio-chem process? Nothing we know of right now. 10 years later we find X to explain it, so you move God one step back in the process again, repeat.
So I should have said that I basically agree with you:)
The most reasonable religious folks I know tend to treat all the Writings as myth and allegory, and put God's influence in a place that does not interact with the physical world except for a few visions sent to holy folks from time to time. Basically they think that their religion boils down to a divinely inspired way to lead a good life, and that is about it. No creationism, no guidance of evolution, didn't touch the big bang, doesn't cause miracles, there is no rapture coming, there is no heaven or hell, etc..
And just like the constitution, the religious writings need to be interpreted in modern times, and trimmed of the parts that were put in because of the biases found in the age they were crafted in.
All in all, it seems like what they are left with is nothing more than a set of moral beliefs that could be derived from just about any religion or philosophy. So why they choose to pick one religion over another still tends to baffle me.
But I do think of people like that as somewhat reasonable. You can't prove or disprove whether some prophet was divinely inspired, so you either belief it, or you don't. God influencing the physical world though, that is something that can be countered by finding a scientific reason for something in nature. Cutting God out of the physical realm removes the God of the Gaps thing.
So when people argue for dramatic cuts in CO2 emissions, they are in effect arguing that we should take steps that we know will cause suffering on a large scale
Please provide evidence that lowering our CO2 output in a controlled responsible manner is going to cause large scale suffering? Here in Oregon we are on track to have 25% of our power provided by renewable green sources by 2025 (we are at 7.1% now and it hasn't added anything to costs).
More success stories http://cleantechnica.com/2012/01/24/record-co2-reduction-in-us-cap-trade-states/
We might as well start slowly shifting to clean energy sources because A) it is a limited resource, and B) it causes pollution, D) energy independence. You don't even need to have a "D) global warming", to have ample reasons to at least start moving in the right direction.
The problem is that the conservatives in congress, and deniers, and a large swath of the religious right (see Inhofe's book http://www.amazon.com/The-Greatest-Hoax-Conspiracy-Threatens/dp/1936488493) basically refuse to do anything at all. Not one single move towards clean energy. At this point for them it is a matter of principle to be 100% opposed to anything green.
And no matter if global warming is going to be a big issue or not, not moving to alternative sources of energy is a losing proposition.
I'd buy a diesel again in a heart beat. I get 40 miles to the gallon city in my Volkswagen Sportswagen. And diesel is 30 cents cheaper a gallon than petrol. Plus, the technology is robust. Diesel is definite the way to go if you want high gas mileage and low costs.
I wish that car manufacturers, given the 40,000 dollar price tag of cars like the volt, would offer free loaner gas cars to electric owners who need one for a weekend getaway. It sure would drive up adoption.
Even though it isn't a huge cost (25-50 per day), renting a car is inconvenient.
It'd be nice if car makers would standardize on a certain battery pack design, enabling the construction of battery swap stations instead of having to charge them. Pull in, battery pack(s) are pulled out of standard side panel hole, freshly charged batteries are put in. It could even be automated like a car wash.
How do you explain that crime rates are always higher, universally, in poor areas found in societies with high income inequality?
Also, culture is a very broad term (One of the broadest terms that Anthropologists use) that can include class when defining a group relative to the society that surrounds them. "Poor inner city Latino immigrants" paints a partial picture of a type of a culture.
I'm pretty sure the root cause of 'tribal' behavior, gangs, crime, etc.., has always been low income in a society that has high income inequality. Of course, that isn't the only factor, but it certainly is a major one.
Some people like to play chicken vs egg with the notions of poverty, crime, social mobility, and a people's attitude and culture, but I've never found any serious research that suggests that the best way to get people out of a life of crime/poverty is to first change their culture, or attitudes, or whatever. That works well with some individuals, and it is a worthwhile message to promote. But having lots of well paying jobs available, top notch schooling, and having other means of social mobility actually available is much more beneficial to changing a society than first trying to change their culture.
Google 'inner city poverty cycle'. There is a lot of interesting articles on the subject.
I think you missed the part about 'class'. The US has one of the highest income inequalities in the world. Skin color doesn't matter in terms of crime statistics, it is always about the money. If you feel you have no hope of rising up, many don't try and turn to crime. Google "inner city poverty cycle". Of course, income isn't the only factor, but it certainly is the main one.
