So I tested at this sight... and it looks like my reaction time is ~180 to 210 milliseconds (ignoring latency). I think of myself as average but possibly years of playing twitch games have had a beneficial effect. I used to play with a guy who had insane reaction speeds both in games and in sports.
In that entire time, I've had only 5 (maybe 6) occasions when I had to pay attention to the road. In fact, most the time driving home from work people are in a semi-trance like state.
The occasions were very much like the one the tesla encountered. 1) A lady blowing through a stop sign while on her cell phone and braking hard right in front of me. When I skidded to a stop from 30 mph, I was about 2 feet from the side of her car. 2) At night, a car turned out of a business beside the road into my lane and then came to a full stop to turn left about 50-60 feet in front of me. The road had a 45mph speed limit. I was probably doing 48 mph. Even at 45, there was no way I could stop. I had to make a split second judgement to switch lanes fast enough to avoid the cars closing behind me and get by without rear ending him (this seems closest to the truck turning in front of the tesla- maybe expecting it to brake-- maybe not seeing it). 3) An 18 wheeler to my right changed lanes into me without warning as I was passing in the passing lane, caving the top of my car. If I hadn't reacted instantly, I'd have been dead.
---
What I'm saying is that when driving a regular car- it's years between incidents like the one that killed the tesla driver. Short of taking a defensive driving class annually, you will not be in peak driving shape when your moment comes. I agree that auto-driving might make you more careless. But without autodriving you might have died in a prior accident a few months or years before anyway,. -- She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter. Flag as Inappropriate
"This is a simple tool to measure your reaction time.
The average (median) reaction time is 215 milliseconds, according to the data collected so far.
In addition to measuring your reaction time, this test is affected by the latency of your computer and monitor. Using a fast computer, wired mouse, and low latency / high framerate monitor will improve your score somewhat."
Perhaps a combination of years of driving and years of playing team fortress and doom saved my life.
And here's the wierd bit. I would say that I swerved to avoid the car in front of me without conscious decision. I was already passing the car when I realized I was making the maneuver. I didn't have time to react or to plan.
So my distance may have been a bit off, but it may have been muscle memory or long experience or subconciously seeing the car start entering the road. They crossed the outer lane and went to the inner lane (two lanes) I knew I lacked the distance to stop without rear ending them hard.
However... Checking the stopping sites...
at 50mph 73 feet (reaction) 125 feet (stopping)
at 40mph 59 feet 80 feet
So at 48, it would be fair to estimate 70 and 105 feet. The parent said "cars and at 50-60 feet even I would have hit the other car and would have struggled to miss it at 50-60 yards."
Okay, 50-60 yards is crazy high and is more suitable to total reaction and stopping (175 feet). As i said, I didn't try to stop- I swerved into the adjacent lane. It sounds like I was 80-85 feet behind as I missed them by inches. I can see how I would misestimate 50' as 86' in a crisis situation. The danger may have made them seem closer
Anyway.. bottom line, it was one of very few cases where I was actually in a crisis in decades of driving. And an automated car would have probably started braking within.1 seconds and hit the car under 20mph (maybe under 10mph).
I've never been in an accident at fault and other than the 18 wheeler, my other accidents were all from behind while stopped at a red light.
I'm a very cautious driver. I automatically give more than the generous allowance to stop and when cars cut in front of me, I simply continue to fall back. Now that I have waze, I can see that practice costs me maybe 1 minute per 20 minutes of travel in the city and almost nothing on the highway.
While you need to pay attention to the road all the time, in reality you can't. And in reality most people don't even come close.
And most people drive pretty recklessly- tailgating, changing lanes without checking, and (increasingly over the last decade) running red lights (with catastrophic results on two highway feeder roads that I eye witnessed in two cases which makes me frikkin paranoid at red lights on feeder road/underpass crossings which has saved me from being T-Boned once so far).
And then you add in cell phones, makeup, eating (and spilling), kids in the car, arguing, breaking up with a spouse, and exhaustion people are in terrible shape compared to automated vehicles.
