bluefoxlucid, I would kinda like to take all your posts and use them as an illustration of the Wobegon effect. No matter how furiously you handwave, study after study confirms that the average person cannot so quickly react when distracted. So I conclude that you think you're wildly above average. But I believe you are not. It is also possible that you are grinding some ideological axe about government interference, truth be damned.
You're not alone. Tens of thousands of people on the roads think like you every year, and end up dead.
Please review your posts in this thread in light of the eloquent and detailed responses which have been given to you by many people. Driving is the thing most likely to kill you before you get old. And even though you seem to be playing the arrogant buffoon, I still don't want you to be hurt.
most of the problem (weakness in general population) derives directly from the myth that innate/genetic "math ability" exists at all.
Bingo. We're crap at teaching it, so if someone doesn't accidentally "get it" at a young age, we assume they're idiots and throw them on the scrap heap of society.
Aptitudes don't test potential - they merely confirm what variety of shit education a person has been exposed to up to now. Coincidentally, most "brilliant minds" tend to be ones which have had good upbringings and gone to good schools.
Given that and the above, the use of Google Glass creates a significant total risk reduction
Assuming that these "sorority chicks" use a mobile phone as carelessly as you describe, what in God's name makes you think that they're going to use Google Glass responsibly?
And since AIUI it's *cognitive* overload which is most dangerous, not the visual disturbance, Google Glass is going to cause way more problems when given to a dickhead driver than a mobile 'phone.
When confronted with a new scenario, we must start off by identifying familiar, well-researched features - re visibility, concentration, focus - and applying existing knowledge.
You are making an untested hypothesis that Google Glass is a unique combination which forms an exception. That's fine. But "optimism" isn't a basis for deployment, merely a prompt to ignite the research spirit.
But since current understanding is that all the features of HUD glasses make driving more dangerous, it would require a goodly quantity of new, independent research to establish that we have an exception
It's not about being frightened by new things - that's the typical strawman response to rational caution. It's about examining the familiar features of new scenarios and taking them as a starting point, rather than resorting to child-like optimism (which may be beautiful but is entirely unscientific).
So wearing something which deliberately obstructs your field of vision, distracts your concentration and defeats your autofocus is considered dangerous?
That doesn't really show that people are stupid of their own volition - it shows simply that your presenting someone with pre-packaged evidence doesn't mean that
1) you're to be trusted with honesty in that packaging effort; 2) you've presented the evidence clearly; 3) you've presented the evidence so effectively as to show how it must destroy any erroneous old belief.
Put another way, a video is a shit way to learn, and a lecture's not that much better (this includes any talking head on TV). I heartily support and apply variants of the Socratic method.
This doesn't apply only to religious beliefs - yesterday I was helping an undergrad with mathematics. As you describe, they returned to the same misconception several times, even after I'd explained something which could be shown to contradict it. This only ended when I started asking them questions to show where their assumption would lead, enabling them to correct themselves. The "Ooohhhhhhhhh, I see now!" moment usually comes from patient interaction and gentle leading.
Accepted, but producing excellent academic work doesn't give you a free pass to transition to talking bollocks instead.
Newton was noncontentiously brilliant as scientists go, but he spent most of his latter years coming up with theological nonsense. I wouldn't defend his theology on the basis that he had once done some brilliant science.
ETA that's assuming I'm having a serious argument and not just bored trololoing, in which case I'll mock Bible-bashers and those who bash the Bible alike. 'cos ideologues always end up with crappy arguments, regardless of whether they're trying to demonstrate something true, false, or unprovable.
Saying something ridiculous "because they started it" seems cheap - and if the creationist assertion is worthy of ridicule, then just as surely is Dwakins' own statement, with no end to the spat.
I wouldn't even attach emotive descriptions like "ridiculous" to creationist beliefs. Certain assertions of creationism are provably wrong, providing you accept a little philosophical induction (i.e. no "tricks put there by beelzebubbles" card) rather than relying only on Popper's falsifiability. Even then, the method of disproof - no matter how smart scientists like to think they are today - took a long time to establish, and should not be regarded as simple enough for a layperson to quickly grasp.
Put another way, stubbornly sticking to creationism is ridiculous if 1) you are presented with arguments and evidence; and 2) you have the intellectual capacity to apply it. An initial or unthinking belief in creationism is no more ridiculous than any other assumption humans have made before really thinking about the issue - and that includes all the assumptions we still make but some atheist-preacher will label "ridiculous" a hundred years from now.
On the contrary, it is precisely the ignorant people who are willing to learn who you need to bring on side.
Dwakins does nothing but preach to the choir and polarise. He doesn't teach anything new to those who already understand the value of science; he encourages a mistaken understanding of science to neophytes; and he alienates everyone else. This is grand if you actually profit from the fight, and profit more when the fight is bigger - as, indeed, he does.
I used to think that Dwakins had all the hallmarks of a cult leader, but he fails to display any ability to communicate his philosophy except to preach to the choir.
