So are you planning to reconstruct an unchanged society to loose these unchanged children in 20 years from now? If not I feel like maybe teaching them to use the social systems of their time might be valuable -- long ago children used to learn Middle English, but as it turns out technology changes (as does everything else), and children (and parents) much change with it.
I'm not saying that spacial perception will suddenly cease to be important, but the idea that children don't change is absurd.
/ As is the idea that all experience older people have is relevant or useful, or that all of the things younger people think they know better are wrong, or that either side is unjustified in their opinion
If only there were some way to combine technology and social interaction. Something like a systematic way to express and broadcast thoughts and feelings for the purposes of sharing one's mind with other humans and visa versa.
It also fails to acknowledge that LEGO is itself technology -- relatively modern, high technology in the grand scheme of humanity -- or provide any meaningful distinction between "good" technologies like verbal language and "bad" technologies like iPads.
As with virtually all "kids these days" rants it's nothing more than an attempt to relive the past by forcing it on today's young people.
All of society is based on the idea of depriving people of their rights. We trade the right to murder for the right to be secure against murder. We trade the right to enforce our individual political will upon others for the security of representative government. We can debate which things we value and which trades we want to make, but the idea that there's some ideal "free" society is irrational.
They modified the Bill of Rights. Most of the proposed amendments went through without any trouble, in a very short period, without any significant public debate or interaction. If we're going to take intent into account we could reasonably presume that, while they wanted the process to be deliberate, they did not expect it to be arduous.
But again, the basis of your argument is "the Bill of Rights was enacted a long time ago, so we shouldn't change it", which is contrary to the revolutionary actions and contemporary self-governance that the authors of the constitution undertook. If we're going to honor their "intent" we should hold their ancient opinions in less regard and plot our own course.
I made no claim about the "intent" of the authors, other than that it was difficult to determine. I maintain that claim, as you've provided no counter-evidence, nor even a coherent counter-claim. The primary document is not terribly clear, provides almost no direct context or definitions, and was authored in a culture that very few people alive today firmly understand. The document itself does not have a single author, which further complicates the conception of "intent" because it's quite likely that the original authors did not fully share an intent even at the time it was written, just like most jointly authored documents today.
If that claim makes me corrupt I don't want to be subject to your conception of righteous. The idea that you can figure out what a group of people "really meant" by reading a handful of contemporary documents is ludicrous. It's almost as ridiculous as the idea that their intentions matter -- then as now only outcomes matter, as intentions are purely form of internal rationalization.
You know we're allowed to make revisions to the constitution, right? And that they don't have to be mere clarifications to the original text? You know, like the existing 27 amendments do?
Freedom isn't an absolute ideal in and of itself. In any society freedom is balanced against many other goals, like order and security and reliable food production and access to professional soccer. We make many trades among those goals, and it's perfectly reasonable to debate what we should value and what trades we should make. But the idea that somehow any change in values or their balance is necessarily a negative actions because it represents the loss of a specific freedom, or that we need to permanently preserve the particular values that were important to a small group of rich colonists hundreds of years ago is itself tyrannical. We should be free as a people to set our own values for our own time just as the people did when they first formed our government.
I don't know why you think you can determine what long dead people intended based on grammatically ambiguous language with very little context -- most humans have trouble figuring out what the person across the table from them intends, at least without significant interactive discussion.
But more importantly, why do we care what people hundreds of years ago *intended* or even what they *wrote*? What makes them so special? Why don't we get to choose our constitution in the same way they did? They took only a couple of years to add a whole slew of amendments -- why aren't we entitled to do the same, even if our choices now are contrary to their intent at the time?
If anything Internet is *less* anonymous than regular life in the 18th century.
But it's really irrelevant, because we don't have to continue using the best compromise a handful of rich colonists could come up with in 300 years ago -- we get to choose our own laws, including the constitution, just like they did.
I know. The most important way in which we're not all the same is race -- which has an undisputed scientific basis and causal relationship to observed behavior -- which makes it the logical point of division for social problems.
Or it could be that race is merely a dynamic social construct with no clear or stable definition or inherent relationship to behavior and therefore probably not a particularly useful way to frame most social problems.