In that entire time, I've had only 5 (maybe 6) occasions when I had to pay attention to the road. In fact, most the time driving home from work people are in a semi-trance like state.
The occasions were very much like the one the tesla encountered. 1) A lady blowing through a stop sign while on her cell phone and braking hard right in front of me. When I skidded to a stop from 30 mph, I was about 2 feet from the side of her car. 2) At night, a car turned out of a business beside the road into my lane and then came to a full stop to turn left about 50-60 feet in front of me. The road had a 45mph speed limit. I was probably doing 48 mph. Even at 45, there was no way I could stop. I had to make a split second judgement to switch lanes fast enough to avoid the cars closing behind me and get by without rear ending him (this seems closest to the truck turning in front of the tesla- maybe expecting it to brake-- maybe not seeing it). 3) An 18 wheeler to my right changed lanes into me without warning as I was passing in the passing lane, caving the top of my car. If I hadn't reacted instantly, I'd have been dead.
---
What I'm saying is that when driving a regular car- it's years between incidents like the one that killed the tesla driver. Short of taking a defensive driving class annually, you will not be in peak driving shape when your moment comes. I agree that auto-driving might make you more careless. But without autodriving you might have died in a prior accident a few months or years before anyway,.
I get where they are coming from but I recently read the critical thinking series on GMO food (they have 3 different viewpoints per topic around GMO-- such as nutrition, pesticide implications, and drought tolerance).
Golden rice was specifically mentioned as being much less than promised.
So it's disappointing to see it mentioned by name here.
GMO has value. Monsanto GMO is very suspect. Suicide genes is not something I want built into my the seeds my predominant food is grown from. And pesticide tolerance has lead to massive overuse of pesticides (hundreds of millions of tons more than previously). And that's leading to pesticide tolerant insects.
Personally, I want the food labeled so I can make a rational decision. I know that Monsanto and others have spent over a hundred million bucks so far just to block gmo labeling.
The reality is that if gmo food was 10% cheaper and labeled, within a decade, most people would get used to it and buy it anyway.
but some folks will have bad results. And it's good for them to know what's in the food so they are not at risk.
Oh please, don't try to frighten us with your tales of sorcerer's ways, duckintheface. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the rebels' hidden fort-...
---- 99.999999% of the universe really didn't think much of the jedi or the sith lords (probably because their were so few and they were secretive to boot). A lot did sorta worship the force, but I wonder if many knew it as more than a name with little associated dogma.
It looked like most idiot's didn't even have a clue how bad it was to get into a fight with a jedi.
I wonder where the Skywalker family gets off trying to tell the rest of the galaxy how to live.
In the Star Trek world there is virtual reality, personal replicators, powerful weapons, and, it seems, a very high standard of living for most of humanity, while in Star Wars there is widespread slavery, lots of people seem to live at subsistence, and eventually much of the galaxy falls under the Jedi Reign of Terror. Why the difference?
Slavery was going away by the time of the second trilogy UNDER the empire. Employment was high. Standards of living were decent. There's a big difference between subsistence and living as a rural farmer. The rebel forces were tiny. Most people were happy with the empire. The empire essentially was a large bureaucratic state.
Tyler Cowen writes about some of the factors differentiating the world of Star Wars from that of Star Trek: 1) The armed forces in Star Trek seem broadly representative of society. Compare Uhura, Chekhov, and Sulu to the Imperial Storm troopers.
Imperial Storm Troopers are clones. There's really no comparison.
2) Captains Kirk and Picard do not descend into true power madness, unlike various Sith leaders and corrupted Jedi Knights.
Reasonable point but also uncorrupted jedi knights. The jedi were really on their own trip there and they were mostly perpendicular to the rest of society which didn't care about them any more than performance artists.
3) In Star Trek, any starship can lay waste to a planet, whereas in Star Wars there is a single, centralized Death Star and no way to oppose it, implying stronger checks and balances in the world of Star Trek.
There were many star ships which were incapable of doing significant damage to a planet. There were less than two dozen starships with that level of power prior to next generation. And then, less than a couple hundred. Mostly, they could bombard an area the size of a city. I think the estimate is way off.
