Talk:1215: Insight

2013-05-23T02:28:51Z

203.206.118.14:

Indeed, somebody speaking circa 1895 could have made the same remark but instead of Google Glass the subject could have been something then new such as the Horseless Carriage, a technology now known as the Automobile in which I will soon drive to work.
[[Special:Contributions/24.91.233.200|24.91.233.200]] 09:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

:The same could be said for electrification (utility-provided mains, especially when extended to rural areas), steam locomotives, and industrialization as a whole. '''--BigMal27''' // [[Special:Contributions/192.136.15.177|192.136.15.177]] 11:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's make a list! --[[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 13:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
:added <fire>, sorted by date--~~ ~~

*Maybe before we rush to adopt <Google Cornea Implants> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(2020)''
*Maybe before we rush to adopt <the internet> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(1986)''
*Maybe before we rush to adopt <TV> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(1954)''
*Maybe before we rush to adopt <automobiles> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(1914)''
*Maybe before we rush to adopt <electrification> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(1880's)''
*Maybe before we rush to adopt <growing food> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(10,000 BCE)''
*Maybe before we rush to adopt <fire> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(400,000 BCE)''



I think that most people initially view a new idea or technology with skepticism and/or suspicion, but eventually accept it and learn to incorporate into their everyday life. This generally works out fine, and often for the better. Historical examples of this abound: the telephone, electricity, and the automobile, for example, probably all caused controversy when they were first rolled out to the general public, but today we couldn't imagine our lives without them. Another great example is civil rights. At first, the public attacks civil rights activists as radicals, then tolerates them as equals, and eventually hails them as heroes who fought for good and justice.

However, I would caution against thinking that every new idea is equally beneficial, and that those who express initial concern about the latest gizmo are merely backward Luddites. Humans are generally a lot better at figuring out how to make/do/use something before we figure out if it's good for us. Just look at drug companies like Bayer at the turn of the 20th century, who marketed aspirin (good) right alongside heroin (not so good) as great new drugs for modern medicine. Or think about eugenics, which developed out of evolutionary theory. While evolution was, is, and probably will always be the foundation of modern biology, eugenics provided justification for some truly horrible actions in the 20th century before people decided that it was all bull**** science.

Or, take Google Streetview. Sure, it's a great new technology, and I use it almost daily. But think about the unprecedented amount of information Google has been able to collect on (literally) the entire world. I don't think anyone can claim that we fully understand the repercussions that these new Google technologies will have on our lives, and I'd argue that it's premature to ignore or ridicule people who advocate caution with Google Glasses. After all, we're talking about strapping a camera to your face! Just my $0.02.

TL;DR: New technology isn't always good technology.

Hi '''Chris j''', please sign your posts by using the sign button on top of the editor. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

<blockquote>unprecedented amount of information Google has been able to collect on (literally) the entire world</blockquote>
Nothing like the entire world. Vast areas have no streets. Even where there are streets, there are large areas either nowhere near a street or not visible from the street. I await Google JungleView, SteppeView and (ahem) BedroomView. Or maybe not. [[Special:Contributions/203.206.118.14|203.206.118.14]] 02:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1214: Geoguessr

2013-05-23T02:21:16Z

203.206.118.14:

Not only have Statue of liberty lots of replicas, also the original is in Paris. On the other hand, I don't suppose you can mistake the original with New York replica give the size difference. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
:I'm not sure where you're getting that from, but the original Statue of Liberty is the one in New York. It was assembled in paris, but not as a copy of any prior existing sculpture. {{unsigned|Zuffelnok}}
::Here is a list of replicas: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicas_of_the_Statue_of_Liberty Replicas of the Statue of Liberty]. So it seems the original is that one in New York.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
:::In the {{w|Replicas of the Statue of Liberty#Jardin du Luxembourg|Jardin du Luxembourg}} section of that page it states that it is the 'first' that the artist used as a model for the full size version in New York, this is probably what Hkmaly is referring to. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 20:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
::::There were models before that statue was build. But no one was big as the present to the United States. Nevertheless it's correct, the first one is not standing at NYC. And without that statue at NYC we all would not know it.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

So by being in the same country you get a few thousand points. But, then I got an easy one because the street view showed a restaurant called Vila Cha, and sure enough TripAdvisor took me to Vila Cha in Campos Do Jordao in Sao Paolo, Brazil. I double checked in a separate tab the street view of the area, and I hit the point 0.023km off, and got "only" 6477 points. For the difficulty of the game, I'd think you'd get 5 digit scores for that at least. [[User:Uctriton00|Uctriton00]] ([[User talk:Uctriton00|talk]]) 15:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC) uctriton00
:I got the point 4 meters off, and only got about 6.5k points. --[[User:DiEvAl|DiEvAl]] ([[User talk:DiEvAl|talk]]) 20:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"if you recognize Japanese characters on a sign, the nation of Japan actually encompasses an enormous area, so unless you can recognize a specific region, there's no obvious place to guess where you can hope to get high points. (Unlike somewhere like England, where guessing London is guaranteed to put you within reasonable distance from a global perspective.)" -- Japan is about three times as big as England, so I wouldn't say that Japan is "enormous" in comparison. Furthermore, since the part about Japan refers to recognition of Japanese characters, this would be equivalent to connecting signs in English to England, which apparently is not the most obvious conclusion. [[User:Jolindbe|Jolindbe]] ([[User talk:Jolindbe|talk]]) 19:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

:Nation != Country. I once had an island somewhere in the Indian Ocean where everything was in Japanese. I don't remember what it was called though. --[[User:DiEvAl|DiEvAl]] ([[User talk:DiEvAl|talk]]) 20:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"For every famous object, there are countless replicas, and the vast majority of famous objects (...) exist in only one place in the world". ??? Someone might need to clarify the meaning here, as this reads as self-contradictory to me. Also, can I guess Legoland Windsor as being (very inaccurately) half way between Billund and wherever the California one is? ;) [[Special:Contributions/178.99.247.73|178.99.247.73]] 20:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if people ''quit'' building replicas, Cueball's score would stay the same. To actually make his score higher, people would have to go and actually '''destroy''' some replicas, or wait for them to fall into ruin. All of this assumes that Cueball isn't getting any better with practice, and isn't playing often enough to where he's actually seen the replicas enough to recognize them... [[Special:Contributions/76.26.147.222|76.26.147.222]] 04:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Am I the only person here who had no idea what Epcot was? [[Special:Contributions/203.206.118.14|203.206.118.14]] 02:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1215: Insight

Talk:1214: Geoguessr