If we're going to deal with "facts" you first have to make race a "fact" and not just some arbitrary statistical division rooted in historical prejudices. Race isn't a property we can test for scientifically, it's not an inherently part of a person, and studies have shown that neither self-report nor externally-obsereved race are stable over time -- for example, people who have been imprisoned are more likely to identify themselves as black, as are other observers who are aware the subject has been imprisoned, even if they previously identified as another race.
None of which is to say that our individual and shared conceptions of race are unimportant, or uncorrelated with certain behaviors -- just like religion, social constructs can be very important in our lives and can greatly influence our behavior. But the idea that we can "find real answers" by treating violence as a racial problem is as ridiculous as the idea that we can bring peace to Palestine by treating the conflict as a religious problem.
Converting electricity to liquid fuel, and in particular to a liquid fuel compatible with existing infrastructure, is potentially a big win. We're working on more sustainable electricity production, but no matter how much progress we make on the front there are still lots of applications where "throw some batteries at it" isn't a viable option for power storage -- being able to produce fuel from electricity and seawater is a way to bridge that gap in energy delivery without also requiring a breakthrough in electrical storage.
The idea that somehow God is doing us a favor by putting us on the losing side of a rigged game is the sort of explanation you hear from battered spouses.
There are lots of other alternatives. God could have let us have free will but not created evil, for example. In your universe God is in control of literally everything, so he's being a dick just by creating a scenario where negative outcomes are *possible*. The idea that choosing good over evil is good assumes that evil is necessary (and a real thing) in the first place. We don't need bad things to exist to make choices -- we could choose between two good things and it would be just as meaningful.
And he's a double dick for blaming us his behavior, just like domestic abusers.
They're talking about additional, side-view cameras, plus the recently-mandatory rear-view, as an alternative to side view mirrors, which have a number of downsides. No one is talking about taking away the ability to see beside your car.
The efficiency savings differs from car to car. In smaller vehicles it can be something like 1.3 MPG, which is fairly significant. But even if it's only 0.2 MPG, over the life of the car that's still a lot of gas.
Also bear in mind that many modern mirrors are motorized, and sometimes heated -- they're already fairly complex and expensive. And they're a frequently damaged component.
If you're worried about replacing a failed camera system with a physical mirror, I don't understand why that needs to be engineered into the OEM product -- couldn't you just stick an aftermarket mirror on your door panel if you decided you wanted one? It could glue on, or stick into your window frame, without any significant interference to normal operation of the vehicle.
Why would I need to? The only reason mirrors are adjustable is because people's eyes aren't all in the same place while driving. Cameras don't have that problem, and could be engineered to cover the entire relevant area.
The camera could look sideways from the top middle of your car, rather than back from some point out in front of the driver's waist. There could be multiple cameras providing full volumetric coverage of the area. And of course it could just tell you how far away things are with an $0.80 ultrasonic rangefinder.
You don't have to point the camera back. That's a limitation of the mirror. You can have the camera (or a second camera) mounted on the roofline in the middle of your vehicle to provide a clear side view with no need to guess at the distance to the reflection.
Plus there are plenty of us with really bad depth perception that have learned to use other methods to estimate distance; presumably that's a skill others could learn.
The change in view with the change in angle of incidence is one the *problems* with existing mirrors. A camera could be permanently fixed to view exactly the right area, whereas mirrors need to be properly adjusted for each driver, and don't work correctly if you move your head even a little.
Plus it's video -- you can take multiple images and stitch them together (or display multiple views in a single location, as is common in side mirrors in larger vehicles) and you're not limited to the vantage point of the traditional mirror. For example, a combination of a side-rear looking camera from near the driver's position and a side-looking camera from near the back of the car -- and both could be mounted up high, rather than below the window line -- would provide better field-of-view than virtually any existing side view mirror.
Plus no reflected headlights/sun. Heck, with high camera mounting points you can significantly reduce the possibility even of shining a headlight into the camera, let alone blinding the driver.
And of course once you've put a sensor pod on the side of the car and a display in the dash, adding things like ultrasonic proximity detection become much cheaper and easier to integrate into existing driving methodologies.
Slashdot Mirror
The people who keep warning about growing government control over individuals aren't very well versed in history.