A single shot from a star destroyer a single turbolaser can vaporize an asteroid a hundred feet in in diameter. Turbolasers can essentially be fired continuously without a significant drain on the ship power supply. Compare that to phasers which can cut a 10' hole through an unshielded ship (multiple decks)..
All beside the point anyway since It's also been stated that a single ISD bombartment could destroy everything on a planet surface. It's really just a question of time. The sustainable output of an ISD (based on actions taken in the various shows) appears to be on the order of a dozen 50 megaton bombs per second.
4) Star Trek embraces egalitarianism, namely that all humans consider themselves part of the same broader species. There is no special group comparable to the Jedi or the Sith, with special powers in their blood.
All but some extremist humans and special humans (ala Khan) do fit this profile and see themselves of one people.
However, a significant percentage of Humans show PSY potential for powers to greatly exceed that of both Sith or Jedi. These demonstrated powers include telekenisis, pyrokenisis, instantaneous matter creation and manipulation (vastly exceeding jedi)mind reading and telepathy much more useful than jedi mind reading (tho potentially shorter range), etc. (see "Where no Man has gone Before"),
5) Star Trek replicators are sufficiently powerful it seems slavery is highly inefficient in that world.
There appears to be no equivalent to star trek replicators in the Star Wars universe. However, it's been shown that many cultures (including some star faring ones) do not yet have replicator technology.
One way you can cast light on our own society is by showing it as an alien society.
But I don't think we can agree on this because you are white on the right side but I'm white on the left side.
In this light, your point is kinda "conservative blog" dumb.
---
Okay, so second post...
Another thing that writers do is they DO use stereotypes and archtypes as a shorthand.
And unless it is serving the point of highlighting a problem, then it's racist itself.
Many other writers and creators of entertainment material rely on, are racist, and worse- cliched and stereotypical to quickly communicate a lot of information. It's also simplistic. And it also shows the potential for character growth (the klingon pacifist, the generous ferengi) and it also allows a sincere writer to explore the edges of a character and a culture and try to tease out something unique and cool (the honorable klingon who is at odds with her own people).
Your point in this light is pretty spot on. Yes- writers lazily engage in racism. Roddenberry did it and Lucas did it ( lotsa racism- better hidden in the original star wars trilogy- pretty blatant in the second star wars trilogy ).
---
And it's also reality. People are racist. And while the individual isn't a culture- certain cultures do value the individual over the group, or the group over the individual, or view lying as horrible or lying as not a big deal, or have all manner of unique customs and viewpoints.
---
I really feel like your post is a cliched cheap shot. And there's a richness and complexity beyond the simple internet cheapshot post which your post is just a tiny subset of.
It is today especially at companies like Google where employees won't hire skilled applicants because they are too old or they don't "fit the youth culture" (this gem was actually posted to slashdot in the last 12 months. Imagine not hiring a skilled applicant because they don't fit the "male culture" or the "white culture".
Why should you choose a job with such instability and required constant retraining when there are so many other fields with higher status, lower learning requirements, lower working hours (ESPECIALLY no night, weekend, and holiday hours)?
Some have slightly lower pay but the hourly wage is better, work life balance is better, and the chance of really good six figure pay is much better (esp when you figure that programmers in six figure jobs must work in areas where a six figure salary will get you a bed in a van in the parking lot).
They are trying to convince kids to take up these subjects.
Look, if you are genius and / or you just must be in software development, I get it. But for anyone who's not born to it (and very smart/talented- as in top 5%), it's a DUMB career move.
You'll be used, then tossed aside by people with business degrees who will get bonuses for replacing you with indian bachelors degree candidates.
And stop with the night and weekend hours, 72 hour weeks, and low status compared to the sales and marketing wing of the country.
But having a career that ends 20 years after you start is the worst part. It was true even in the late 1980s when i saw lots of 45ish year old programmers laid off and pushed out of the field.
When you combine the low status, long hours, short career window, you can see why people avoid the field.
