Speaking of.... I have numbers on how well this works.
I have 2 mozilla profiles. One for "open browsing", and one for tor use, with torbutton set to default to tor enabled. Both use noscript.
"Open" Scripts on: Unique! Scripts off: 1 in 261
Torbutton: Scripts off: 1 in 4775 Scripts on: 1 in 14,605
I would call that a pretty big win for torbutton. A pretty big loss for open browsing in mozilla firefox without noscript (especially if you install a few addons)
I would think chaotic evil would be far more batshit crazy? Or is that just how it gets played. Admittedly I am quite familiar with D&D, its concepts, etc, but never actually played real D&D, so I get the theory, but I could also see how some character alignments would tend to get quite stereotyped.
Overall, I mean, they make for ok storytelling, which is kind of the point, but in terms of life experience, I don't think there are really many evil characters. Good and neutral yes, but evil is often just good disagreement about good, or really neutral.
I mean, thats not to say there are not psychopaths that delight in hurting people, but, they are so rare that I doubt I have ever even met such a person. Certainly most people can exhibit certain characteristics, and some may have very warped moral compasses, but, ive never met anyone that delighted in the thought that he was the bad guy.
If anything it reminds me of what the one social science class that I took called the "Fundamental error of assumption" that is... that we tend to ascribe other peoples actions to being a product of who they are as a person, whereas we tend to ascribe our own actions to external influences.
That is.... I stole some food because its a tight job market, my unemployment ran out, and my kids are starving. You however stole it because you are a thief with no morals.
> Do these elements show socialization skills? Cooperative ability? Evaluation of morals? Imagine if the prison ruled that all > players must be Lawful Good.
Then players will secretly be chaotic evil, masquerading as lawful good. Let's see them stop that!
> If I were imprisoned, I'd consider it a significant investment in an opportunity to work hard on improving myself, so as to no > longer be a detriment to society.
I am not sure that I am comfortable with the assumption that being in prison means being a detriment to society. There are several ways to end up in prison where the detriment to society is quite debatable. I would hope, that if I found myself in prison, it would be for one of those reasons and I wouldn't have to feel bad about myself, simply wronged by the machinery of society.
In any case, I would start with reflecting on whether you actually have anything to rehabilitate. Given how the law is made, and who it is made by, its nowhere near the best standard for figuring out right from wrong. Piss poor one actually.
And in a surprising, yet possibly related discovery, by Austrian and American scientists, Japanese civil engineers were found growing around the edges of a particularly damp bathroom. The research was funded by the MBTA, with a grant from the Department of Homeland Security.
I accept that it claims power for governing bodies who have men with guns. I am afraid of those thugs with their guns.
That is the entire extent to which I accept the constitution. I never signed it, I see no egitimate authority in it, or in the thugs with their guns, or the white haired old men who prattle about on topics that they know little about, who give them their orders.
I think it was only regulations that made us do it. Well, made them do it. When they came to me and asked if I installed their encryption product, I told them that I had been encrypting my drive for over 3 years on my own, and unlike most others, my job really is easier if I run linux than windows, and then I tossed the key size and encryption mode at them (figured if I made their eyes gloss over they wouldn't want to continue the discussion) and told them I would be happy to talk to whoever I have to to get proper approval to use this instead.
They gave me the check mark and moved on. Good thing too, had to send the laptop to the shop a couple of years ago, and they replaced it/kept the old one with hard drive. Had I not been encrypting, that would have been a much bigger deal.
I just saw my first episode of chuck while waiting for Heros to come on. Lucky they did that and changed the time, I had to fiddle with the TV/cable box and missed the first couple of minutes of chuck:) Actually, we were missing the red signal (no wonder the tint didn't fix it) for most of chuck:) good to check the wires.
Anyway, not so much. Its ok for the most part, but when they do their one special effect and pan into his eye... its like... well that whole "suddenly I access some part of my brain and I have skills nobody knew about" thing just irks me. There are portions of my disbelief that I have trouble suspending...its why I can't get into steam punk... its the steam.
I think its just cuz well...you have to display something when power is off. You don't want to leave the page where it is, that would be confusing when you pick it up again. You could blank it out, but, that requires power to change the screen, so why not just put up an image?