So are you planning to reconstruct an unchanged society to loose these unchanged children in 20 years from now? If not I feel like maybe teaching them to use the social systems of their time might be valuable -- long ago children used to learn Middle English, but as it turns out technology changes (as does everything else), and children (and parents) much change with it.
I'm not saying that spacial perception will suddenly cease to be important, but the idea that children don't change is absurd.
/ As is the idea that all experience older people have is relevant or useful, or that all of the things younger people think they know better are wrong, or that either side is unjustified in their opinion
If only there were some way to combine technology and social interaction. Something like a systematic way to express and broadcast thoughts and feelings for the purposes of sharing one's mind with other humans and visa versa.
It also fails to acknowledge that LEGO is itself technology -- relatively modern, high technology in the grand scheme of humanity -- or provide any meaningful distinction between "good" technologies like verbal language and "bad" technologies like iPads.
As with virtually all "kids these days" rants it's nothing more than an attempt to relive the past by forcing it on today's young people.
All of society is based on the idea of depriving people of their rights. We trade the right to murder for the right to be secure against murder. We trade the right to enforce our individual political will upon others for the security of representative government. We can debate which things we value and which trades we want to make, but the idea that there's some ideal "free" society is irrational.
So your argument is "it suited people in the past, and now we're stuck with it"?
They modified the Bill of Rights. Most of the proposed amendments went through without any trouble, in a very short period, without any significant public debate or interaction. If we're going to take intent into account we could reasonably presume that, while they wanted the process to be deliberate, they did not expect it to be arduous.
But again, the basis of your argument is "the Bill of Rights was enacted a long time ago, so we shouldn't change it", which is contrary to the revolutionary actions and contemporary self-governance that the authors of the constitution undertook. If we're going to honor their "intent" we should hold their ancient opinions in less regard and plot our own course.
I made no claim about the "intent" of the authors, other than that it was difficult to determine. I maintain that claim, as you've provided no counter-evidence, nor even a coherent counter-claim. The primary document is not terribly clear, provides almost no direct context or definitions, and was authored in a culture that very few people alive today firmly understand. The document itself does not have a single author, which further complicates the conception of "intent" because it's quite likely that the original authors did not fully share an intent even at the time it was written, just like most jointly authored documents today.
If that claim makes me corrupt I don't want to be subject to your conception of righteous. The idea that you can figure out what a group of people "really meant" by reading a handful of contemporary documents is ludicrous. It's almost as ridiculous as the idea that their intentions matter -- then as now only outcomes matter, as intentions are purely form of internal rationalization.
Exactly. Just like zero lead in your peanuts = more lead in your pistachios.
You know we're allowed to make revisions to the constitution, right? And that they don't have to be mere clarifications to the original text? You know, like the existing 27 amendments do?
So women don't get guns?
As it stands, basically you have to break the law if you want a hippopotamus for self-protection. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Freedom isn't an absolute ideal in and of itself. In any society freedom is balanced against many other goals, like order and security and reliable food production and access to professional soccer. We make many trades among those goals, and it's perfectly reasonable to debate what we should value and what trades we should make. But the idea that somehow any change in values or their balance is necessarily a negative actions because it represents the loss of a specific freedom, or that we need to permanently preserve the particular values that were important to a small group of rich colonists hundreds of years ago is itself tyrannical. We should be free as a people to set our own values for our own time just as the people did when they first formed our government.
I don't know why you think you can determine what long dead people intended based on grammatically ambiguous language with very little context -- most humans have trouble figuring out what the person across the table from them intends, at least without significant interactive discussion.
But more importantly, why do we care what people hundreds of years ago *intended* or even what they *wrote*? What makes them so special? Why don't we get to choose our constitution in the same way they did? They took only a couple of years to add a whole slew of amendments -- why aren't we entitled to do the same, even if our choices now are contrary to their intent at the time?
If anything Internet is *less* anonymous than regular life in the 18th century.
But it's really irrelevant, because we don't have to continue using the best compromise a handful of rich colonists could come up with in 300 years ago -- we get to choose our own laws, including the constitution, just like they did.
I know. The most important way in which we're not all the same is race -- which has an undisputed scientific basis and causal relationship to observed behavior -- which makes it the logical point of division for social problems.
Or it could be that race is merely a dynamic social construct with no clear or stable definition or inherent relationship to behavior and therefore probably not a particularly useful way to frame most social problems.