It sorta has pay going for it- but not so much when you consider the sudden age discrimination end compared to many other fields.
I tried to avoid starting minecraft by watching "Survive & Thrive". It was a really fun 12ish hours before I couldn't resist and bought the game (for pennies). And proceeded to disappear into it as I feared for at least 2 years (and 300-400 hours of play time).
Seriously, you are mistaken. It was more about lack of borders, inability to control immigration of refugees, loss of jobs, and bureaucrats in Brussels setting regulations which everyone has to comply to (essentially equivalent to Federal Law in the United States).
The Brexit people produced some really bad (slanted/lying) data on the regulations by the way. For details,see John Oliver's show on Brexit.
The Eurozone and the EU are related but different things.
I have no opinion on Brexit either way. It will probably be a mixture of good and bad.
The EU is going to try to make it hard because several other members are skating along the edge of leaving and it could become a thing.
And if it does, it might mean regional wars again in a generation.
Most creative jobs still have a lot of non-creative aspects. (hence my 1:20 elimination)
Many creative things are being codified (painting, writing music) with increasing success.
Cost cutting often justifies doing things in a simpler, less creative way. (creative better but not worth it).
Humans in a purely creative environment often "burn out" in less than a decade.
Most humans are not curious or possessing high creativity. (half the population under a 100 IQ by definition).
It could take several generations to adapt and develop new high creativity jobs. So that's 20 to 60 years with most humans unemployable. That's a recipe for civil unrest.
Someone will say that using robots will create jobs- and that's true. But the number of jobs created is 1 per 1000 jobs eliminated. Many jobs that are not eliminated will be reduced by 95% (so you only need 1 person to do the job 20 people do now).
In 1890 in the U.S., there were 52 million horses working and earning a living when the "horseless carriage" came on the scene. By 1920, there were 2-3 million horses left.
Similarly, when the luddites requested training on the new machines, it was refused and they were put out to pasture to die homeless of starvation and exposure. Those who came later mocked them for trying to stop machines. They didn't try to STOP machines until after they had been refused training on the new machines and it was obvious they would starve to death. The army put down their revolt.
---
However, given the "limits to growth" correct predictions about effectively exhausting multiple industrial metals between 2030 and 2050, and the high likelihood that we are in a population overshoot which will result in a couple billion people dying and a permanently lowered carrying capacity by 2100, it's kind of a wash.
If you are reselling it for the same price you bought it for, it's not selfish.
But, allowing resell allows ticket speculation by people who are beyond selfish.
There are two fair options. 1) Selling the named ticket to a person who is the only person that can use it. 2) Starting the ticket off at more appropriate prices to suck the excessive profits out to reduce speculation.
There are a few other approaches to make it harder such as * Limiting tickets sold to one billing address. * Limiting tickets sold to home and apartment addresses. * Limiting tickets buyable by a single purchase method. (So a single buyer would have to have many credit cards)
But selling named tickets is already being done by festivals, some bands, etc. It's a proven method.
I hear you man, I really disagree with the idea of someone who has no interest in the concert, who probably never listened to even one of the bands songs, buy up a hundred and fifty tickets for $30 a pop and then resell them to the fans, some of whom may have followed the band for years, for $750 to $80 depending on the row and section.
Slashdot Mirror
Woot!
After 20 years of this crap, I'd be hard put to believe any thing they trump up to try to pin on her.
So I tested at this sight... and it looks like my reaction time is ~180 to 210 milliseconds (ignoring latency). I think of myself as average but possibly years of playing twitch games have had a beneficial effect. I used to play with a guy who had insane reaction speeds both in games and in sports.
http://www.humanbenchmark.com/...
I've been driving for 40 years now.
In that entire time, I've had only 5 (maybe 6) occasions when I had to pay attention to the road. In fact, most the time driving home from work people are in a semi-trance like state.
The occasions were very much like the one the tesla encountered.
1) A lady blowing through a stop sign while on her cell phone and braking hard right in front of me. When I skidded to a stop from 30 mph, I was about 2 feet from the side of her car.
