1215: Insight

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

ijuin
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby ijuin » Tue May 28, 2013 8:32 am UTC

Subpoena opens up a second can of worms--if everything you record is subject to it, then deleting ANY of those recordings can be construed as contempt of court or destruction of evidence, unless you can plausibly claim that you had no idea at the time that they would ever be relevant to the court.

engr
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:08 am UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby engr » Tue May 28, 2013 9:52 pm UTC

...Well, this approach seems to be working for Amish people...
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. Gilbert K. Chesterton

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby ucim » Wed May 29, 2013 2:49 am UTC

ijuin wrote:Subpoena opens up a second can of worms--if everything you record is subject to it, then deleting ANY of those recordings can be construed as contempt of court or destruction of evidence, unless you can plausibly successfully claim that you had no idea at the time that they would ever be relevant to the court.
FTFY.

engr wrote:...Well, this approach seems to be working for Amish people...
They won't be the ones wearing google glass.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby Fire Brns » Wed May 29, 2013 3:39 am UTC

sonar1313 wrote:People don't fear efficiency, they fear weapons, for crying out loud. If there were some element unobtainium that had all the efficient properties of uranium but without uranium's nuclear waste byproducts or tendency to occasionally create nuclear meltdowns, it would be embraced. It's not efficiency people fear, it's the side effects.
That's a strawman of a hypothetical. All actions have consequences, all innovations have side effects.
Why is that people only fear the newest one? No one went around after 1945 worrying about being blown up by dynamite or thermobaric weapons. No one worries about radio or really even now tv eroding our culture, it's the internet that's destroying society now. It's new stuff that scares people and it scares them because it's better.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26820
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby gmalivuk » Wed May 29, 2013 3:56 am UTC

No, it really really doesn't. You keep repeating that claim, but you have yet to back it up with, well, anything.

They fear it because it's new and unknown. It's developed because it's better, but that's not why people fear it.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby Fire Brns » Wed May 29, 2013 5:27 am UTC

Do people fear nuclear weapons because they don't know how they blow people up or because they blow more people up than older explosives?

I really don't know what you want as proof.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5474
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed May 29, 2013 5:32 am UTC

As someone quoted in their sig, I agree with Fire Brns here.

I still dispute that "efficiency" is the best way of describing the crux of the matter, but the point being made is the same: people fear what other people will do with power, be it maliciously or accidentally. The known/unknown distinction does factor in there as well, however, as a power that lots of people have had for a long time that hasn't already either maliciously or accidentally ruined everything for everyone is less scary than a new power that for all we know might very well ruin everything for everyone in the careless or ill-intentioned hands of all those Other People who can now do things they couldn't before.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26820
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby gmalivuk » Wed May 29, 2013 6:12 am UTC

Fire Brns wrote:Do people fear nuclear weapons because they don't know how they blow people up or because they blow more people up than older explosives?

I really don't know what you want as proof.

You're claiming a general truth. How about an example where being "better" isn't identical with killing more people.

Nuclear *power*, for example, instead of nuclear weapons. It is better because it produces more energy and pollutes less and is generally far safer and environmentally better than coal and other fossil fuels. And none of that is why people fear it.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5474
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed May 29, 2013 7:02 am UTC

People fear nuclear power because for all they know (though they could remedy that ignorance) someone could quite plausibly accidentally cause some serious destruction while handling that power. It's the same reason a toddler with an arc welder is scary: the technology is not a weapon, but it is powerful, and that power is dangerous if mishandled, and presumably a toddler cannot handle it properly. The only difference with nuclear power is that it is a lot more powerful and many people (wrongly) presume that not even trained adult specialists can handle it properly.

People are generally afraid of strangers handling dynamite around them too. The reason there's no scare about the place of dynamite technology in our society is because its power to affect society as a whole is limited, and because time has assuaged any concerns people once had by showing that its power can be properly handled and accidental and malicious misuse of it kept in check.

