Christopher Landry's Comments
Well, yes, that is to be hoped.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Very cool that people are working on ways to help people who need help.
Although, I'm a little confused. Wasn't this one of the many things that Google Glass could do? As in, wouldn't it have just been another app for that product? Also, when I look up the price for GG, it seems to be $1500. Also 2, I'm pretty sure GG has translation software included, so it could do this in a hundred or so languages. So what makes this better than GG? There's gotta be something about it that justifies the extra $1000-$2000 extra, right?
Although, I'm a little confused. Wasn't this one of the many things that Google Glass could do? As in, wouldn't it have just been another app for that product? Also, when I look up the price for GG, it seems to be $1500. Also 2, I'm pretty sure GG has translation software included, so it could do this in a hundred or so languages. So what makes this better than GG? There's gotta be something about it that justifies the extra $1000-$2000 extra, right?
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
I've complained about that plot hole myself a few times. Another big one is local police/militia/vigilantes. That is to say, when people start turning in a town/village/city and moving around out in the open acting in a manner that is clearly A) not normal and B) hostile toward other humans, there will be folks that will deal with that very obvious threat in the same way that they would deal with a pack of rabid bears running amok in the area. When the first few zombies become obvious, they'll be put down, long before they have a chance of turning more than a tiny portion of the local population, I would suspect.
Basically, the local police/militia/vigilantes are the slightly better equipped, better fed, and more numerous version of the rag-tag band of wanderers. The only downside to their activities will be the inevitable collateral damage of killing more people than have actually turned. In effect, they'd be more than 100% effective: they'd kill all of the zombies and several non-infected that they suspect might be infected. And once they start they will most likely remain in place for years after all of the infected are wiped out, so any new cases that appear will be dealt with even faster than the first set.
Basically, the local police/militia/vigilantes are the slightly better equipped, better fed, and more numerous version of the rag-tag band of wanderers. The only downside to their activities will be the inevitable collateral damage of killing more people than have actually turned. In effect, they'd be more than 100% effective: they'd kill all of the zombies and several non-infected that they suspect might be infected. And once they start they will most likely remain in place for years after all of the infected are wiped out, so any new cases that appear will be dealt with even faster than the first set.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Arguably, a person only has to spot one of the snakes to know that the tree is bad news and steer clear. The downside there is if you miss the snake that isn't near this tree and steer toward that one instead.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
If the new experimental treatments that don't involve destroying most of your body first were available, this would be different. As it is now, chemo is more likely to kill her faster than the cancer, and keep her more uncomfortable/in pain in the process.
Good choice, Norma.
Good choice, Norma.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
A credits scroll for a person receiving an award that can be summed up as "Appeared in a particular spot in a credits scroll..."
I love it. It seems very poetic.
I love it. It seems very poetic.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Awesome idea, really it is... except that about 70% of crashes occur during takeoff or landing, so detach-parachute would be useless. I'd rather see a system that was primarily designed to help during the 70% of crashes and might or might not work during the other 30%.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
That is definitely impressive.
Also impressive (to me, at least) is how bundled up she is at 70 degrees F.
Also impressive (to me, at least) is how bundled up she is at 70 degrees F.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
No, I see it as a regulated freedom of speech situation. Remember, there are two "persons" here whose rights must be protected, and whose interests are at odds with one another. Persons' rights, not corporations rights. I'll get to the corporation issue in a bit.
On the one hand, the person who wants to be racist and make a racist website has a right to free speech, especially on the internet.
On the other hand, the persons who may have been victims of this breed of injustice have a right to not have racism shoved in their face on their morning commute.
So, since any single website is entirely avoidable, but a billboard might be unavoidable for certain individuals, the website owner has a right to keep their website, but the persons who feel pain at the sight of such a billboard have a right to make their commute to work without seeing it or having to drive a different, possibly more costly, route.
It is easy to see the pain on one side of this issue and focus entirely on trying to create an idealistic world where that person never accidentally feels pain again, but that can only happen in an ideal world, or under a government that crushes all freedom of expression. or a country that is entirely populated by robots.