In particular, this remark is a ridiculous non sequitur. "If I find you wrong here is on scale X, then you should believe everything else to be different by scale X." So does that mean that if the Bible was only 10% out, you should believe everything else to be 10% out?
Why can't the man focus on educating the scientific method rather than coming out with meaningless lines to impress his dullard followers? He surely knows he can't use science to "disprove" a religion, so instead he tries to use it to mock religion. Much better would be to show how much more attractive science is for answering practical questions, so that as long as you have a little faith in your memory, you can produce your own new, consistent results today.
Electronic books are extremely resource intensive and require a massive amount of well-maintained centralised infrastructure. It's a huge price to pay for the convenience of "being slightly lighter". I have no problem with people choosing to use an e-reader, but it'll be a dark day in civilisation when the written word is only recorded digitally.
What I'm most happy to see here is France understanding that the country is really a geographical area owned by a government on behalf of the people, with various rights and responsibilities assigned to inhabitants in a way which suits the people. I am required to respect private law merely as a result of being born, and there is even better reason to require me to respect public law.
The boss' strength is in owning 10 cars - the workers' strength is in being able to bargain collectively. Even with your example of a most degenerate union, which does nothing but require membership and collect dues, there is no force: it's still voluntary freedom of assembly. You can say that it's short of optimal productivity, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to arrange it - just as Microsoft shovels out shit by the fuckton, but that doesn't mean we say they shouldn't. The workers are offering their labour, and whatever redresses the balance in their favour is up to them to decide.
In practice, of course, unions do way more than the above.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm going to take a wild guess as to where you've slipped up.
In 2006 in the UK, 6,484 motorcyclists were killed or seriously injured, compared to 14,254 car users. Sounds pretty good for motorcycles, huh?
But there are over 20 times as many cars on the road as motorcycles.
Indeed, per mile travelled, motorcyclists in the UK were 51 times more likely to be killed than car travelled.
DoT figures, if you want to check 'em.
bluefoxlucid, I would kinda like to take all your posts and use them as an illustration of the Wobegon effect. No matter how furiously you handwave, study after study confirms that the average person cannot so quickly react when distracted. So I conclude that you think you're wildly above average. But I believe you are not. It is also possible that you are grinding some ideological axe about government interference, truth be damned.
You're not alone. Tens of thousands of people on the roads think like you every year, and end up dead.
Please review your posts in this thread in light of the eloquent and detailed responses which have been given to you by many people. Driving is the thing most likely to kill you before you get old. And even though you seem to be playing the arrogant buffoon, I still don't want you to be hurt.
Because all of these things are unavoidable, numbnuts.
Checking your e-mail isn't.
In the long run, we're all dead.
We can pretend we're something special, or we can just enjoy the ride. Here's to the ride!
most of the problem (weakness in general population) derives directly from the myth that innate/genetic "math ability" exists at all.
Bingo. We're crap at teaching it, so if someone doesn't accidentally "get it" at a young age, we assume they're idiots and throw them on the scrap heap of society.
Aptitudes don't test potential - they merely confirm what variety of shit education a person has been exposed to up to now. Coincidentally, most "brilliant minds" tend to be ones which have had good upbringings and gone to good schools.
but I would counter with the idea that Google Glass is an immature/experimental product, and isn't necessarily programmed appropriately yet
So it is dangerous as it stands, but something else which is like it (but isn't it) may be safer. OK, we're agreed.
Time taken to refocus on something very close vs a few metres away is not instant (obv - muscles are mechanical).
It also tires your eyes out to do it a lot.
To take an obvious example from geekdom, this is why many people prefer non-glossy LCDs.
How, pray tell, is it able to put information in front of your eyes without blocking what's behind it?
Are you asking me for evidence that cognitive distractions and visual disturbances make driving more dangerous?
Given that and the above, the use of Google Glass creates a significant total risk reduction
Assuming that these "sorority chicks" use a mobile phone as carelessly as you describe, what in God's name makes you think that they're going to use Google Glass responsibly?
And since AIUI it's *cognitive* overload which is most dangerous, not the visual disturbance, Google Glass is going to cause way more problems when given to a dickhead driver than a mobile 'phone.
When confronted with a new scenario, we must start off by identifying familiar, well-researched features - re visibility, concentration, focus - and applying existing knowledge.
You are making an untested hypothesis that Google Glass is a unique combination which forms an exception. That's fine. But "optimism" isn't a basis for deployment, merely a prompt to ignite the research spirit.
But since current understanding is that all the features of HUD glasses make driving more dangerous, it would require a goodly quantity of new, independent research to establish that we have an exception
It's not about being frightened by new things - that's the typical strawman response to rational caution. It's about examining the familiar features of new scenarios and taking them as a starting point, rather than resorting to child-like optimism (which may be beautiful but is entirely unscientific).