You're both saying perfectly correct things that aren't in contradiction with each other. The technology is developed in the first place because it gives people power they didn't have before (including boosting "efficiency"). People become afraid of what other people will do with such power. They gradually cease to be afraid once the answer to that question is known and the anticipated loss is either avoided or, if it does in fact occur, accepted. (You don't fear a loss you've already suffered; you only fear losing something you still have. Once you've lost something already, well that sucks, but there's no more fear, there's just disappointment/sorrow/etc).

In short, it is new power that is scary. Old power is either known safe or already suffered from, and new but powerless things are non-frightening to begin with.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

speising
Posts: 2363
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby speising » Wed May 29, 2013 8:54 am UTC

so, there weren't any trained adult specialists in fukushima? that's even scarier.

Wooloomooloo
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:05 am UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby Wooloomooloo » Wed May 29, 2013 10:40 am UTC

I put it to you that people dislike the phrase from the comic not because they fundamentally oppose its meaning or because everyone is a Pollyanna, but because of what it tends to be associated with; namely, while the advice to consider the consequences of something is certainly sound, that phrase tends to be used (or at least is perceived to be generally used) by people who don't merely wish to examine the matter but in fact already have their opinion on it - more specifically, they already decided they want it banned and basically all they seek is to draw everyone into an argument around it, into a position where stalemate would be unavoidable (since no-one would be able to convincingly disprove all possible fears) and any use of the technology would end up effectively unapproved / regulated / banned etc.

In short, people trying to take advantage of the new stuff expect that what White Hat Guy wants is not to sit down to discuss reasonable precautions, but to prevent them (and everyone else) from using said technology altogether under the false pretense of merely being duly cautious, and they don't want their time wasted in a pointless unwinnable argument - since the one thing we can learn from the advent of the Internet (if there is anything to be learned at all) is that it's not possible to change people's already made-up mind by arguing, no matter how eloquent or logical one might go about it.

User avatar
andrewxc
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:39 am UTC
Location: Savage, MD

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby andrewxc » Wed May 29, 2013 4:44 pm UTC

"Maybe before we rush to adopt creationism, we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this ideology such a central position in our classrooms."
Dear god, it's too powerful.
"We never do anything well unless we love doing it for its own sake."
Avatar: I made a "plastic carrier" for Towel Day à la So Long and Thanks for All the Fish.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby Fire Brns » Wed May 29, 2013 5:07 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:Do people fear nuclear weapons because they don't know how they blow people up or because they blow more people up than older explosives?

I really don't know what you want as proof.

You're claiming a general truth. How about an example where being "better" isn't identical with killing more people.

Nuclear *power*, for example, instead of nuclear weapons. It is better because it produces more energy and pollutes less and is generally far safer and environmentally better than coal and other fossil fuels. And none of that is why people fear it.
Nuclear power give off a lot of energy and a lot of that energy is x-ray and gamma radiation, the stuff that kills people. Less efficient sources of power give off predominately lower frequency energy such as heat and light.

Lets take social technologies.
Phones: Fear, people will spend less time talking in person and it will dehumanize interaction. Actuality, people talked more and shared more information.
Cell Phones: Fear, same thing but now people can do it anywhere. Actuality, it became easier to reach people when they were needed as they didn't have to be at one of a set of predetermined phone locations.
Texting: Fear, people aren't even talking anymore it's just short sentences and emoticons. Actuality, no playing phone tag when people are busy and can't have a prolonged phone conversation and it allows for high information density.
Smart phones: Fear, all them whippersnappers caught up in their angry birds and their happy farms and never trying to learn anything because they can google it on their internet box. Actuality, ability to share/confirm/find information on the spot and increased utility from phones rather than carry around a dozen tools.
Google glasses: Fear, more distraction from reality. Actuality, hands free and HUD setup allow for more focus on reality as you don't have to look down at your phone to check stuff. (half the reason smart phones are so dangerous for texting is that you can't feel the keys with a touch screen and have to look at it, anyone with an old cell phone with texting can type completely coherent messages without looking at the screen once.)
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

User avatar
andrewxc
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:39 am UTC
Location: Savage, MD

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby andrewxc » Wed May 29, 2013 5:20 pm UTC

Fire Brns wrote:Google glasses: Fear, more distraction from reality. Actuality, hands free and HUD setup allow for more focus on reality as you don't have to look down at your phone to check stuff. (half the reason smart phones are so dangerous for texting is that you can't feel the keys with a touch screen and have to look at it, anyone with an old cell phone with texting can type completely coherent messages without looking at the screen once.)