In the real world, where we want to have freedom of expression but still offer some protection from pain, we have to find a balance between protecting the rights of both of these persons.
In terms of corporation vs person, it seems you're calling the city a corporation here, which is very odd to me, but I'll run with that notion if that is your reasoning. The city only has the right of regulation to protect people, it isn't actually allowed any opinion on the matter. It can't be offended, or shouldn't be, since, as a whole, it is required to be impartial as a law creator/enforcer. It can only act to protect person's who fall under their jurisdiction.
So, in this case, I can understand the city creating a law that would protect the persons who feel pain at the site of such a billboard. As far as the city is concerned, the matter ends there: they have protected persons under their jurisdiction.
The country (a much larger corporation, by your logic), should also judge the situation impartially, and determine that the city has a right to do what it did, but that the person who created the website has a right to express their opinion on that website.
On the one hand, the person who wants to be racist and make a racist website has a right to free speech, especially on the internet.
On the other hand, the persons who may have been victims of this breed of injustice have a right to not have racism shoved in their face on their morning commute.
So, since any single website is entirely avoidable, but a billboard might be unavoidable for certain individuals, the website owner has a right to keep their website, but the persons who feel pain at the sight of such a billboard have a right to make their commute to work without seeing it or having to drive a different, possibly more costly, route.
It is easy to see the pain on one side of this issue and focus entirely on trying to create an idealistic world where that person never accidentally feels pain again, but that can only happen in an ideal world, or under a government that crushes all freedom of expression. or a country that is entirely populated by robots.
In the real world, where we want to have freedom of expression but still offer some protection from pain, we have to find a balance between protecting the rights of both of these persons.
In terms of corporation vs person, it seems you're calling the city a corporation here, which is very odd to me, but I'll run with that notion if that is your reasoning. The city only has the right of regulation to protect people, it isn't actually allowed any opinion on the matter. It can't be offended, or shouldn't be, since, as a whole, it is required to be impartial as a law creator/enforcer. It can only act to protect person's who fall under their jurisdiction.
So, in this case, I can understand the city creating a law that would protect the persons who feel pain at the site of such a billboard. As far as the city is concerned, the matter ends there: they have protected persons under their jurisdiction.
The country (a much larger corporation, by your logic), should also judge the situation impartially, and determine that the city has a right to do what it did, but that the person who created the website has a right to express their opinion on that website.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
I see no issue with the site existing. People should be free to do whatever racist or segragationist things they want to do on their own websites.
I could see an argument being made that the city this appears in could decide that, for the appearance/image of their city, they don't want the billboard itself up, but that is up to them, and doesn't affect the rights of the individual to do whatever thing they want to do on their own website.
TLDR: If the city wants the billboard taken down to preserve their image, I agree. If someone wants the site taken down because it offends them, I disagree.
I could see an argument being made that the city this appears in could decide that, for the appearance/image of their city, they don't want the billboard itself up, but that is up to them, and doesn't affect the rights of the individual to do whatever thing they want to do on their own website.
TLDR: If the city wants the billboard taken down to preserve their image, I agree. If someone wants the site taken down because it offends them, I disagree.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
I honestly don't see this as a moral problem but rather a technical/design problem.
For instance, in the example given, the car knows about both dangers long enough beforehand to be able to make a decision. Why couldn't the car be designed to be able to stop properly without hurting anyone, then? Or it picks a fourth path: it decides that running into a wall at a reduced speed would be better since the airbags and seat belts will protect the passengers sufficiently at the speed it knows it can reduce to given the circumstances...
As long as the car is capable of seeing into its future far enough, it should never have to make a moral decision, merely best-decision-at-the-moment is enough to keep everyone alive, as long as it has the technical safety design to implement whatever the best decision requires. Short of another driver's active malicious interference, that is.
I'd be more worried about being in such a vehicle if all the bugs haven't been worked out of the programming yet.