Its not like its a real win any way, as long as the user knows at a glance what "off" looks like.
Seriously, terrorism is not such a threat as deserves special attention. In fact, special attention is what it thrives on.
What we need is to realize that tragedies happen and learn to deal with them without running around like chickens with our heads cut off and securing everything that is or isn't bolted down.
You know what could have been the greatest blow to Osaama Bin Laden ever? If not a single flight was grounded or even delayed other than the 4 his men stole on 9/11. If not a singe law changed, if no memorial to his act was built, but construction on the replacement buildings started the next week. Not a commission, not a report, just continue with life and ignore the insignificant bastard.
Instead, we stopped our lives, we compromised our ideals on more fronts than I can count...torture? I mean seriously, what kind of barbarians are we? Freedom? The act so vile I recoil at calling it PATRIOT. Spying on our own people?
Where does it end? It all stems from one thing... fear. Terrorism is so powerful because we make it powerful. We need classes in schools that prepare children from a young age for dealing with tragedy. That way, when we are long gone, and they have grown up and replaced us, that maybe then, terrorism wont be so powerful.
Nothing short of that is going to make a lick of difference.
I was thinking of myself. I would be personally very offended at the idea that someone is looking through my pockets.
Its as simple as that. I just want to travel where I am going, and have my personal space kept inviolate from prying eyes. I don't care so much about the porn factor. I think porn should be legal, and I would personally walk around naked on hot days if it wasn't for ridiculous laws under the mistaken name of decency. However I also like pockets, hence I don't even walk around my house nude.
As far as I am concerned, whats in my pockets should be as sacrosanct as whats in my stomach or head. If you have an true legitimate interest, I may be ok with letting you check, or do a pat down. However, I see no legitimate interest here.
40,000 traffic deaths each year translates to 1 in 30,000 people. Thats why I don't care, its a paultry number and tells me things are about right. Consider what it is for air traffic, and that on the average years its 1 or 2 people in accidents.... and really... there is as much legitimate interest installing these in airports as parking garages. Which is... none at all.
You don't think 5% is quite a lot? 5% of the people going through every day. You do realize how small as few as 1 person per year is probably on the high side for the number of actual dangerous terrorists who try to get on planes with devices? So... you have 5% of the entire population of people flying every day at every airport... and cause them headaches.... all to catch.... 1 guy per year....
and of course... that 1 guy per year, even after he makes it on the plane, still isn't home free... they seem to fail more often than they succeed. I seem to think that they are at best 0-2 since 9/11 in this country. WHats that ratio work out to be?
If we start with the knowledge that we can't stop everything, we go in knowing perfection is impossible in the face of talented and determined enemies, then we have to draw a line somewhere where we say enough is enough.
I think, in terms of airport security, enough was enough during the Reagan Administration.
Whenever these discussions crop up, I always like to remind people of Lawrence Lessig's essay "Insanely Destructive Devices", which starts out with the concrete example of modern biological science as something where a lab coud be built, quite quietly, nearly anywhere outside of a city, and used to produce all manner of deadly things.
It is a classic arms race scenario as tactics evolve on both sides and we see the truth that any technology that is useful can be used for evil purpose as much as good. In the end, the ONLY strategy that makes sense is the strategy of decreasing the perception that attacking us is a viable or worthwhile idea.
Its tempting to use the anaology of covering a torn artery with a band aid. However, terrorism is more like an ant hill. Airport security is like trying to block up an ant hill with sand. You may close the entrance, but, in the end, its a waste of your time.
The only effective way to get rid of the ants is to get rid of them and stop the production of new ones. Pouring sand into their colony entrances may make you feel better, but, don't ask me to make sacrifices for your absurd quest.
Make the scanner 100% effective, and the terrorists will just say "hey, guess we can't hit planes, how are the trains looking? How about movie theaters?". In the end, tragedy will not be averted. All that will happen is the airline industry will have a government supplied scapegoat for any failures that do happen.
Why is my privacy worth less than futile attempts to prevent imaginary plots? The absolute best case scenario is a different group of people dies. Sorry if I am a bit non-plussed.