Oh, good, now they can be looking straight AT the car they're about to hit and barely perceive it. The point isn't that you're looking AWAY from the road, it's that you aren't looking AT the road. There's a subtle difference.
"We never do anything well unless we love doing it for its own sake."
Avatar: I made a "plastic carrier" for Towel Day à la So Long and Thanks for All the Fish.

User avatar
andrewxc
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:39 am UTC
Location: Savage, MD

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby andrewxc » Wed May 29, 2013 5:22 pm UTC

Fire Brns wrote:Nuclear power give off a lot of energy and a lot of that energy is x-ray and gamma radiation, the stuff that kills people. Less efficient sources of power give off predominately lower frequency energy such as heat and light.

If the reactor is built properly, even people in the plant don't get exposed to any significant amount of radiation.
"We never do anything well unless we love doing it for its own sake."
Avatar: I made a "plastic carrier" for Towel Day à la So Long and Thanks for All the Fish.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26820
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby gmalivuk » Wed May 29, 2013 5:43 pm UTC

People fear nuclear power not because it produces more energy, but because of the form that energy takes, and because of the kinds of energy given off by nuclear waste, which is completely a byproduct of the efficient power itself.

People additionally fear mobile phones (and wifi and HV power lines and microwave ovens) not because they're good at what they do, but because the people are ignorant about the types of energy those things radiate into the environment.

People fear vaccines not because they are better at preventing infectious diseases, but because quacks have lied to them about nonexistent side effects of the vaccines.

Yes, *some* of these luddite fears can be directly traced to the efficiency with which new technologies do old things, but I still maintain that you are twisting words completely out of shape if you keep up your nonsense about how that's the only significant cause of their fears.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

ijuin
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby ijuin » Wed May 29, 2013 7:48 pm UTC

speising wrote:so, there weren't any trained adult specialists in fukushima? that's even scarier.


The Fukushima plant was built to withstand the strongest earthquake ever recorded in that region. Unfortunately, the quake that wrecked it was STRONGER than the strongest quake ever recorded in that region. Beyond that, the big reason that it overheated is because (contrary to recommended practices in most nations), it did not have a zero-power convection-based emergency cooling system, which means that when the coolant pumps shut down, so did the cooling. Which brings me to my main point: nearly all nuclear accidents happen as a result of wanton disregard for safety precautions, either via shoddy construction or because the people operating it disregarded the precautions that were already there. Careless crew have removed control rods, disabled automatic safety systems, ignored alarm signals, and even unwittingly piled super-critical masses of fissile material together. Basically, when Homer Simpson is managing your reactor, trouble happens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ci ... _accidents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mi ... _accidents

speising
Posts: 2363
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby speising » Wed May 29, 2013 7:55 pm UTC

ijuin wrote:
speising wrote:so, there weren't any trained adult specialists in fukushima? that's even scarier.


The Fukushima plant was built to withstand the strongest earthquake ever recorded in that region. Unfortunately, the quake that wrecked it was STRONGER than the strongest quake ever recorded in that region. Beyond that, the big reason that it overheated is because (contrary to recommended practices in most nations), it did not have a zero-power convection-based emergency cooling system, which means that when the coolant pumps shut down, so did the cooling. Which brings me to my main point: nearly all nuclear accidents happen as a result of wanton disregard for safety precautions, either via shoddy construction or because the people operating it disregarded the precautions that were already there. Careless crew have removed control rods, disabled automatic safety systems, ignored alarm signals, and even unwittingly piled super-critical masses of fissile material together. Basically, when Homer Simpson is managing your reactor, trouble happens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ci ... _accidents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mi ... _accidents



exactly. and as long as we have no anti murphy medicine, dangerous stuff remains dangerous. you just can't remove the humans from the equation. the same reason why communism doesn't work.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby Klear » Wed May 29, 2013 8:21 pm UTC

speising wrote:exactly. and as long as we have no anti murphy medicine, dangerous stuff remains dangerous. you just can't remove the humans from the equation. the same reason why communism doesn't work.