2) At night, a car turned out of a business beside the road into my lane and then came to a full stop to turn left about 50-60 feet in front of me. The road had a 45mph speed limit. I was probably doing 48 mph. Even at 45, there was no way I could stop. I had to make a split second judgement to switch lanes fast enough to avoid the cars closing behind me and get by without rear ending him (this seems closest to the truck turning in front of the tesla- maybe expecting it to brake-- maybe not seeing it).
3) An 18 wheeler to my right changed lanes into me without warning as I was passing in the passing lane, caving the top of my car. If I hadn't reacted instantly, I'd have been dead.
---
What I'm saying is that when driving a regular car- it's years between incidents like the one that killed the tesla driver. Short of taking a defensive driving class annually, you will not be in peak driving shape when your moment comes.
I agree that auto-driving might make you more careless. But without autodriving you might have died in a prior accident a few months or years before anyway,.
--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Flag as Inappropriate
Also... .25s is a typically quoted average reaction time. (and I have average reaction speed)
However some people react as fast as 0.1 to 0.15 seconds and this site's getting an average of .215 seconds.
http://www.humanbenchmark.com/...
"This is a simple tool to measure your reaction time.
The average (median) reaction time is 215 milliseconds, according to the data collected so far.
In addition to measuring your reaction time, this test is affected by the latency of your computer and monitor. Using a fast computer, wired mouse, and low latency / high framerate monitor will improve your score somewhat."
Perhaps a combination of years of driving and years of playing team fortress and doom saved my life.
Thanks for the supporting comment.
And here's the wierd bit. I would say that I swerved to avoid the car in front of me without conscious decision. I was already passing the car when I realized I was making the maneuver. I didn't have time to react or to plan.
So my distance may have been a bit off, but it may have been muscle memory or long experience or subconciously seeing the car start entering the road. They crossed the outer lane and went to the inner lane (two lanes) I knew I lacked the distance to stop without rear ending them hard.
However...
Checking the stopping sites...
at 50mph
73 feet (reaction)
125 feet (stopping)
at 40mph
59 feet
80 feet
So at 48, it would be fair to estimate 70 and 105 feet.
The parent said "cars and at 50-60 feet even I would have hit the other car and would have struggled to miss it at 50-60 yards."
Okay, 50-60 yards is crazy high and is more suitable to total reaction and stopping (175 feet). As i said, I didn't try to stop- I swerved into the adjacent lane. It sounds like I was 80-85 feet behind as I missed them by inches. I can see how I would misestimate 50' as 86' in a crisis situation. The danger may have made them seem closer
Anyway.. bottom line, it was one of very few cases where I was actually in a crisis in decades of driving. And an automated car would have probably started braking within .1 seconds and hit the car under 20mph (maybe under 10mph).
I live in texas.
I've never been in an accident at fault and other than the 18 wheeler, my other accidents were all from behind while stopped at a red light.
I'm a very cautious driver. I automatically give more than the generous allowance to stop and when cars cut in front of me, I simply continue to fall back. Now that I have waze, I can see that practice costs me maybe 1 minute per 20 minutes of travel in the city and almost nothing on the highway.
While you need to pay attention to the road all the time, in reality you can't. And in reality most people don't even come close.
And most people drive pretty recklessly- tailgating, changing lanes without checking, and (increasingly over the last decade) running red lights (with catastrophic results on two highway feeder roads that I eye witnessed in two cases which makes me frikkin paranoid at red lights on feeder road/underpass crossings which has saved me from being T-Boned once so far).
And then you add in cell phones, makeup, eating (and spilling), kids in the car, arguing, breaking up with a spouse, and exhaustion people are in terrible shape compared to automated vehicles.
I've been driving for 40 years now.
In that entire time, I've had only 5 (maybe 6) occasions when I had to pay attention to the road. In fact, most the time driving home from work people are in a semi-trance like state.
The occasions were very much like the one the tesla encountered.
1) A lady blowing through a stop sign while on her cell phone and braking hard right in front of me. When I skidded to a stop from 30 mph, I was about 2 feet from the side of her car.