I'm going to make an assumption that Ireland has much lower income inequality and likely more government assistance for the poor, national healthcare, and stuff like other European nations tend to have that makes the poor less hopeless.
I think the GOP and conservative media has, over the last 20 years, realized that they don't have to say 100% truth at all times, that their ideas can be based entirely on ideology and not fact, and that a winning strategy in any situation is to just remain far to the right of any opponent. No matter how far right that takes you.
Ronald Reagan would have been considered too liberal by this current GOP. Assuming the GOP is generating this bile as part of a actual plan, one can only assume that they are intentionally pushing the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window as far right as possible.
And I think it's working. Obama even mentioned that 15 years ago he would have been called a centrist. That doesn't exactly fire up his base....
What I can't get is why the Dems aren't as effective in pushing the Overton Window left as the GOP is at pushing it right. The Dems have a base that demands more facts? Dunno.
I've grown up around ag most of my life. Intelligence is not a metric you can blankly apply. Some are, some aren't.
However, the list:
are meteorologists, veterinarians, heavy equipment operators, heavy equipment mechanics, small engine mechanics, welders, plumbers, geologists, and a bunch of other stuff all rolled into one.
is a bit misleading. Farmers aren't theorists. Most are just practical, and the reason for doing things in a certain way are as likely to be 'because my Dad did it that way' or 'all the other farmers do it that way' as they are to be because of some self taught farming method. Most I've met will do research about tons of things, but it isn't researching the science or theory, usually it is researching ways that other farmers do things.
That said, yeah, there were also farmers who had masters degrees and phd's, and even some that didn't who researched the science behind things. But of those without degrees, the science they did was mainly uncontrolled experimentation. It was more cooking than chemistry. But of both types that attempted to use science, they were by far in the minority.
Most farmers are hesitant to change if they have a working system. They generally aren't confronted by many people and are often surrounded by a larger buffer of land that isolates them from having to compromise and or deal with other people. (Water rights aside:)). I have to think that is probably why the vast majority of farmers identify themselves as conservatives when it comes to politics.
Universally though, farmers are some of the best problem solvers I've ever met. Even in areas that they aren't knowledgeable about. It usually is a trial by error approach, but as a farmer gains experience, the tries before success are usually 1. If the world turned into a 'Mad Max' society, I'd much rather have a few farmers with me than just about any other type of worker.
Some person posted this above: http://windfallthemovie.com/index_1.html
There were a couple valid complaints: noise and the strobbing effect as the blade blocks out the sun. Nothing that could hurt you physically, but certainly annoying. However, the people complaining in this story and the video above had a choice to lease their land. They made the choice to lease their land. And then found they didn't like the noise and the shadows.... what a surprise. Just ignorant people and probably an aggressive salesman.
They certainly move slower, but with a lot of momentum in those huge blades.
When I was a kid, we owned a fruit orchard. It had those large fans that would mix the air up and prevent the fruit from freezing. I recall one of those breaking and the blade flying halfway across the orchard, slicing a tree in half hehe.
Looking at the latest humble bundle, Linux was one eighth of the sales. That's still a pretty small slice of users. If porting to linux would cost more than those 1/8 would provide in sales....
I wonder if humble bundle was only windows/mac, how many linux users would buy a windows or mac version because they dual boot or own multiple machines? In other words, maybe no lost sales to the linux crowd if you don't have a linux version, because most linux users have a windows or mac also?
I know I've bought bundles in the past, and the first one was for linux. Just to see it run. Later I ended up buying windows and mac versions, because when I'm in a gaming mood, those are the OS's I boot to.
Yup, I agree with you that we have the worst of both systems now. I just find it odd that in conversations about health care, ~50% of slashdot thinks the free market is going to help, when there are no working examples.
I don't even think that those in the free market camp are aware of the consequences of a truly free market solution. It would allow, among other things, letting children who's parents do not have money, to die outside of emergency room doors. If those ~50% don't like that image, then the question goes right back to "what is the most cost effective way to provide for those with no money?" And the only answer with evidence to back it up, is a shared burden, non-profit, socialist style system.
Besides, staring isn't necessarily creepy. A little staring followed by charming embarrassment when she catches you can be pretty endearing.