On the contrary - communism would work perfectly if you removed humans from the equation. =)

speising
Posts: 2363
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby speising » Wed May 29, 2013 8:31 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
speising wrote:exactly. and as long as we have no anti murphy medicine, dangerous stuff remains dangerous. you just can't remove the humans from the equation. the same reason why communism doesn't work.


On the contrary - communism would work perfectly if you removed humans from the equation. =)


i fail to see the contrary?

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby Klear » Wed May 29, 2013 8:33 pm UTC

speising wrote:
Klear wrote:
speising wrote:exactly. and as long as we have no anti murphy medicine, dangerous stuff remains dangerous. you just can't remove the humans from the equation. the same reason why communism doesn't work.


On the contrary - communism would work perfectly if you removed humans from the equation. =)


i fail to see the contrary?


Eh, sorry. Tired. I see what you meant.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3099
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby orthogon » Wed May 29, 2013 9:57 pm UTC

andrewxc wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:Google glasses: Fear, more distraction from reality. Actuality, hands free and HUD setup allow for more focus on reality as you don't have to look down at your phone to check stuff. (half the reason smart phones are so dangerous for texting is that you can't feel the keys with a touch screen and have to look at it, anyone with an old cell phone with texting can type completely coherent messages without looking at the screen once.)

Oh, good, now they can be looking straight AT the car they're about to hit and barely perceive it. The point isn't that you're looking AWAY from the road, it's that you aren't looking AT the road. There's a subtle difference.

Yeah, this. It's quite analogous to hands-free kits. I'm dubious whether it's entirely the issue of holding the phone in your hand while driving that makes it dangerous, or whether in fact there's some kind of psychological effect whereby you somehow imagine yourself in the place where your correspondent is, and this messes with your spatial awareness. (I'd love to know what research had been done on the subject, if somebody would be good enough to post a lmgtfy link.)
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26820
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby gmalivuk » Wed May 29, 2013 10:02 pm UTC

Yeah, even hands-free phone conversations are more dangerous than in-person conversations while driving. In addition, human beings are rather terrible at multitasking, and it's made even worse by believing otherwise.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby ucim » Thu May 30, 2013 4:07 am UTC

orthogon wrote:I'm dubious whether it's entirely the issue of holding the phone in your hand while driving that makes it dangerous, or whether in fact there's some kind of psychological effect whereby you somehow imagine yourself in the place where your correspondent is, and this messes with your spatial awareness. (I'd love to know what research had been done on the subject, if somebody would be good enough to post a lmgtfy link.)
I know of no such research, sorry.

My theory is that it has in large part to do with two things: Unlike a conversation with a companion in another seat...
1: The fact that the phone conversation is going into only one ear, and perhaps this makes it harder to process the sounds into conversation, stealing cycles from driving, and
2: The low fidelity of cell phone conversation audio, with the same effect as above.

A third, independent aspect is that the person on the other end of the phone will keep talking irrespective of the road conditions, which is not true of a companion in the other seat.

Were I do get funding to investigate this, I think I have a decent protocol to do so. But who, with money, is interested in the actual truth of the matter, as opposed to simply wanting something that appears to support the agenda they are pushing?

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10329
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby addams » Thu May 30, 2013 5:14 am UTC

orthogon wrote:
andrewxc wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:Google glasses: Fear, more distraction from reality. Actuality, hands free and HUD setup allow for more focus on reality as you don't have to look down at your phone to check stuff. (half the reason smart phones are so dangerous for texting is that you can't feel the keys with a touch screen and have to look at it, anyone with an old cell phone with texting can type completely coherent messages without looking at the screen once.)