I wouldn't say it that way at all.... because there is an implicit assumption that by giving up my privacy, you can stop that plane a year. I conceed MAYBE you can. However, you will just make them change tactics. Instead of planes, it will be trains, or movie theaters. In the end, all you can do is fail. So, no, its not worth whats left of my privacy to fail at stopping terrorists.
Though, that is the whole issue. Why do we even have this debate? Why do we need these scanners in the first place. Simple answer: we don't.
All they will do is inconvinience and hassle anyone with some minor indiscretion to hide (like a few pills or a bag of pot), which will be essentially as close to 100% of the people going through as it gets. All to catch... well... who exactly?
We see one of these bomb incidents maybe once a year? Twice? Throughout most of the world? Then on top of it, a significant number of those, fail to even work, or are stopped on the plane by the now alarmed passengers. All this, without said scanners in place.
Seems to me all this is.... a huge waste of time and money.... all justified by dramatic images of families and children dieing in tragic plane crashes. Even though, its a farce. Those same children are WAY more likely to die in random car crashes, or from the flu than some terrorist act.
I keep seeing a room full of bearded turbin headed men exclaiming how wonderful it is that they don't even have to succeed in blowing anything up and the whole western world cowers in fear and runs around like a bunch of ninnies over it.
They are just jealous because they never got that transubstantiation miracle to work right. That or the 2000 year old zombie flesh tastes conspicuously like unleavened bread... which tastes conspicuously like cardboard. Frankly, I think that they would do a lot better if they started out with a pork roast. At the very least it would require a bit less suspension of disbelief when the Saviour is rolling around in your mouth.
Meh, dumping it a couple of times while learning isn't too uncommon. The first time was my first time comming off an incline from a stop onto level ground. More tricky than you might expect while your still learning to use a clutch.
The second was a stupid one, I was going a bit fast around a turn and the person in front of me hit his brakes. Also, being my first couple of weeks on the bike, I did the same. Boy do those wheels come out from under you fast.
The third was also inexperience. I crossed an intersection as someone turned onto my road into a speed up lane. She had a fair distance before her lane ended, and I was going much faster than her (she just turned 90 degrees). I didn't realize she wasn't going to see me from that angle and would probably assume my lane was open and she could move right into it, even before being up to speed.
The road was wet of course. Thats no excuse though, I didn't hit her and a bike on its wheels has more stopping power than one on its side. So I should have been able to stop safely. I also should have known that she can't see into her blind spot and avoided coming into it the way I did (even if I had right of way).
Re:The human eye can dectect 30
on
Framerates Matter
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
> The human mind is evolutionary designed to make instant assumptions. Cat in mid air facing us = DANGER. No "Is it dead > and being thrown at us?" No "Is it a picture?" As such, video games can quite easily take advantage of this evolutionary > assumptions and trick the MIND, if not the brain. into thinking something is real.
Sort of. Its actually less "Cat in mid air" and more "This sets off a trigger based on something that happened before and hurt me".
Most adults, if you chuck a rock at their face, will toss up their arms to block, or move their head/body to dodge. This is completely learned. Do the same trick with a young child who has never played "catch" before, and your rock is going to bean him right off his skull.
From my own experience, my first motorcycle accident, I was on the ground so fast, I had to think afterwards about what happened. First two spills actually.
The one after those.... whole different story. The adrenalin hit as soon as I felt the bike start to turn sideways, by the time the bike was fully 90 degrees to my momentum vector, and the wheels were sliding out from under me, I was already calmly kicking my legs backwards and positioning myself for the impact. I hit the ground and slid 150 feet while watching my bike spark and slide away. I thought "shit I am in traffic" jumped to my feet and ran to the bike, picked it up and pushed it into a parking lot.
All I am saying is, its more complicated than that. The memory of such things and whole "flight or fight" response is an evolving and learning response. Its more than just visual, it encompasses all the senses. I doubt "cat facing us in mid air" is going to trigger much beyond anything in mid air moving towards us.
The company that I work for has a number of partners. Its a complicated relationship to say the least. Well it was realized that if all of our partner institutions got together and decided on one specific brand of one specific item, they could save a few million dollars a year by negotiating their purchase together.
Now, before you imaging this item is too complicated... its basically a specially shaped plastic cup.
So a meeting was called, it was filled with about 10 high level executives from the various institutions. They talked, they discussed. They adjourned...without a decision.