That depends on a lot of factors, most of which you do not know at the time. I just know from talking with female relatives and former girl friends that almost all of them get starred at daily and it always makes them feel uncomfortable.
I tend to agree with you. I'm not sure we'll agree on the way to accomplish that though. My idea would be to fix the huge income inequality in the US that has steadily grown worse.
I'd like to see an example of a working free market healthcare system before we
pick one road or the other.
.
As far as I can tell, the only examples of cheaper more effective health care systems are from Western Europe, which are almost entirely made up of single payer systems. Slashdot in general is an audience that demands evidence. There is no evidence that free market forces would handle the delivery of health care better than socialized systems.
Number two might be a factor in common, but that doesn't mean it caused number one. Or it might have had some effect, but wasn't primary.
College tuition and health care for sure have a megaton of factors involved. And from what I've read, subsidies are not the largest problem. The last detailed paper on tuition costs, if I recall correctly, had something like 8 factors to it. Tuition is subsidized all over the planet, but for some reason, the US system's cost is rising faster. Thank the other 7 factors.
Health care alone you've got to be able to answer the question, "Why are 100% subsidized health care systems vastly cheaper than the US system, while providing nearly identical levels of service for the average person?" If you can't answer that question, then you cannot make the claim that government subsidies in the US have caused the costs to climb.
The reason why datavirtue may think it acceptable is that before he knocked he was invited by the girl onto her porch so he could read her diary which she left there with the intent that strangers read it.
Did she really though? I mean, there are probably a lot of aspects of my life that I do in public that would give someone a pretty good idea of what I was like, what I liked doing, etc... if... they were to follow me around.
You could watch what time I left in the morning, follow me into the bookstore to see what I read, etc..
But we'd all call following someone creepy. Even though I didn't wear a disguise to protect myself (use a false name in my FB profile), didn't choose to order books from amazon and instead went to a bookstore (I put knowledge about myself out for the public to view), etc..
I can see both sides of the argument really. In the past the only way to get that much info about a person was to do something creepy, like stalk them. Just because it is easier to access now, does that diminish the creepy factor? Well, kinda of, yes. It is voluntary after all.
Honestly, I just think that most people don't realize how many 'pieces of the puzzle' they are laying out on the internet for people to find. Eventually we reach these moments were several pieces are put together for a new detailed view of someone, and it feels creepy. Despite the fact that it was largely voluntary. Most people just don't understand how aspects of what they do on the internet can be combined.
Our society is truly fucked up if you can't send a stranger a text message without being labeled a creep.
That reminds me of a recent text exchange I just had.
Day 1: Me: did you see movie X? It was awesome. Girl: Yeah, I really liked it.
Day 2: Me: I just cooked the perfect chili verde. I'll send you the recipe. Girl: Great! I like chili verde.
Day 3: Me: I'm coming over tonight to cook dinner, do you still have peanut oil in the pantry, or should I get some more? Girl: Uhm.. I think you have the wrong number? Me: Michelle? Girl: No, Carrie.
I had typo'd my sisters number in my contact list on a new phone and was apparently sending some random girl text messages. I wonder what she was thinking during day 1 and day 2: something like, "well, I guess my phone is alive".
There's a difference between staring and looking. The former is rarely appropriate. And women are very aware of the difference.
It is OK to look at that interesting dress she's wearing, it is OK to basically look at her as a whole. Your eyes are going to see 'everything' that is displaying. What you do in the next split second determines if it is creepy or not.
Back when the internet was just beginning to appear on phones, my immediate thought was an opt-in service that did basically what you described.
It would combine a dating service type site along with a location aware app. So you walk into a bar, and you can see a map/list of people in the bar that have also signed up for the service. Instant ice breaker. Walk up, 'I see you signed up for "Get to know people app X" also.' 'I noticed you like ponies, I also like ponies! May I sit down?'
Slashdot Mirror
Why was Rick Santorum in the running so long in the primaries?
It would actually be kind of ironic if evolution was the cause for the existence of religion I guess.
Actually, evolution is most likely the cause for people to tend towards ritualistic group beliefs. I was just listening to a talk on this very subject. But I can't for the life of me remember what it was... maybe a Ted Talk or something.
Anyway, this skims some of the thought behind evolutions role in bringing about religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions
You can't prove or disprove whether some prophet was divinely inspired, so you either belief it, or you don't.
