And part of that responsibility is to teach children, and even grown ups, the value of judgement calls. You cannot just listen to & accept everything from everyone. You need to choose what part you will hear. Either that, or we have to have moral policing rather than free speech. Soon this attempt to ensure that nobody hears evil will become its own hell hole. By curbing creativity and free will.
So, I think, when masses learn to recognise that anorexics are not pretty, the problem will solve itself. Lets just focus on that!
Or not wrong. Even better, at times. Humans today can process so much more *types* (as opposed to volume) of information, we can in fact be more efficient. See the indicator on the car ahead of you? You know he'll have to slow down while making the turn. If you have multiple lanes, you can avoid potIf you have multiple lanes, entially having to brake by preemptively switching lanes. See the car that switched lanes 4 time sin the past 3 mins? Probably want to slow down a bit just to leave him leeway before he swerves into your lane. Safer than the automatic "My lane is clear, keep going" deal. Passanger tells you he recalls a pothole just ahead of the turn on the hill road? Go a notch slower, downshift. See cars stopped at the signal ahead, but notice the signals on the other lane switch? Now you know your sign is going green in 2 seconds. Dont brake, just disengage the clutch. Save fuel, save the brake pads, and still make it in time to smoothly drive past the just gone green signal. It might sound fancy to you, but I have always driven a manual transmission, except when in the US, and I find it waay more eefifcient, controlable, optimal, and even smooth! Really. Auto transmission ensures that you never learn to make those optimizations. It does make it better for teh rookie. But for the guys who've been behind the wheel for years, if they regularly use manual transmission, they can better the auto tansmission all the time. Check out http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2008/10/save-gas-and-money-with-a-stick-shift-10-08/overview/manual-vs-auto-ov.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manual_transmission#Benefits. Manual can be upto 15% more efficient.
So I think tech is good, but we still need to go a long way till we are able to process all the plethora of information the human brain easily factors in. Let's get working!
True indeed! War would be cheaper for highly developed nations where the tech will get cheaper, and manual labour is expensive. That will make war more expensive for the developing nations, whether they try to use the tech which, for them, is more expensive than human labour, or their human soldiers are butchered more efficiently by resilient, easily replceable, surrogates. Corollary: its now easier for the devloped to threaten / impose on the developing. And that, I fear, is a *good idea* for the developed nations.
Of course, we can argue that if its tech that decides the fate of a battle, why bother with the physical expenses? Fight it in a virtual arena. I think not. Humanity thinkin at that level woul dnot permit war of any nature. Where we live, Gulf Watr happens, just as much as Pearl Harbour & Hiroshima.
Slashdot Mirror
And part of that responsibility is to teach children, and even grown ups, the value of judgement calls. You cannot just listen to & accept everything from everyone. You need to choose what part you will hear. Either that, or we have to have moral policing rather than free speech. Soon this attempt to ensure that nobody hears evil will become its own hell hole. By curbing creativity and free will.
So, I think, when masses learn to recognise that anorexics are not pretty, the problem will solve itself. Lets just focus on that!
Or not wrong. Even better, at times. Humans today can process so much more *types* (as opposed to volume) of information, we can in fact be more efficient. See the indicator on the car ahead of you? You know he'll have to slow down while making the turn. If you have multiple lanes, you can avoid potIf you have multiple lanes, entially having to brake by preemptively switching lanes.
See the car that switched lanes 4 time sin the past 3 mins? Probably want to slow down a bit just to leave him leeway before he swerves into your lane. Safer than the automatic "My lane is clear, keep going" deal.
Passanger tells you he recalls a pothole just ahead of the turn on the hill road? Go a notch slower, downshift.
See cars stopped at the signal ahead, but notice the signals on the other lane switch? Now you know your sign is going green in 2 seconds. Dont brake, just disengage the clutch. Save fuel, save the brake pads, and still make it in time to smoothly drive past the just gone green signal.
It might sound fancy to you, but I have always driven a manual transmission, except when in the US, and I find it waay more eefifcient, controlable, optimal, and even smooth! Really.
Auto transmission ensures that you never learn to make those optimizations. It does make it better for teh rookie. But for the guys who've been behind the wheel for years, if they regularly use manual transmission, they can better the auto tansmission all the time. Check out http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2008/10/save-gas-and-money-with-a-stick-shift-10-08/overview/manual-vs-auto-ov.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manual_transmission#Benefits. Manual can be upto 15% more efficient.
So I think tech is good, but we still need to go a long way till we are able to process all the plethora of information the human brain easily factors in. Let's get working!
True indeed! War would be cheaper for highly developed nations where the
tech will get cheaper, and manual labour is expensive. That will make war
more expensive for the developing nations, whether they try to use the
tech which, for them, is more expensive than human labour, or their
human soldiers are butchered more efficiently by resilient, easily
replceable, surrogates. Corollary: its now easier for the devloped to
threaten / impose on the developing. And that, I fear, is a *good idea*
for the developed nations.
Of course, we can argue that if its tech that decides the fate of a
battle, why bother with the physical expenses? Fight it in a virtual
arena. I think not. Humanity thinkin at that level woul dnot permit war
of any nature. Where we live, Gulf Watr happens, just as much as Pearl
Harbour & Hiroshima.
This won't end well.