Oh, good, now they can be looking straight AT the car they're about to hit and barely perceive it. The point isn't that you're looking AWAY from the road, it's that you aren't looking AT the road. There's a subtle difference.

Yeah, this. It's quite analogous to hands-free kits. I'm dubious whether it's entirely the issue of holding the phone in your hand while driving that makes it dangerous, or whether in fact there's some kind of psychological effect whereby you somehow imagine yourself in the place where your correspondent is, and this messes with your spatial awareness. (I'd love to know what research had been done on the subject, if somebody would be good enough to post a lmgtfy link.)

Yes. I think you are 'on to' something.
I do not have a link.

I remember some of the studies of distraction and multitasking.
We are not very good at multitasking. We get by.
We tend to think we are better than we are.

The Spatial awareness is very important.
Funny? Yes. Oh, Yes. Sad, too.

Talking to a person inside the car is Very different from talking to a person in a different location.
We are So Smart. We are able to Fly By Instruments. After a little training.

The training is an important part of using technology. For Safety's Sake!
Practice before taking off with those things.

I took a class one time. Then I had some experiences.
I turn everything that is not needed 'Off' for take off.

That is for Driving. Walking with those Stupid Glasses can be challenging. Be careful!

Yes. Those would be interesting studies. We all know we have a mind's eye.
As a poster so eloquently said. Eyes on The Road and not seeing The Road, happens.

oh. I think the idea of Hysterical Blindness should be in your Lit. Review.
How the Human Brain handles vision is interesting.

Like the umm. Seeing colors where other people only see shapes.
There is a word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

webgiant
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:36 pm UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby webgiant » Thu May 30, 2013 7:11 am UTC

Klear wrote:This kind of approach gets demolished by simple answer:

"Such as?"


This. Until the laws are changed, stumbling on a man raping a child in a park, recording it in your Google Glass, and saving it to your GoogleSpace ("creation, possession, AND distribution of child pornography"), carries a greater prison sentence than the child rapist's prison sentence.

So, on your lovely stroll in the park, you turn a corner, and to your shock, see a 12-year-old being brutally raped right in front of you.

WHAM. You are now a criminal, guilty of recording, distributing, and possessing child pornography. You are now guilty of a crime that carries higher penalties than the rape and molestation of a child right taking place right in front of you.

The rapist notices you and laughs, knowing that you can’t do anything. If you were to call the police and offer to be a witness to the rape taking place before you, you would lose your job, children, and house over the worse crime you have just committed. As you struggle in panic to delete any and all imagery that could be used to convict the child rapist, hoping that nobody was able to make a copy, you see another person coming into view of the rapist and reacting just like you did.

And on the ground, a 12-year old who is being raped watches helplessly as witnesses turn away and delete all evidence of the crime being committed against her.

This is not some far-fetched science fiction scenario. This is exactly what will happen as our mobile phones take the next step, which has already started, and we will be there in less than ten years. (The very first iPhone was released to sales about five years ago, for perspective – imagine what will happen in twice more the time since then.)

{UPDATE: Some people have complained that no court would ever convict in this scenario, since you also recorded your unintentional approach. But possession of child pornography is a strict liability offense, like possession of cocaine, at least in the entire United States, as well as several other countries. Intent, mens rea, is irrelevant: if you have it and know you have it, no matter why, you're guilty.}

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby Klear » Thu May 30, 2013 7:58 am UTC

webgiant wrote:
Klear wrote:This kind of approach gets demolished by simple answer:

"Such as?"


This. Until the laws are changed, stumbling on a man raping a child in a park, recording it in your Google Glass, and saving it to your GoogleSpace ("creation, possession, AND distribution of child pornography"), carries a greater prison sentence than the child rapist's prison sentence.


I was refering to the comic, which "recommends" using this phrase when you have no insights into the given problematic. Of course, if you have an insight, "such as?" won't bother you, but then you could have started with this insight and not use the sentence from the comic at all.