I should have noted that I bet someday we will be able to prove or disprove the above. Bring the prophet in, run a powerful new type of MRI scan of the brain, find that the vision was actually caused by some physical abnormality or other bio-chemical process.
At that point you're left with a God of the Gaps situation again. What caused the bio-chem process? Nothing we know of right now. 10 years later we find X to explain it, so you move God one step back in the process again, repeat.
So I should have said that I basically agree with you:)
The most reasonable religious folks I know tend to treat all the Writings as myth and allegory, and put God's influence in a place that does not interact with the physical world except for a few visions sent to holy folks from time to time. Basically they think that their religion boils down to a divinely inspired way to lead a good life, and that is about it. No creationism, no guidance of evolution, didn't touch the big bang, doesn't cause miracles, there is no rapture coming, there is no heaven or hell, etc..
And just like the constitution, the religious writings need to be interpreted in modern times, and trimmed of the parts that were put in because of the biases found in the age they were crafted in.
All in all, it seems like what they are left with is nothing more than a set of moral beliefs that could be derived from just about any religion or philosophy. So why they choose to pick one religion over another still tends to baffle me.
But I do think of people like that as somewhat reasonable. You can't prove or disprove whether some prophet was divinely inspired, so you either belief it, or you don't. God influencing the physical world though, that is something that can be countered by finding a scientific reason for something in nature. Cutting God out of the physical realm removes the God of the Gaps thing.
So when people argue for dramatic cuts in CO2 emissions, they are in effect arguing that we should take steps that we know will cause suffering on a large scale
Please provide evidence that lowering our CO2 output in a controlled responsible manner is going to cause large scale suffering? Here in Oregon we are on track to have 25% of our power provided by renewable green sources by 2025 (we are at 7.1% now and it hasn't added anything to costs).
More success stories
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/01/24/record-co2-reduction-in-us-cap-trade-states/
We might as well start slowly shifting to clean energy sources because A) it is a limited resource, and B) it causes pollution, D) energy independence. You don't even need to have a "D) global warming", to have ample reasons to at least start moving in the right direction.
The problem is that the conservatives in congress, and deniers, and a large swath of the religious right (see Inhofe's book http://www.amazon.com/The-Greatest-Hoax-Conspiracy-Threatens/dp/1936488493) basically refuse to do anything at all. Not one single move towards clean energy. At this point for them it is a matter of principle to be 100% opposed to anything green.
And no matter if global warming is going to be a big issue or not, not moving to alternative sources of energy is a losing proposition.
What city are you in? Portland OR has numerous bike only lanes. Lots of bike commuters here.
I'd buy a diesel again in a heart beat. I get 40 miles to the gallon city in my Volkswagen Sportswagen. And diesel is 30 cents cheaper a gallon than petrol. Plus, the technology is robust. Diesel is definite the way to go if you want high gas mileage and low costs.
Zero gallons of gas per mile is really good. :)
I wish that car manufacturers, given the 40,000 dollar price tag of cars like the volt, would offer free loaner gas cars to electric owners who need one for a weekend getaway. It sure would drive up adoption.
Even though it isn't a huge cost (25-50 per day), renting a car is inconvenient.
It'd be nice if car makers would standardize on a certain battery pack design, enabling the construction of battery swap stations instead of having to charge them. Pull in, battery pack(s) are pulled out of standard side panel hole, freshly charged batteries are put in. It could even be automated like a car wash.
How do you explain that crime rates are always higher, universally, in poor areas found in societies with high income inequality?
Also, culture is a very broad term (One of the broadest terms that Anthropologists use) that can include class when defining a group relative to the society that surrounds them. "Poor inner city Latino immigrants" paints a partial picture of a type of a culture.
I'm pretty sure the root cause of 'tribal' behavior, gangs, crime, etc.., has always been low income in a society that has high income inequality. Of course, that isn't the only factor, but it certainly is a major one.
Some people like to play chicken vs egg with the notions of poverty, crime, social mobility, and a people's attitude and culture, but I've never found any serious research that suggests that the best way to get people out of a life of crime/poverty is to first change their culture, or attitudes, or whatever. That works well with some individuals, and it is a worthwhile message to promote. But having lots of well paying jobs available, top notch schooling, and having other means of social mobility actually available is much more beneficial to changing a society than first trying to change their culture.