So in addition to continuing to waste a few million a year, they wasted each others very expensive time. Excellent. We figiured that meeting had to cost a few grand an hour.
But are you sure that you really did? And WHY was it so much?
We had "Flavia" machines for a while. Sure, the selection was nice, but it was probably expensive. It certainly used a lot of packaging that needed to be thrown out. Not very "green".
Now we have a large coffee maker that makes a whole "urn" at a time, and three urns. One for "Dark", "Regular", and "Decaf"
We get packets of ground coffee, and the maker is hooked up to the water supply. Cheap to setup, cheap to operate. If they really wanted to save, we could get beans and grind them ourselves.
Now... take it if we got rid of free coffee. That means I need to go get coffee if I want it... or have a coffee machine at my desk. Either way, that means each and every coffee drinker has to spend time making coffee for himself (instead of once for several people) or has to individually leave, and go get some.
I would bet that the company loses at least a half hour per coffee drinker per day JUST by not having coffee available right there for the pouring.
Think that translates into real savings when compared to moving to cheaper methods of supply?
Actually, when I bought mine, the salesman actually managed to talk himself out of some extras that I wanted.
See, my grandfather had offered to buy me a car, like he did for my sister. I said wait, hows about you let me pick the car, and I will finance the amount over what you planned to spend. They were ok with that (which is good, I didn't want a GM car).
In fact, I wanted a VW Jetta 1.8T. The salesman that we talked to was the "internet sales guy" (probaby because I emailed first). He was obviously not a real salesman. When I slyly asked about the 1.8T and how I heard it was so fuel efficient it was.... well a real salesman would have picked up on the fact that I was avoiding talking about how fast it was in front of my grandfather.
He agreed "Yes very fuel efficient. But its fast too, very fast if your not used to something with that much power. I just upgraded to that myself". I looked over at my grandfather and he was just shaking his head "no". Talk about selecting the wrong pitch for your customer.
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking of.... I have numbers on how well this works.
I have 2 mozilla profiles. One for "open browsing", and one for tor use, with torbutton set to default to tor enabled.
Both use noscript.
"Open"
Scripts on: Unique!
Scripts off: 1 in 261
Torbutton:
Scripts off: 1 in 4775
Scripts on: 1 in 14,605
I would call that a pretty big win for torbutton. A pretty big loss for open browsing in mozilla firefox without noscript (especially if you install a few addons)
-Steve
I would think chaotic evil would be far more batshit crazy? Or is that just how it gets played. Admittedly I am quite familiar with D&D, its concepts, etc, but never actually played real D&D, so I get the theory, but I could also see how some character alignments would tend to get quite stereotyped.
Overall, I mean, they make for ok storytelling, which is kind of the point, but in terms of life experience, I don't think there are really many evil characters. Good and neutral yes, but evil is often just good disagreement about good, or really neutral.
I mean, thats not to say there are not psychopaths that delight in hurting people, but, they are so rare that I doubt I have ever even met such a person. Certainly most people can exhibit certain characteristics, and some may have very warped moral compasses, but, ive never met anyone that delighted in the thought that he was the bad guy.
If anything it reminds me of what the one social science class that I took called the "Fundamental error of assumption" that is... that we tend to ascribe other peoples actions to being a product of who they are as a person, whereas we tend to ascribe our own actions to external influences.
That is.... I stole some food because its a tight job market, my unemployment ran out, and my kids are starving. You however stole it because you are a thief with no morals.
-Steve
Just out of curiosity, what is her email address?
Its whatever keys vaporize from the force of his round house.
> Do these elements show socialization skills? Cooperative ability? Evaluation of morals? Imagine if the prison ruled that all
> players must be Lawful Good.
Then players will secretly be chaotic evil, masquerading as lawful good. Let's see them stop that!
> If I were imprisoned, I'd consider it a significant investment in an opportunity to work hard on improving myself, so as to no
> longer be a detriment to society.
I am not sure that I am comfortable with the assumption that being in prison means being a detriment to society. There are several ways to end up in prison where the detriment to society is quite debatable. I would hope, that if I found myself in prison, it would be for one of those reasons and I wouldn't have to feel bad about myself, simply wronged by the machinery of society.