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3715
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby PM 2Ring » Thu May 30, 2013 8:31 am UTC

Fire Brns wrote:Nuclear power give off a lot of energy and a lot of that energy is x-ray and gamma radiation, the stuff that kills people. Less efficient sources of power give off predominately lower frequency energy such as heat and light.

Where "a lot" ~= 6%. Most (80%) of the energy released in uranium fission is in the kinetic energy of the daughter nuclei. See the table at the bottom of this page.

ijuin
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby ijuin » Thu May 30, 2013 3:29 pm UTC

Six percent of the energy from fission is still a fracking buttload.

webgiant
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:36 pm UTC

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby webgiant » Fri May 31, 2013 12:20 am UTC

Klear wrote:
webgiant wrote:
Klear wrote:This kind of approach gets demolished by simple answer:

"Such as?"


This. Until the laws are changed, stumbling on a man raping a child in a park, recording it in your Google Glass, and saving it to your GoogleSpace ("creation, possession, AND distribution of child pornography"), carries a greater prison sentence than the child rapist's prison sentence.


I was refering to the comic, which "recommends" using this phrase when you have no insights into the given problematic. Of course, if you have an insight, "such as?" won't bother you, but then you could have started with this insight and not use the sentence from the comic at all.

I see. From your use of the English Language it implied that "Such as?" was a general purpose demolisher and not just a way to call a bluff.

User avatar
King Author
Posts: 736
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:30 pm UTC
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby King Author » Sat Nov 30, 2013 12:58 am UTC

Randall's such a Google fanboy.
I have signitures disabled. If you do, too...you can't read this, so nevermind >_>

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 835
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby PinkShinyRose » Sat Nov 30, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Oh well, now the thread is revived anyway: I don't think the problem with glasscomputers is a fear of technology. The technology to put cameras on glasses was there in the early 2000s (or really since the early 1990s, but it was impractical then). The problem is that google started marketing the use of cameras attached to a fixed location of your body as a normal thing that everyone should use.

addams wrote:Have you played the Urinal Game, yet?

Could someone explain that. It made sense to me to not stand next to the door because anyone coming into the room would have a near frontal view of the event. Is that better than standing 4 installations from the next person instead of 5?

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10329
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1215: Insight

Postby addams » Sun Dec 01, 2013 1:10 am UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:Oh well, now the thread is revived anyway: I don't think the problem with glasscomputers is a fear of technology. The technology to put cameras on glasses was there in the early 2000s (or really since the early 1990s, but it was impractical then). The problem is that google started marketing the use of cameras attached to a fixed location of your body as a normal thing that everyone should use.

addams wrote:Have you played the Urinal Game, yet?

Could someone explain that. It made sense to me to not stand next to the door because anyone coming into the room would have a near frontal view of the event. Is that better than standing 4 installations from the next person instead of 5?

It has been a long time sense I played the game.
It depends upon the men, sometimes.

Some of the weird things men can and will do.
Western men, well educated and civilized have one set of toilet rituals.
For that mind we have the urinal game.

There are some other ways of doing that.
It is best to stick to what you know.

I do not see a common round urinal as an improvement.
A target does not make it that much better.
Add alcohol; Then consider this creature as God's greatest accomplishment.

Gymnastics in the men's room? Those sort of stories leave me with a question mark over my head.
Some men stay in there a long time. Others walk in, walk out and are still looking for a place to pee.

What do you think?
Women sometimes forget to come out of the bathroom, too.
That is where all the real fun is taking place.

Exchanging numbers, fixing hair, comparing tan lines and underwear and lipstick, applying make-up, singing, practicing speeches, going over lists. There is talking and singing and playing to be done. Then each to her own out there!

What do men do in the Men's Room? Stuff.
What do women do in the Women's Room? Nothing, much.

It is possible for two women to meet in the Lady's Room for the very first time and exchange outfits.
I do not see anything unusual about it. What? Does it fit? How will you exchange clothes, later?

It is a good reason to see one another, again.
Here. Your clothes. Where are mine? That Is Not Weird! (is it?)

Don't swap out clothes you like for clothes you don't like.
That does not go without saying? People are mean.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher and 94 guests