Google 'inner city poverty cycle'. There is a lot of interesting articles on the subject.
I think you missed the part about 'class'. The US has one of the highest income inequalities in the world. Skin color doesn't matter in terms of crime statistics, it is always about the money. If you feel you have no hope of rising up, many don't try and turn to crime. Google "inner city poverty cycle". Of course, income isn't the only factor, but it certainly is the main one.
I'm going to make an assumption that Ireland has much lower income inequality and likely more government assistance for the poor, national healthcare, and stuff like other European nations tend to have that makes the poor less hopeless.
I think the GOP and conservative media has, over the last 20 years, realized that they don't have to say 100% truth at all times, that their ideas can be based entirely on ideology and not fact, and that a winning strategy in any situation is to just remain far to the right of any opponent. No matter how far right that takes you.
Ronald Reagan would have been considered too liberal by this current GOP. Assuming the GOP is generating this bile as part of a actual plan, one can only assume that they are intentionally pushing the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window as far right as possible.
And I think it's working. Obama even mentioned that 15 years ago he would have been called a centrist. That doesn't exactly fire up his base....
What I can't get is why the Dems aren't as effective in pushing the Overton Window left as the GOP is at pushing it right. The Dems have a base that demands more facts? Dunno.
I've grown up around ag most of my life. Intelligence is not a metric you can blankly apply. Some are, some aren't.
However, the list:
are meteorologists, veterinarians, heavy equipment operators, heavy equipment mechanics, small engine mechanics, welders, plumbers, geologists, and a bunch of other stuff all rolled into one.
is a bit misleading. Farmers aren't theorists. Most are just practical, and the reason for doing things in a certain way are as likely to be 'because my Dad did it that way' or 'all the other farmers do it that way' as they are to be because of some self taught farming method. Most I've met will do research about tons of things, but it isn't researching the science or theory, usually it is researching ways that other farmers do things.
That said, yeah, there were also farmers who had masters degrees and phd's, and even some that didn't who researched the science behind things. But of those without degrees, the science they did was mainly uncontrolled experimentation. It was more cooking than chemistry. But of both types that attempted to use science, they were by far in the minority.
Most farmers are hesitant to change if they have a working system. They generally aren't confronted by many people and are often surrounded by a larger buffer of land that isolates them from having to compromise and or deal with other people. (Water rights aside:)). I have to think that is probably why the vast majority of farmers identify themselves as conservatives when it comes to politics.
Universally though, farmers are some of the best problem solvers I've ever met. Even in areas that they aren't knowledgeable about. It usually is a trial by error approach, but as a farmer gains experience, the tries before success are usually 1. If the world turned into a 'Mad Max' society, I'd much rather have a few farmers with me than just about any other type of worker.
Some person posted this above: http://windfallthemovie.com/index_1.html
There were a couple valid complaints: noise and the strobbing effect as the blade blocks out the sun. Nothing that could hurt you physically, but certainly annoying. However, the people complaining in this story and the video above had a choice to lease their land. They made the choice to lease their land. And then found they didn't like the noise and the shadows.... what a surprise. Just ignorant people and probably an aggressive salesman.
I wonder how the larger ones would do in a similar test? columbia gorge wind turbines
They certainly move slower, but with a lot of momentum in those huge blades.
When I was a kid, we owned a fruit orchard. It had those large fans that would mix the air up and prevent the fruit from freezing. I recall one of those breaking and the blade flying halfway across the orchard, slicing a tree in half hehe.
Looking at the latest humble bundle, Linux was one eighth of the sales. That's still a pretty small slice of users. If porting to linux would cost more than those 1/8 would provide in sales....
I wonder if humble bundle was only windows/mac, how many linux users would buy a windows or mac version because they dual boot or own multiple machines? In other words, maybe no lost sales to the linux crowd if you don't have a linux version, because most linux users have a windows or mac also?
I know I've bought bundles in the past, and the first one was for linux. Just to see it run. Later I ended up buying windows and mac versions, because when I'm in a gaming mood, those are the OS's I boot to.
Yup, I agree with you that we have the worst of both systems now. I just find it odd that in conversations about health care, ~50% of slashdot thinks the free market is going to help, when there are no working examples.