In any case, I would start with reflecting on whether you actually have anything to rehabilitate. Given how the law is made, and who it is made by, its nowhere near the best standard for figuring out right from wrong. Piss poor one actually.
-Steve
And in a surprising, yet possibly related discovery, by Austrian and American scientists, Japanese civil engineers were found growing around the edges of a particularly damp bathroom. The research was funded by the MBTA, with a grant from the Department of Homeland Security.
Your right, and its sad but true.
Speak for yourself.
I accept that it claims power for governing bodies who have men with guns. I am afraid of those thugs with their guns.
That is the entire extent to which I accept the constitution. I never signed it, I see no egitimate authority in it, or in the thugs with their guns, or the white haired old men who prattle about on topics that they know little about, who give them their orders.
-Steve
Have you worked in health care...recently?
I think it was only regulations that made us do it. Well, made them do it. When they came to me and asked if I installed their encryption product, I told them that I had been encrypting my drive for over 3 years on my own, and unlike most others, my job really is easier if I run linux than windows, and then I tossed the key size and encryption mode at them (figured if I made their eyes gloss over they wouldn't want to continue the discussion) and told them I would be happy to talk to whoever I have to to get proper approval to use this instead.
They gave me the check mark and moved on. Good thing too, had to send the laptop to the shop a couple of years ago, and they replaced it/kept the old one with hard drive. Had I not been encrypting, that would have been a much bigger deal.
-Steve
I just saw my first episode of chuck while waiting for Heros to come on. Lucky they did that and changed the time, I had to fiddle with the TV/cable box and missed the first couple of minutes of chuck :) Actually, we were missing the red signal (no wonder the tint didn't fix it) for most of chuck :) good to check the wires.
Anyway, not so much. Its ok for the most part, but when they do their one special effect and pan into his eye... its like... well that whole
"suddenly I access some part of my brain and I have skills nobody knew about" thing just irks me. There are portions of my disbelief that I have trouble suspending...its why I can't get into steam punk... its the steam.
-Steve
I think its just cuz well...you have to display something when power is off. You don't want to leave the page where it is, that would be confusing when you pick it up again. You could blank it out, but, that requires power to change the screen, so why not just put up an image?
Its not like its a real win any way, as long as the user knows at a glance what "off" looks like.
Why do we even need profiling?
Seriously, terrorism is not such a threat as deserves special attention. In fact, special attention is what it thrives on.
What we need is to realize that tragedies happen and learn to deal with them without running around like chickens with our heads cut off and securing everything that is or isn't bolted down.
You know what could have been the greatest blow to Osaama Bin Laden ever? If not a single flight was grounded or even delayed other than the 4 his men stole on 9/11. If not a singe law changed, if no memorial to his act was built, but construction on the replacement buildings started the next week. Not a commission, not a report, just continue with life and ignore the insignificant bastard.
Instead, we stopped our lives, we compromised our ideals on more fronts than I can count ...torture? I mean seriously, what kind of barbarians are we? Freedom? The act so vile I recoil at calling it PATRIOT. Spying on our own people?
Where does it end? It all stems from one thing... fear. Terrorism is so powerful because we make it powerful. We need classes in schools that prepare children from a young age for dealing with tragedy. That way, when we are long gone, and they have grown up and replaced us, that maybe then, terrorism wont be so powerful.
Nothing short of that is going to make a lick of difference.
I was thinking of myself. I would be personally very offended at the idea that someone is looking through my pockets.
Its as simple as that. I just want to travel where I am going, and have my personal space kept inviolate from prying eyes. I don't care so much about the porn factor. I think porn should be legal, and I would personally walk around naked on hot days if it wasn't for ridiculous laws under the mistaken name of decency. However I also like pockets, hence I don't even walk around my house nude.
As far as I am concerned, whats in my pockets should be as sacrosanct as whats in my stomach or head. If you have an true legitimate interest, I may be ok with letting you check, or do a pat down. However, I see no legitimate interest here.
40,000 traffic deaths each year translates to 1 in 30,000 people. Thats why I don't care, its a paultry number and tells me things are about right. Consider what it is for air traffic, and that on the average years its 1 or 2 people in accidents.... and really... there is as much legitimate interest installing these in airports as parking garages. Which is... none at all.