2) At night, a car turned out of a business beside the road into my lane and then came to a full stop to turn left about 50-60 feet in front of me. The road had a 45mph speed limit. I was probably doing 48 mph. Even at 45, there was no way I could stop. I had to make a split second judgement to switch lanes fast enough to avoid the cars closing behind me and get by without rear ending him (this seems closest to the truck turning in front of the tesla- maybe expecting it to brake-- maybe not seeing it).
3) An 18 wheeler to my right changed lanes into me without warning as I was passing in the passing lane, caving the top of my car. If I hadn't reacted instantly, I'd have been dead.
---
What I'm saying is that when driving a regular car- it's years between incidents like the one that killed the tesla driver. Short of taking a defensive driving class annually, you will not be in peak driving shape when your moment comes.
I agree that auto-driving might make you more careless. But without autodriving you might have died in a prior accident a few months or years before anyway,.
My grandpa was a nice guy. When I die, i want to die peacefully in my sleep like he did.
Not screaming in terror... like the passengers on his bus as it flew over a cliff at 82 mph.
And you can see VR porn is tiny.
https://www.google.com/trends/...
It's just having a high relative increase from an essentially zero base.
I get where they are coming from but I recently read the critical thinking series on GMO food (they have 3 different viewpoints per topic around GMO-- such as nutrition, pesticide implications, and drought tolerance).
Golden rice was specifically mentioned as being much less than promised.
So it's disappointing to see it mentioned by name here.
For example:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/rice.p...
GMO has value. Monsanto GMO is very suspect. Suicide genes is not something I want built into my the seeds my predominant food is grown from.
And pesticide tolerance has lead to massive overuse of pesticides (hundreds of millions of tons more than previously).
And that's leading to pesticide tolerant insects.
Personally, I want the food labeled so I can make a rational decision. I know that Monsanto and others have spent over a hundred million bucks so far just to block gmo labeling.
The reality is that if gmo food was 10% cheaper and labeled, within a decade, most people would get used to it and buy it anyway.
but some folks will have bad results. And it's good for them to know what's in the food so they are not at risk.
Oh please, don't try to frighten us with your tales of sorcerer's ways, duckintheface. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the rebels' hidden fort-...
----
99.999999% of the universe really didn't think much of the jedi or the sith lords (probably because their were so few and they were secretive to boot). A lot did sorta worship the force, but I wonder if many knew it as more than a name with little associated dogma.
It looked like most idiot's didn't even have a clue how bad it was to get into a fight with a jedi.
I wonder where the Skywalker family gets off trying to tell the rest of the galaxy how to live.
In the Star Trek world there is virtual reality, personal replicators, powerful weapons, and, it seems, a very high standard of living for most of humanity, while in Star Wars there is widespread slavery, lots of people seem to live at subsistence, and eventually much of the galaxy falls under the Jedi Reign of Terror. Why the difference?
Slavery was going away by the time of the second trilogy UNDER the empire.
Employment was high.
Standards of living were decent.
There's a big difference between subsistence and living as a rural farmer.
The rebel forces were tiny. Most people were happy with the empire.
The empire essentially was a large bureaucratic state.
Tyler Cowen writes about some of the factors differentiating the world of Star Wars from that of Star Trek: 1) The armed forces in Star Trek seem broadly representative of society. Compare Uhura, Chekhov, and Sulu to the Imperial Storm troopers.
Imperial Storm Troopers are clones. There's really no comparison.
2) Captains Kirk and Picard do not descend into true power madness, unlike various Sith leaders and corrupted Jedi Knights.
Reasonable point but also uncorrupted jedi knights. The jedi were really on their own trip there and they were mostly perpendicular to the rest of society which didn't care about them any more than performance artists.
3) In Star Trek, any starship can lay waste to a planet, whereas in Star Wars there is a single, centralized Death Star and no way to oppose it, implying stronger checks and balances in the world of Star Trek.
