And on further examination... Skytrain daily ridership is apparently about 3x greater than MAX ridership. Trains run 3-4 times more frequently (2-7 minutes vs 15 minutes). Per train or per rider, that would make Skytrain arguably safer than MAX.

Probably not many. There's not many spots on the Skytrain track where you can see the track "about a mile up", especially coming into stations. The design of the track is recessed, which doesn't help either. Additionally, if I recall correctly most of the suicides have been of the "throw yourself in front of the train as it enters the station" variety. There are closed circuit cameras monitoring the stations (not to mention transit police some of the time), and they DO stop the trains if something goes amiss on the tracks. But if there's no time to stop, there's no time to stop.

Either way, MAX and Skytrain are two rather different systems - MAX is at-grade light rail, Skytrain is elevated / subway with an , etc. Pretty hard to draw safety conclusions based on one factor (driver vs. driverless) when there's so many other variables at play. Most of the "experts" that I've heard/read on the topic of Skytrain safety have been much more interested in changing station design to avoid accidental falls onto the tracks, and much less concerned about placing a driver on the trains.

You make it sound like the trains are crashing, killing people. Of the 54 Skytrain deaths, 44 are suicides, and the rest are people falling onto the tracks at the stations and being struck by trains. These are not deaths due to train collisions. There have been no Skytrain collisions since it opened in 1985. Perhaps you were thinking that a driver would have spotted the person on the track and stopped the train - but that’s pretty doubtful. Trains don’t stop on a dime. All in all, nearly 30 years of operation with zero train collisions is a pretty compelling argument FOR driverless trains, I’d say.

Well, generally the Socratic (I think?) definition for knowledge is "justified TRUE belief" - so that you can't "know" something that is actually not true, you can only think you know it.

It would only be equivocation if the ID proponent was implying that there was no inherent difference between types of evidence or warrant... and of course, you're right - that's exactly what many (most?) ID / YEC types do.

At the same time, it's fair to point out (as I did in the post you are replying to) that the opposite problem has occurred in many other posts here - a "straw man" making the term "belief" out to mean "accept as true without evidence", when that is not really what is meant at all. The question is really about different types of evidence, and how much weight we give them in determining our "beliefs".

Even if a hypothetical scientist existed who had first-hand knowledge of every experiment ever performed that lent support to the theory of evolution, we would still be right in saying he "believes" his theory, because he takes it to be true. I think you would be right in saying that his justification for that belief is stronger than a person who only believes it because someone trustworthy has told them about it, but that doesn't change it from being belief to something else. We still "believe" facts (e.g. we hold them to be true), even a priori ones like "2+2=4" or firmly established ones that are the result of significant scientific inquiry.

And, if you think that, I would expect you to include evidence from Dr. Seuss books in deciding what is true. Of course, I think most reasonable people would be able to point to evidence that some claims in the Bible are more reliable than those in Dr. Seuss. For example, there is no external evidence supporting the existence of Solla Sollew, while there is a significant body of evidence supporting the existence of the Nile river, and it's location in Egypt, for example. Other claims in Solla Sollew (or virtually any other children's book, Dr. Seuss or otherwise), though, may in fact serve as very good evidence to support belief. I personally find Dr. Seuss to be very insightful in terms of the nature of people and interpersonal relationships. My children, no doubt, believe that I love them IN PART because of the relationships they've seen in books in which parents love their children. It wouldn't do if that were the only evidence, but it certainly supports their personal experience with me.

You've misrepresented what I said. I didn't say that "people REQUIRE evidence" to form beliefs, I merely said that most people believe things (not EVERYTHING they believe, but most things) because they have evidence for it. My evidence is both personal (I can enumerate many beliefs that I hold based on evidence) and extra-personal (I can hear other people give "reasons why" when they argue their own beliefs).

No, not really. “Belief” is just “holding something to be true” - and in general, most people believe things because they have “reason to believe”, in the form of evidence. It’s actually very difficult to believe something you have no evidence whatsoever for. Both the evolutionary scientist and the religious person may hold beliefs (things taken to be true) around evolution that are based on “reasons” or “evidence” - it’s just a question of which reasons or evidence one takes to be valid/trustworthy (e.g. “I can see this fossil of an extinct species in this rock”, “the Bible tells me the world was created in 7 days”, etc.).

I don’t think you’ve got your definition of “believing” quite right - there’s no reason to require “belief” to be unsubstantiated. In fact we very often hear scientists say things like “I believe that [x], and here’s why”. To “believe” just means to hold something to be true.

In fact, philosophers have long defined “knowledge” as “justified true belief”. There’s lots of variations on that theme, and arguing about whether that’s a right definition - but the argument is not about the “belief” part as much as the “justified” and “true" parts.

So, it is in fact incorrect to say that science eliminates the need for believing - what it does, however, is provide reasons or justification for our beliefs.

Well, I started off trying it out just to make sure I could get the software running the way I wanted to. My plan was to trial it with the rpi, and then move to "proper" hardware with dual ethernet ports eventually. But, as I mentioned, I'm saturating my connection with the rpi and a USB->Ethernet adapter, so I haven't seen any reason to move "up". Works great, draws very little power, and gives me all the speed I need. So, why wouldn't I?

Depending on what you're trying to do, you may or may not ACTUALLY have any performance trouble with this bug. I've been using an rpi as a router / firewall / proxy / etc. in my home for about 1.5 years now. I'm using the Ethernet port, plus a USB -> Ethernet adapter to get a second port. Performance may not be spectacular, but it's still good enough to saturate my home (15-20mbps) connection, with about 8-10 devices on the other side. Not bad, for a device that cost (including case, power supply, SD card, and ethernet dongle) about $60. Granted, there's lots of applications for which the rpi is not well-suited - but basic home-networking stuff doesn't necessarily have to be written off.

Of course not. We're built to be borrowers.

And yes, that was the only part of your comment that deserves a response. Good day.

Actually, there's a lot of research into the effects of sleep deprivation on the brain. There's even a Wikipedia article on the topic, so it must be legit. :) If I look at a kid who's tired after lunch, you're right - probably just that sleepy time of day. I'm that way myself. But I've got plenty of students who are sleepy throughout the day, show behavioural and cognitive effects consistent with chronic sleep deprivation, and really struggle as a result. Good for you for being the anecdotal exception, but I see this basically every day in my job.

I don't know any of these kids myself - my kids are a couple of years beyond kindergarten now. But, as a first aid attendant (and teacher) at a different school, I can attest that I'm seeing more playground injuries now than 10 years ago. The equipment has never been safer, but perhaps that gives kids a false sense of security that it's okay to push kids or play-fight when you're 4 feet off the ground on some equipment or other.

When I mentioned this news story to a primary school principal I know, her immediate comment was that so many kids that age are showing up so sleep-deprived, they basically show all the symptoms of ADHD. I don't teach primary grades myself, but I've certainly seen this in some of my older students.

And, I'm guessing you were making a light-hearted "Canada" joke, but it should probably be pointed out that 5-year-old hockey camp doesn't generally include body contact. To my knowledge, that all starts somewhere around 12.