"If Google makes a car and it gets in an accident, who is responsible
Google, or the operator of the car?"
The operator. Google is too rich to ever be held accountable for anything.They will out lawyer even the US government. But the operator is fair game and cannot afford to argue while the debt collectors are breaking down to door to collect the fines.
My automatic car won't come out of park and into neutral unless the engine is on. But it does not matter that you cannot push the google car if it is broken. Who cares? It is irrelevant. What is relevant? This: We like our cars, we enjoy driving our cars, we do not want a situation where we can no longer drive our cars. I don't want to sit in the car while it gets driven by Larry fucking Page and his stupid code that runs in Chrome on the dashboard, I want to drive the car myself. Why? BECAUSE I ENJOY IT. Isn't that enough? Can we please just keep one fucking thing in the future that we can still fuck do without Larry fucking Page or Mark fucking Zuckerberg taking all of the fun out of it?
Yah! Larry fucking page the Jewish billionaire and his Jewish billionaire partner and his mainly Jewish employees can be in charge of my entire internet connection. They won't be shipping off data to their homeland, Israel, for nefarious purposes like spying on every single US citizen perhaps to blackmail those who rise to high office using the extremely personal and all encompassing data transmitted over the google wires with encryption chosen specifically to be readable by google
Many of us enjoy driving. We don't want to give up that pleasure just for the illusion of increased safety. Google should go fuck itself and leave us alone to enjoy the small tiny pleasures that we can extract from the shitty shithole of a world that they are creating in their drive to control EVERY FUCKING ASPECT OF MY LIFE.
Let's face it, this is how it will go.
Firstly the cars will have dual controls. Eventually they will have no controls. It is inevitable.
It is a sad thing to face because I actually LOVE driving. I enjoy it. I don't care whether driving my own car is slightly more dangerous than having google drive my car for me. The bottom line is that I REALLY ENJOY DRIVING AND I WANT TO CONTINUE. I purposefully drive a manual car. Why? because I get enjoyment from driving and I get the most enjoyment from driving a manual car!
Not to mention that I want to be able to be in control of the vehicle. I like it. Let's be honest, we love driving and google is trying to take it away from us.
It makes me sad to think that my grand children might never experience the pleasure of driving a manual car, that they might not experience one of the modern rights of "passage to man hood" of obtaining a driver's licence. It really does sadden me.
Dodecahedroids?
Nice theory, but I don't see any Pyramids in Ferguson.
They could use more poles to create a full circle and avoid damaging the edges of the block so that it never touches the ground, but lifting the rocks up to the top of the pyramid seems like a lot of work too.
It is a lot of work no matter how you cut it. The question really is, why on Earth did they invest so much resources, time and effort to build these massive pyramids which appear to have no real utility or benefit beyond the narcissism of the kings.
You are only innocent until we can prove you guilty, of something, at sometime, and we are searching as hard as we can to prove each and everyone of you guilty of something, at sometime.
We may even need to change to law to issue retroactive fines for infringements. This will go a long way towards filling the budget deficit in policing which will be created by Google Cars obeying even our silliest of traffic laws which we designed specifically to increase revenue.
technology: Here to help, here to serve!
" if racial IQ does vary"
It does (psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/race_evolution_behavior.pdf).
It would be an extraordinary coincidence if it did not. We would require a theory to explain to us why this trait in particular was unaffected, while so many others were affected, by natural selection.
Let's look at the evidence: Black countries are crap and uncivilized apart from where the whites, Jews, Arabs or Chinese went there to exploit the resources and incidentally created some form of civilisation. Blacks were roaming around Africa for hundreds of thousands of years yet they developed nothing. The same can be said for the so-called Aborigines in Australia, they did precisely nothing. When whites came across blacks in Africa they were not confronted by a group of people who had developed technology and civilisation and education systems and healthcare systems and military systems and appropriate clothing, they were met by groups of savages, many of them naked but all at least half-naked, living day to day, no agriculture, nothing. Zilch. Zip. The same goes for the whites who arrived in Australia.
Now it is true, it is my point after all, that their environment was "harder" than ours and less conducive to developing high IQ. That is my point.
According to the theory of evolution and natural selection we were all the same people at one time (I don't believe that, but this is the current accepted dogma and I assume you subscribe to it, apologies if you do not but the debate can be held with others who do) all living in the same area. All drawn from the same colour and IQ population.
At some point a group relocated to some other area where the environment was different. Some people argue that the ones who left had changed and then relocated due to new differences, or were not sampled equally from the population, some say they were the same people when they left. Who knows! Either way, the theory goes that some of them got relocated.
In their now different environments, natural selection favoured some traits over others. The most obvious is the skin colour. Less obvious is testosterone levels, which appear to be higher in blacks than in whites (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3455741) - indicating that the differing environments did affect testosterone levels. There are many other physical and biological differences between the races related to susceptibility to certain diseases and illnesses.
A recent study suggests that high testosterone stands in the way of creating a civilised society (http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/08/03/1543210/ancient-skulls-show-civilization-rose-as-testosterone-fell)
Well, put the two studies together and join the dots.
The fact is that black neighbourhoods in white countries are crap and less civilised even decades after their emancipation and access to education and affirmative action programs, and the same "starting conditions" as whites. Can it all be due to white oppression given that blacks in Africa and Australia were in a similar state before they ever saw a white man?
What about those studies?
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3455741
http://science.slashdot.org/st...
Every time I mention them my posts are instantly marked "troll" or "flamebait". People are keen to mark it down, but clearly from my writing you can see that I am not a troll or a flamer. Nobody wants to discuss the implications of a study that suggests that blacks have higher testosterone and another study that suggests that higher testosterone stifles the development of civilisation and link it to the fact that blacks failed to create a civilisation in their own lands despite there being no white people stopping them for hundreds of thousands of years.