For instance, in the example given, the car knows about both dangers long enough beforehand to be able to make a decision. Why couldn't the car be designed to be able to stop properly without hurting anyone, then? Or it picks a fourth path: it decides that running into a wall at a reduced speed would be better since the airbags and seat belts will protect the passengers sufficiently at the speed it knows it can reduce to given the circumstances...
As long as the car is capable of seeing into its future far enough, it should never have to make a moral decision, merely best-decision-at-the-moment is enough to keep everyone alive, as long as it has the technical safety design to implement whatever the best decision requires. Short of another driver's active malicious interference, that is.
I'd be more worried about being in such a vehicle if all the bugs haven't been worked out of the programming yet.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
It seems a bit inconsistent to be comparing "a woman other than Leia speaking" to the entire length of the trilogy. Sure, 63 sec vs 23,160 is dramatic, but I'd be more impressed if the numbers weren't apples and all edible substances.
Wouldn't it make more sense to compare it to the length of time that a man other than Han, Luke, Obi Wan, Darth Vader, or the Emperor is speaking? I imagine that number would still be pretty significantly larger than 63 seconds, since, as far as I can recall, most of the secondary characters were male.
Heck, we could just compare the two lists of characters with significant roles and see something worth noting:
Female characters with significant roles: Leia
Male characters with significant roles: Han, Luke, Obi Wan, Darth Vader, The Emperor, Lando, Chewie, Jabba...
That's just off the top of my head, and given that I haven't watched those movies in years, I may have missed a few, but I honestly cannot recall another female with a significant role in the entire initial trilogy.
Wouldn't it make more sense to compare it to the length of time that a man other than Han, Luke, Obi Wan, Darth Vader, or the Emperor is speaking? I imagine that number would still be pretty significantly larger than 63 seconds, since, as far as I can recall, most of the secondary characters were male.
Heck, we could just compare the two lists of characters with significant roles and see something worth noting:
Female characters with significant roles: Leia
Male characters with significant roles: Han, Luke, Obi Wan, Darth Vader, The Emperor, Lando, Chewie, Jabba...
That's just off the top of my head, and given that I haven't watched those movies in years, I may have missed a few, but I honestly cannot recall another female with a significant role in the entire initial trilogy.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Nice!
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Despite his laziness, he looks like the last Jedi I'd ever want to duel. Most of the Jedi we see in the movies struggle to float a single light saber, and when they get it moving it shakes all over, they have very little fine-tuned control...
This guy effortlessly juggles five objects with perfect control. Pouring cereal and milk, in particular, are not exactly simple tasks if you're shaking the carton/box like crazy.
If he's got that much fine-tuned control over the force, he probably doesn't have to hand-wield a light saber anymore... in fact, he might be able to just lounge on a sofa while expertly fighting with five separate opponents.
Know what, after imagining that, I'd almost like to see that in a Star Wars movie. Imagine a bad guy that's half Jabba the Hut in how he acts, fat and lazy but so powerful that it takes a minimum of five light-side Jedi to even match his skill.
This guy effortlessly juggles five objects with perfect control. Pouring cereal and milk, in particular, are not exactly simple tasks if you're shaking the carton/box like crazy.
If he's got that much fine-tuned control over the force, he probably doesn't have to hand-wield a light saber anymore... in fact, he might be able to just lounge on a sofa while expertly fighting with five separate opponents.
Know what, after imagining that, I'd almost like to see that in a Star Wars movie. Imagine a bad guy that's half Jabba the Hut in how he acts, fat and lazy but so powerful that it takes a minimum of five light-side Jedi to even match his skill.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
It seems to me that it would be better to pad the front of the car with something that absorbs and redistributes the energy of the impact away from the pedestrian.
Or, keep working on the accuracy and distance of the sensors that can detect a pedestrian. the software that decides what to do when this occurs, and the braking system that brings the car to a stop, or at least allows the car to slow enough to drive around the pedestrian. This option is the best, in my opinion, because it's usefulness applies to everything the car is supposed to do while driving, not just the "what if a pedestrian is nearby" scenario, so it has far more overall return on investment.