-Steve
You don't think 5% is quite a lot? 5% of the people going through every day. You do realize how small as few as 1 person per year is probably on the high side for the number of actual dangerous terrorists who try to get on planes with devices? So... you have 5% of the entire population of people flying every day at every airport... and cause them headaches.... all to catch.... 1 guy per year....
and of course... that 1 guy per year, even after he makes it on the plane, still isn't home free... they seem to fail more often than they succeed. I seem to think that they are at best 0-2 since 9/11 in this country. WHats that ratio work out to be?
If we start with the knowledge that we can't stop everything, we go in knowing perfection is impossible in the face of talented and determined enemies, then we have to draw a line somewhere where we say enough is enough.
I think, in terms of airport security, enough was enough during the Reagan Administration.
-Steve
Whenever these discussions crop up, I always like to remind people of Lawrence Lessig's essay "Insanely Destructive Devices", which starts out with the concrete example of modern biological science as something where a lab coud be built, quite quietly, nearly anywhere outside of a city, and used to produce all manner of deadly things.
It is a classic arms race scenario as tactics evolve on both sides and we see the truth that any technology that is useful can be used for evil purpose as much as good. In the end, the ONLY strategy that makes sense is the strategy of decreasing the perception that attacking us is a viable or worthwhile idea.
Its tempting to use the anaology of covering a torn artery with a band aid. However, terrorism is more like an ant hill. Airport security is like trying to block up an ant hill with sand. You may close the entrance, but, in the end, its a waste of your time.
The only effective way to get rid of the ants is to get rid of them and stop the production of new ones. Pouring sand into their colony entrances may make you feel better, but, don't ask me to make sacrifices for your absurd quest.
preferable to what?
Make the scanner 100% effective, and the terrorists will just say "hey, guess we can't hit planes, how are the trains looking? How about movie theaters?". In the end, tragedy will not be averted. All that will happen is the airline industry will have a government supplied scapegoat for any failures that do happen.
Why is my privacy worth less than futile attempts to prevent imaginary plots? The absolute best case scenario is a different group of people dies. Sorry if I am a bit non-plussed.
-Steve
I wouldn't say it that way at all.... because there is an implicit assumption that by giving up my privacy, you can stop that plane a year. I conceed MAYBE you can. However, you will just make them change tactics. Instead of planes, it will be trains, or movie theaters. In the end, all you can do is fail. So, no, its not worth whats left of my privacy to fail at stopping terrorists.
-Steve
I think you hit the nail right on the head.
Though, that is the whole issue. Why do we even have this debate? Why do we need these scanners in the first place. Simple answer: we don't.
All they will do is inconvinience and hassle anyone with some minor indiscretion to hide (like a few pills or a bag of pot), which will be essentially as close to 100% of the people going through as it gets. All to catch... well... who exactly?
We see one of these bomb incidents maybe once a year? Twice? Throughout most of the world? Then on top of it, a significant number of those, fail to even work, or are stopped on the plane by the now alarmed passengers. All this, without said scanners in place.
Seems to me all this is.... a huge waste of time and money.... all justified by dramatic images of families and children dieing in tragic plane crashes. Even though, its a farce. Those same children are WAY more likely to die in random car crashes, or from the flu than some terrorist act.
I keep seeing a room full of bearded turbin headed men exclaiming how wonderful it is that they don't even have to succeed in blowing anything up and the whole western world cowers in fear and runs around like a bunch of ninnies over it.
They are just jealous because they never got that transubstantiation miracle to work right. That or the 2000 year old zombie flesh tastes conspicuously like unleavened bread... which tastes conspicuously like cardboard. Frankly, I think that they would do a lot better if they started out with a pork roast. At the very least it would require a bit less suspension of disbelief when the Saviour is rolling around in your mouth.
Yet still more fitting if he filled their pants with hot grits
Meh, dumping it a couple of times while learning isn't too uncommon. The first time was my first time comming off an incline from a stop onto level ground. More tricky than you might expect while your still learning to use a clutch.
The second was a stupid one, I was going a bit fast around a turn and the person in front of me hit his brakes. Also, being my first couple of weeks on the bike, I did the same. Boy do those wheels come out from under you fast.