There were many star ships which were incapable of doing significant damage to a planet. There were less than two dozen starships with that level of power prior to next generation. And then, less than a couple hundred. Mostly, they could bombard an area the size of a city. I think the estimate is way off.
A single shot from a star destroyer a single turbolaser can vaporize an asteroid a hundred feet in in diameter. Turbolasers can essentially be fired continuously without a significant drain on the ship power supply. Compare that to phasers which can cut a 10' hole through an unshielded ship (multiple decks)..
All beside the point anyway since It's also been stated that a single ISD bombartment could destroy everything on a planet surface. It's really just a question of time. The sustainable output of an ISD (based on actions taken in the various shows) appears to be on the order of a dozen 50 megaton bombs per second.
4) Star Trek embraces egalitarianism, namely that all humans consider themselves part of the same broader species. There is no special group comparable to the Jedi or the Sith, with special powers in their blood.
All but some extremist humans and special humans (ala Khan) do fit this profile and see themselves of one people.
However, a significant percentage of Humans show PSY potential for powers to greatly exceed that of both Sith or Jedi. These demonstrated powers include telekenisis, pyrokenisis, instantaneous matter creation and manipulation (vastly exceeding jedi)mind reading and telepathy much more useful than jedi mind reading (tho potentially shorter range), etc. (see "Where no Man has gone Before"),
5) Star Trek replicators are sufficiently powerful it seems slavery is highly inefficient in that world.
There appears to be no equivalent to star trek replicators in the Star Wars universe. However, it's been shown that many cultures (including some star faring ones) do not yet have replicator technology.
It's called science fiction.
One way you can cast light on our own society is by showing it as an alien society.
But I don't think we can agree on this because you are white on the right side but I'm white on the left side.
In this light, your point is kinda "conservative blog" dumb.
---
Okay, so second post...
Another thing that writers do is they DO use stereotypes and archtypes as a shorthand.
And unless it is serving the point of highlighting a problem, then it's racist itself.
Many other writers and creators of entertainment material rely on, are racist, and worse- cliched and stereotypical to quickly communicate a lot of information. It's also simplistic. And it also shows the potential for character growth (the klingon pacifist, the generous ferengi) and it also allows a sincere writer to explore the edges of a character and a culture and try to tease out something unique and cool (the honorable klingon who is at odds with her own people).
Your point in this light is pretty spot on. Yes- writers lazily engage in racism. Roddenberry did it and Lucas did it ( lotsa racism- better hidden in the original star wars trilogy- pretty blatant in the second star wars trilogy ).
---
And it's also reality. People are racist. And while the individual isn't a culture- certain cultures do value the individual over the group, or the group over the individual, or view lying as horrible or lying as not a big deal, or have all manner of unique customs and viewpoints.
---
I really feel like your post is a cliched cheap shot. And there's a richness and complexity beyond the simple internet cheapshot post which your post is just a tiny subset of.
It is today especially at companies like Google where employees won't hire skilled applicants because they are too old or they don't "fit the youth culture" (this gem was actually posted to slashdot in the last 12 months. Imagine not hiring a skilled applicant because they don't fit the "male culture" or the "white culture".
Why should you choose a job with such instability and required constant retraining when there are so many other fields with higher status, lower learning requirements, lower working hours (ESPECIALLY no night, weekend, and holiday hours)?
Some have slightly lower pay but the hourly wage is better, work life balance is better, and the chance of really good six figure pay is much better (esp when you figure that programmers in six figure jobs must work in areas where a six figure salary will get you a bed in a van in the parking lot).
They are trying to convince kids to take up these subjects.
Look, if you are genius and / or you just must be in software development, I get it. But for anyone who's not born to it (and very smart/talented- as in top 5%), it's a DUMB career move.
You'll be used, then tossed aside by people with business degrees who will get bonuses for replacing you with indian bachelors degree candidates.
That's actually what I did (plus the training plus going into management).
Retired at 51. Because I saw the layoffs and discrimination when I was young and I listened.
I saved hard.
In the end, right after I retired, the last company laid off 400+ IT guys and replaced them with Infosys.