I don't even think that those in the free market camp are aware of the consequences of a truly free market solution. It would allow, among other things, letting children who's parents do not have money, to die outside of emergency room doors. If those ~50% don't like that image, then the question goes right back to "what is the most cost effective way to provide for those with no money?" And the only answer with evidence to back it up, is a shared burden, non-profit, socialist style system.
Besides, staring isn't necessarily creepy. A little staring followed by charming embarrassment when she catches you can be pretty endearing.
That depends on a lot of factors, most of which you do not know at the time. I just know from talking with female relatives and former girl friends that almost all of them get starred at daily and it always makes them feel uncomfortable.
Fix the families. Restore family values.
I tend to agree with you. I'm not sure we'll agree on the way to accomplish that though. My idea would be to fix the huge income inequality in the US that has steadily grown worse.
I'd like to see an example of a working free market healthcare system before we
pick one road or the other.
.
As far as I can tell, the only examples of cheaper more effective health care systems are from Western Europe, which are almost entirely made up of single payer systems. Slashdot in general is an audience that demands evidence. There is no evidence that free market forces would handle the delivery of health care better than socialized systems.
Number two might be a factor in common, but that doesn't mean it caused number one. Or it might have had some effect, but wasn't primary.
College tuition and health care for sure have a megaton of factors involved. And from what I've read, subsidies are not the largest problem. The last detailed paper on tuition costs, if I recall correctly, had something like 8 factors to it. Tuition is subsidized all over the planet, but for some reason, the US system's cost is rising faster. Thank the other 7 factors.
Health care alone you've got to be able to answer the question, "Why are 100% subsidized health care systems vastly cheaper than the US system, while providing nearly identical levels of service for the average person?" If you can't answer that question, then you cannot make the claim that government subsidies in the US have caused the costs to climb.
The reason why datavirtue may think it acceptable is that before he knocked he was invited by the girl onto her porch so he could read her diary which she left there with the intent that strangers read it.
Did she really though? I mean, there are probably a lot of aspects of my life that I do in public that would give someone a pretty good idea of what I was like, what I liked doing, etc... if... they were to follow me around.
You could watch what time I left in the morning, follow me into the bookstore to see what I read, etc..
But we'd all call following someone creepy. Even though I didn't wear a disguise to protect myself (use a false name in my FB profile), didn't choose to order books from amazon and instead went to a bookstore (I put knowledge about myself out for the public to view), etc..
I can see both sides of the argument really. In the past the only way to get that much info about a person was to do something creepy, like stalk them. Just because it is easier to access now, does that diminish the creepy factor? Well, kinda of, yes. It is voluntary after all.
Honestly, I just think that most people don't realize how many 'pieces of the puzzle' they are laying out on the internet for people to find. Eventually we reach these moments were several pieces are put together for a new detailed view of someone, and it feels creepy. Despite the fact that it was largely voluntary. Most people just don't understand how aspects of what they do on the internet can be combined.
Our society is truly fucked up if you can't send a stranger a text message without being labeled a creep.
That reminds me of a recent text exchange I just had.
Day 1:
Me: did you see movie X? It was awesome.
Girl: Yeah, I really liked it.
Day 2:
Me: I just cooked the perfect chili verde. I'll send you the recipe.
Girl: Great! I like chili verde.
Day 3:
Me: I'm coming over tonight to cook dinner, do you still have peanut oil in the pantry, or should I get some more?
Girl: Uhm.. I think you have the wrong number?
Me: Michelle?
Girl: No, Carrie.
I had typo'd my sisters number in my contact list on a new phone and was apparently sending some random girl text messages. I wonder what she was thinking during day 1 and day 2: something like, "well, I guess my phone is alive".
There's a difference between staring and looking. The former is rarely appropriate. And women are very aware of the difference.
It is OK to look at that interesting dress she's wearing, it is OK to basically look at her as a whole. Your eyes are going to see 'everything' that is displaying. What you do in the next split second determines if it is creepy or not.
Back when the internet was just beginning to appear on phones, my immediate thought was an opt-in service that did basically what you described.
It would combine a dating service type site along with a location aware app. So you walk into a bar, and you can see a map/list of people in the bar that have also signed up for the service. Instant ice breaker. Walk up, 'I see you signed up for "Get to know people app X" also.' 'I noticed you like ponies, I also like ponies! May I sit down?'