The third was also inexperience. I crossed an intersection as someone turned onto my road into a speed up lane. She had a fair distance before her lane ended, and I was going much faster than her (she just turned 90 degrees). I didn't realize she wasn't going to see me from that angle and would probably assume my lane was open and she could move right into it, even before being up to speed.
The road was wet of course. Thats no excuse though, I didn't hit her and a bike on its wheels has more stopping power than one on its side. So I should have been able to stop safely. I also should have known that she can't see into her blind spot and avoided coming into it the way I did (even if I had right of way).
> The human mind is evolutionary designed to make instant assumptions. Cat in mid air facing us = DANGER. No "Is it dead
> and being thrown at us?" No "Is it a picture?" As such, video games can quite easily take advantage of this evolutionary
> assumptions and trick the MIND, if not the brain. into thinking something is real.
Sort of. Its actually less "Cat in mid air" and more "This sets off a trigger based on something that happened before and hurt me".
Most adults, if you chuck a rock at their face, will toss up their arms to block, or move their head/body to dodge. This is completely learned. Do the same trick with a young child who has never played "catch" before, and your rock is going to bean him right off his skull.
From my own experience, my first motorcycle accident, I was on the ground so fast, I had to think afterwards about what happened. First two spills actually.
The one after those.... whole different story. The adrenalin hit as soon as I felt the bike start to turn sideways, by the time the bike was fully 90 degrees to my momentum vector, and the wheels were sliding out from under me, I was already calmly kicking my legs backwards and positioning myself for the impact. I hit the ground and slid 150 feet while watching my bike spark and slide away. I thought "shit I am in traffic" jumped to my feet and ran to the bike, picked it up and pushed it into a parking lot.
All I am saying is, its more complicated than that. The memory of such things and whole "flight or fight" response is an evolving and learning response. Its more than just visual, it encompasses all the senses. I doubt "cat facing us in mid air" is going to trigger much beyond anything in mid air moving towards us.
The company that I work for has a number of partners. Its a complicated relationship to say the least. Well it was realized that if all of our partner institutions got together and decided on one specific brand of one specific item, they could save a few million dollars a year by negotiating their purchase together.
Now, before you imaging this item is too complicated... its basically a specially shaped plastic cup.
So a meeting was called, it was filled with about 10 high level executives from the various institutions. They talked, they discussed. They adjourned...without a decision.
So in addition to continuing to waste a few million a year, they wasted each others very expensive time. Excellent.
We figiured that meeting had to cost a few grand an hour.
-Steve
But are you sure that you really did? And WHY was it so much?
We had "Flavia" machines for a while. Sure, the selection was nice, but it was probably expensive. It certainly used a lot of packaging that needed to be thrown out. Not very "green".
Now we have a large coffee maker that makes a whole "urn" at a time, and three urns. One for "Dark", "Regular", and "Decaf"
We get packets of ground coffee, and the maker is hooked up to the water supply. Cheap to setup, cheap to operate. If they really wanted to save, we could get beans and grind them ourselves.
Now... take it if we got rid of free coffee. That means I need to go get coffee if I want it... or have a coffee machine at my desk. Either way, that means each and every coffee drinker has to spend time making coffee for himself (instead of once for several people) or has to individually leave, and go get some.
I would bet that the company loses at least a half hour per coffee drinker per day JUST by not having coffee available right there for the pouring.
Think that translates into real savings when compared to moving to cheaper methods of supply?
-Steve
Actually, when I bought mine, the salesman actually managed to talk himself out of some extras that I wanted.
See, my grandfather had offered to buy me a car, like he did for my sister. I said wait, hows about you let me pick the car, and I will finance the amount over what you planned to spend. They were ok with that (which is good, I didn't want a GM car).
In fact, I wanted a VW Jetta 1.8T. The salesman that we talked to was the "internet sales guy" (probaby because I emailed first). He was obviously not a real salesman. When I slyly asked about the 1.8T and how I heard it was so fuel efficient it was.... well a real salesman would have picked up on the fact that I was avoiding talking about how fast it was in front of my grandfather.
He agreed "Yes very fuel efficient. But its fast too, very fast if your not used to something with that much power. I just upgraded to that myself". I looked over at my grandfather and he was just shaking his head "no". Talk about selecting the wrong pitch for your customer.
-Steve