And stop with the night and weekend hours, 72 hour weeks, and low status compared to the sales and marketing wing of the country.
But having a career that ends 20 years after you start is the worst part. It was true even in the late 1980s when i saw lots of 45ish year old programmers laid off and pushed out of the field.
When you combine the low status, long hours, short career window, you can see why people avoid the field.
It sorta has pay going for it- but not so much when you consider the sudden age discrimination end compared to many other fields.
I tried to avoid starting minecraft by watching "Survive & Thrive". It was a really fun 12ish hours before I couldn't resist and bought the game (for pennies). And proceeded to disappear into it as I feared for at least 2 years (and 300-400 hours of play time).
With xfinity and I think prime.
I watched a couple movies while on a flight with no wifi.
Legally. I downloaded a 3rd to watch while waiting for a connecting flight.
It's spiffy!
Seriously, you are mistaken. It was more about lack of borders, inability to control immigration of refugees, loss of jobs, and bureaucrats in Brussels setting regulations which everyone has to comply to (essentially equivalent to Federal Law in the United States).
The Brexit people produced some really bad (slanted/lying) data on the regulations by the way. For details,see John Oliver's show on Brexit.
The Eurozone and the EU are related but different things.
I have no opinion on Brexit either way. It will probably be a mixture of good and bad.
The EU is going to try to make it hard because several other members are skating along the edge of leaving and it could become a thing.
And if it does, it might mean regional wars again in a generation.
Most creative jobs still have a lot of non-creative aspects. (hence my 1:20 elimination)
Many creative things are being codified (painting, writing music) with increasing success.
Cost cutting often justifies doing things in a simpler, less creative way. (creative better but not worth it).
Humans in a purely creative environment often "burn out" in less than a decade.
Most humans are not curious or possessing high creativity. (half the population under a 100 IQ by definition).
It could take several generations to adapt and develop new high creativity jobs. So that's 20 to 60 years with most humans unemployable. That's a recipe for civil unrest.
Someone will say that using robots will create jobs- and that's true.
But the number of jobs created is 1 per 1000 jobs eliminated. Many jobs that are not eliminated will be reduced by 95% (so you only need 1 person to do the job 20 people do now).
In 1890 in the U.S., there were 52 million horses working and earning a living when the "horseless carriage" came on the scene. By 1920, there were 2-3 million horses left.
Similarly, when the luddites requested training on the new machines, it was refused and they were put out to pasture to die homeless of starvation and exposure. Those who came later mocked them for trying to stop machines. They didn't try to STOP machines until after they had been refused training on the new machines and it was obvious they would starve to death. The army put down their revolt.
---
However, given the "limits to growth" correct predictions about effectively exhausting multiple industrial metals between 2030 and 2050, and the high likelihood that we are in a population overshoot which will result in a couple billion people dying and a permanently lowered carrying capacity by 2100, it's kind of a wash.
It's not really up to them. Individual content owners want to take as much money from you as possible.
So they are all dividing into their own $10 channels- or selling their content for higher prices to other online services.
Personally, if netflix put in ads, I'd be done tho.
I just saw Dramaworld on Netflix- a very good 4ish hours of my life.
If you are reselling it for the same price you bought it for, it's not selfish.
But, allowing resell allows ticket speculation by people who are beyond selfish.
There are two fair options.
1) Selling the named ticket to a person who is the only person that can use it.
2) Starting the ticket off at more appropriate prices to suck the excessive profits out to reduce speculation.
There are a few other approaches to make it harder such as
* Limiting tickets sold to one billing address.
* Limiting tickets sold to home and apartment addresses.
* Limiting tickets buyable by a single purchase method. (So a single buyer would have to have many credit cards)
But selling named tickets is already being done by festivals, some bands, etc. It's a proven method.
I hear you man, I really disagree with the idea of someone who has no interest in the concert, who probably never listened to even one of the bands songs, buy up a hundred and fifty tickets for $30 a pop and then resell them to the fans, some of whom may have followed the band for years, for $750 to $80 depending on the row and section.
But I get that you can only think about yourself.