So wearing something which deliberately obstructs your field of vision, distracts your concentration and defeats your autofocus is considered dangerous?
Seems about right to me.
The problem is the arms race.
"YOU'RE A NIGGER! And the reason I'm calling you a nigger is a nuanced and clever one..."
If you have to explain that your rhetoric has to be taken a particular way, it wasn't effective.
That doesn't really show that people are stupid of their own volition - it shows simply that your presenting someone with pre-packaged evidence doesn't mean that
1) you're to be trusted with honesty in that packaging effort;
2) you've presented the evidence clearly;
3) you've presented the evidence so effectively as to show how it must destroy any erroneous old belief.
Put another way, a video is a shit way to learn, and a lecture's not that much better (this includes any talking head on TV). I heartily support and apply variants of the Socratic method.
This doesn't apply only to religious beliefs - yesterday I was helping an undergrad with mathematics. As you describe, they returned to the same misconception several times, even after I'd explained something which could be shown to contradict it. This only ended when I started asking them questions to show where their assumption would lead, enabling them to correct themselves. The "Ooohhhhhhhhh, I see now!" moment usually comes from patient interaction and gentle leading.
Accepted, but producing excellent academic work doesn't give you a free pass to transition to talking bollocks instead.
Newton was noncontentiously brilliant as scientists go, but he spent most of his latter years coming up with theological nonsense. I wouldn't defend his theology on the basis that he had once done some brilliant science.
ETA that's assuming I'm having a serious argument and not just bored trololoing, in which case I'll mock Bible-bashers and those who bash the Bible alike. 'cos ideologues always end up with crappy arguments, regardless of whether they're trying to demonstrate something true, false, or unprovable.
Saying something ridiculous "because they started it" seems cheap - and if the creationist assertion is worthy of ridicule, then just as surely is Dwakins' own statement, with no end to the spat.
I wouldn't even attach emotive descriptions like "ridiculous" to creationist beliefs. Certain assertions of creationism are provably wrong, providing you accept a little philosophical induction (i.e. no "tricks put there by beelzebubbles" card) rather than relying only on Popper's falsifiability. Even then, the method of disproof - no matter how smart scientists like to think they are today - took a long time to establish, and should not be regarded as simple enough for a layperson to quickly grasp.
Put another way, stubbornly sticking to creationism is ridiculous if 1) you are presented with arguments and evidence; and 2) you have the intellectual capacity to apply it. An initial or unthinking belief in creationism is no more ridiculous than any other assumption humans have made before really thinking about the issue - and that includes all the assumptions we still make but some atheist-preacher will label "ridiculous" a hundred years from now.
On the contrary, it is precisely the ignorant people who are willing to learn who you need to bring on side.
Dwakins does nothing but preach to the choir and polarise. He doesn't teach anything new to those who already understand the value of science; he encourages a mistaken understanding of science to neophytes; and he alienates everyone else. This is grand if you actually profit from the fight, and profit more when the fight is bigger - as, indeed, he does.
I used to think that Dwakins had all the hallmarks of a cult leader, but he fails to display any ability to communicate his philosophy except to preach to the choir.
In particular, this remark is a ridiculous non sequitur. "If I find you wrong here is on scale X, then you should believe everything else to be different by scale X." So does that mean that if the Bible was only 10% out, you should believe everything else to be 10% out?
Why can't the man focus on educating the scientific method rather than coming out with meaningless lines to impress his dullard followers? He surely knows he can't use science to "disprove" a religion, so instead he tries to use it to mock religion. Much better would be to show how much more attractive science is for answering practical questions, so that as long as you have a little faith in your memory, you can produce your own new, consistent results today.
Think of all the factories, technicians, cables, servers, routers, political agreements, &c. required to maintain an "information economy".
Now check when books were first published.
Electronic books are extremely resource intensive and require a massive amount of well-maintained centralised infrastructure. It's a huge price to pay for the convenience of "being slightly lighter". I have no problem with people choosing to use an e-reader, but it'll be a dark day in civilisation when the written word is only recorded digitally.
What I'm most happy to see here is France understanding that the country is really a geographical area owned by a government on behalf of the people, with various rights and responsibilities assigned to inhabitants in a way which suits the people. I am required to respect private law merely as a result of being born, and there is even better reason to require me to respect public law.
That's a runtime library issue.
Although maybe your argument is that a language should be judged when accompanied precisely by its standard runtime libraries.
And the problem is what, exactly?
The boss' strength is in owning 10 cars - the workers' strength is in being able to bargain collectively. Even with your example of a most degenerate union, which does nothing but require membership and collect dues, there is no force: it's still voluntary freedom of assembly. You can say that it's short of optimal productivity, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to arrange it - just as Microsoft shovels out shit by the fuckton, but that doesn't mean we say they shouldn't. The workers are offering their labour, and whatever redresses the balance in their favour is up to them to decide.
In practice, of course, unions do way more than the above.