If we're going to deal with "facts" you first have to make race a "fact" and not just some arbitrary statistical division rooted in historical prejudices. Race isn't a property we can test for scientifically, it's not an inherently part of a person, and studies have shown that neither self-report nor externally-obsereved race are stable over time -- for example, people who have been imprisoned are more likely to identify themselves as black, as are other observers who are aware the subject has been imprisoned, even if they previously identified as another race.
None of which is to say that our individual and shared conceptions of race are unimportant, or uncorrelated with certain behaviors -- just like religion, social constructs can be very important in our lives and can greatly influence our behavior. But the idea that we can "find real answers" by treating violence as a racial problem is as ridiculous as the idea that we can bring peace to Palestine by treating the conflict as a religious problem.
Converting electricity to liquid fuel, and in particular to a liquid fuel compatible with existing infrastructure, is potentially a big win. We're working on more sustainable electricity production, but no matter how much progress we make on the front there are still lots of applications where "throw some batteries at it" isn't a viable option for power storage -- being able to produce fuel from electricity and seawater is a way to bridge that gap in energy delivery without also requiring a breakthrough in electrical storage.
The idea that somehow God is doing us a favor by putting us on the losing side of a rigged game is the sort of explanation you hear from battered spouses.
There are lots of other alternatives. God could have let us have free will but not created evil, for example. In your universe God is in control of literally everything, so he's being a dick just by creating a scenario where negative outcomes are *possible*. The idea that choosing good over evil is good assumes that evil is necessary (and a real thing) in the first place. We don't need bad things to exist to make choices -- we could choose between two good things and it would be just as meaningful.
And he's a double dick for blaming us his behavior, just like domestic abusers.
They're talking about additional, side-view cameras, plus the recently-mandatory rear-view, as an alternative to side view mirrors, which have a number of downsides. No one is talking about taking away the ability to see beside your car.
The efficiency savings differs from car to car. In smaller vehicles it can be something like 1.3 MPG, which is fairly significant. But even if it's only 0.2 MPG, over the life of the car that's still a lot of gas.
Also bear in mind that many modern mirrors are motorized, and sometimes heated -- they're already fairly complex and expensive. And they're a frequently damaged component.
If you're worried about replacing a failed camera system with a physical mirror, I don't understand why that needs to be engineered into the OEM product -- couldn't you just stick an aftermarket mirror on your door panel if you decided you wanted one? It could glue on, or stick into your window frame, without any significant interference to normal operation of the vehicle.
Why would I need to? The only reason mirrors are adjustable is because people's eyes aren't all in the same place while driving. Cameras don't have that problem, and could be engineered to cover the entire relevant area.
The camera could look sideways from the top middle of your car, rather than back from some point out in front of the driver's waist. There could be multiple cameras providing full volumetric coverage of the area. And of course it could just tell you how far away things are with an $0.80 ultrasonic rangefinder.
You don't have to point the camera back. That's a limitation of the mirror. You can have the camera (or a second camera) mounted on the roofline in the middle of your vehicle to provide a clear side view with no need to guess at the distance to the reflection.
Plus there are plenty of us with really bad depth perception that have learned to use other methods to estimate distance; presumably that's a skill others could learn.
The change in view with the change in angle of incidence is one the *problems* with existing mirrors. A camera could be permanently fixed to view exactly the right area, whereas mirrors need to be properly adjusted for each driver, and don't work correctly if you move your head even a little.
Plus it's video -- you can take multiple images and stitch them together (or display multiple views in a single location, as is common in side mirrors in larger vehicles) and you're not limited to the vantage point of the traditional mirror. For example, a combination of a side-rear looking camera from near the driver's position and a side-looking camera from near the back of the car -- and both could be mounted up high, rather than below the window line -- would provide better field-of-view than virtually any existing side view mirror.
Plus no reflected headlights/sun. Heck, with high camera mounting points you can significantly reduce the possibility even of shining a headlight into the camera, let alone blinding the driver.
And of course once you've put a sensor pod on the side of the car and a display in the dash, adding things like ultrasonic proximity detection become much cheaper and easier to integrate into existing driving methodologies.
And pretending the UK doesn't still use it is even more inaccurate.