Perhaps it is not so implausible to suggest that blacks, on average and all other statistical disclaimers given, might have higher testosterone and lower IQ than whites, which leads to lower likelihood of developing a civilization and might even hinder ability to behave in a civilised manner? It seems consistent with the evidence.
" I noticed upon visiting the beta site the first time that there is no way to disable ads" I use adblock. It seems to work.
To be fair, Kent Hovind is famous for the 6000 year old Earth arguments. If anybody is engaged in debates about evolution vs creation from either side but have not watched any of Kent Hovind's billion hours of videos and the 6000 year old Earth claim then they should either: 1) Read around the subject more or 2) stop debating on a subject they know too little about.
Of course, the correct refutation for Kent Hovind's 6000 year old Earth hypothesis is the seeming existence of more than 6000 years of youtube videos of him stating that the Earth is only 6000 years old.
"Others may look at it as getting shot or not getting shot."
Perhaps, but I don't think there are many cases of a clear cut shooting by a white police officer of somebody on the basis of them being black. The police are more likely to stop a black person in the first place, but whether or not that black person gets shot might depend on how they handle to situation. For example, trying to grab the police officers gun is going to get you shot. Running at him and not stopping when told to stop is likely to get you shot. Being calm, friendly and nice is not likely to get you shot.
Look I generally have a rule in life concerning being around a police officer who has a gun. I tend to be civil, obedient and nice with purposefully non aggressive body language, argue my side without giving up any of my rights and without things getting angry. The main aim is to get away as quickly as possible without getting shot or arrested. Not doing something to provoke me getting shot is kind of my NUMBER ONE priority in that situation. I suspect that whilst there are some racist white cops out there, not many of them would actually commit murder of a calm, reasonable, nice, non aggressive suspect even if it is solely on the basis that they would not get away with it.
"The color of your skin doesn't make you give people dirty looks and act aggressive. (Socio-economic status is more at play than race alone.)"
But race is not just about the colour of skin. The environmental differences that produced the light and dark skin tones also produced other differences as well, such as testosterone levels which is an indicator for aggressiveness. Or are you going to claim that whilst every other trait difference is due to natural selection due to exposure to different environments and that the two populations were exposed to environments different enough to cause different skin colour and lip size and other physical characteristics that it is inconceivable that other traits might also be affected such as aggressiveness, testosterone levels or IQ?
Clearly it is conceivable and wholly consistent with the theory of natural selection. In fact it would be an extraordinary coincidence and would require a separate theory, to explain why aggressiveness, testosterone levels and IQ did not become different between the two populations in response to their differing environments given that other differences did develop.
see:
Civilisation could only rise once testosterone levels fell, according to "Science",
http://science-beta.slashdot.o... [slashdot.org]
and:
"Serum testosterone levels in healthy young black and white men.
This report gives the results of assays of circulating steroid hormone levels in white and black college students in Los Angeles, CA. Mean testosterone levels in blacks were 19% higher than in whites, and free testosterone levels were 21% higher. Both these differences were statistically significant. Adjustment by analysis of covariance for time of sampling, age, weight, alcohol use, cigarette smoking, and use of prescription drugs somewhat reduced the differences. After these adjustments were made, blacks had a 15% higher testosterone level and a 13% higher free testosterone level."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... [nih.gov]
"No, you do not 'know' anything about 'blacks'"
"This remark betrays a deeply held racism"
What do you mean by the word "racism"? I do believe that there are differences between the races that are more than skin deep. As I have posted before:
"It appears that there is some evidence, apart from the overwhelming evidence of the crapness of black countries and black areas within white countries, and the really clever game of wit and brain that blacks invented called "knock out game", or the one where they set themselves on fire for fun, that blacks have higher testosterone and that high testosterone is not conducive to "civilisation" or to "being civilised".
Civilisation could only rise once testosterone levels fell, according to "Science",
http://science-beta.slashdot.o... [slashdot.org]
"Serum testosterone levels in healthy young black and white men.
This report gives the results of assays of circulating steroid hormone levels in white and black college students in Los Angeles, CA. Mean testosterone levels in blacks were 19% higher than in whites, and free testosterone levels were 21% higher. Both these differences were statistically significant. Adjustment by analysis of covariance for time of sampling, age, weight, alcohol use, cigarette smoking, and use of prescription drugs somewhat reduced the differences. After these adjustments were made, blacks had a 15% higher testosterone level and a 13% higher free testosterone level."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... [nih.gov]"
So if admitting that there are differences between the races that are more than just skin colour makes me a racist, then I am a racist. But I think that by racist you mean to say that I wish to mistreat black people, that I think they should be mistreated. That is untrue.
Now why would we expect that natural selection would have impacted only the skin colour and not any other facet such as testosterone, aggressiveness or IQ? Why is it that the libtards on the one hand want us to believe that everything comes about due to natural selection (i.e. evolution) but that on the other hand there cannot possibly be any differences between Blacks and Whites despite them having been exposed to different environments and despite the evidence of how the two groups exist and establish themselves and build their societies and despite the fact that it caused a physical divergence?
"whatever that term might actually mean? Africans? Ghanians? Nigerians? African-Americans?"
Well these are all commonly known as black people and they are all Africans.
The same as the people from Germany, from Sweden, and from UK and from US and from Australia are commonly known as white people and are all European.
"You hold prejudices about people who are not white."
Please define prejudice. Here is one definition:
"preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." On that basis I would say that I do not hold prejudices about people who are not white.
If all else fails, lower your standards.
