Does That Look Right To You

Have We Lost the Ability to Argue??!!

2016-06-26T08:41:00.000-04:00

I know.....anyone that's spent more than 10 minutes on Facebook would answer this in a heartbeat...probably less. And actually, that's a symptom of what has become all too common today on social media. Fact is though, what we take for arguments on social media is often nothing more than bickering and fighting.

An argument is defined: "...to give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view...." You'd be hard pressed to find much on social media today that meets that criteria. Reason.....Evidence.....you're more likely to spot a herd of blue unicorns crossing a street downtown. And fighting generally has no winner; accomplishes nothing...we often feel worse when it's over...certainly not more enlightened.

Now personally, I love arguing...always have!! I even had "argumentative" put on one of my annual reviews by my mentor. Right now, the people that know me personally are sitting quietly......nodding their heads. Or possibly hoping that I will eventually mellow with age and start being more agreeable. But then what sort of example would I be for my space-lawyer grand kids who have taken arguing to an a whole 'nother level! I'm so proud of them!! The fact is though, my mentor went on to recommend me for three significant promotions in my career. Arguing can be annoying, but it's purpose is just what the definition says...a method of conveying facts and reason to persuade others. That can be very beneficial to your boss when you can consistently convince the powers-that-be to "find" additional budget money for us!

So why else is this important? We say that attorneys "argue a case before the Supreme Court". We don't say they sit before the Court bickering and throwing insults at each other like children. [Naturally that's reserved for the politicians and the news media] It's important because arguing and debating (which is just arguing with rules!) is a way to expand our minds and our horizons. It allows us to at least consider the possibility that what we believed may be wrong. I can only imagine what social media would have looked like when flat-earthers first heard about this new concept of a round world!

What's happened then to cause us to lose the most important tool of intellectual expansion? How did we come to know everything with such certainty? Knowing everything is the single greatest impediment to learning. One thing is certain though, we've become a society of headline readers. By the time we've read the headline of a story and maybe...maybe!!...the first line or two, we've formed an instant opinion. We also consider the source of the article before considering the facts...if we even look at the facts. Believing anything that agrees with our preconceived opinions and dismissing everything that doesn't.

Most disturbing is that we have all but lost the ability to analyze conflicting statements. The knee-jerk reaction of sharing information without a moment to consider the facts that are used to support the article...assuming it's even based on facts. We share without considering if what we are sharing is even real. We twist facts to justify our views. Which is vastly different than presenting arguments in a debate. In a debate you do present those facts that best support your case, but there is the back-and-forth of statements and rebuttals that allow the listener to weigh these arguments in order to decide what facts are most convincing.

And this is a great lose to us as a society because without the ability to weigh opposing arguments in a rational way, we cannot make sound decisions. There can be no understanding...no expansion of our minds. There can be no empathy for the lives of others...because we have already dismissed them. And there can be no compromise either...because compromise requires some understanding of your opponent. We no longer try to understand...we just lash out at anything that appears to threaten those things we know to be true. Maybe that's a part of it too. As we lose more and more control over even the smallest aspects of our lives, we fight harder and harder to hold on to what we have left.

Are we just overwhelmed then with this unprecedented flood of information? Limiting our time to the extent where we have to resort to ignoring so much of it? It seems amazing though...and ironic...that we can have such an incredible amount of information and yet be uninformed, even ignorant, like no other time. Maybe misinformed would be a better description...since we no longer seem to be able to tell what is real and what is propaganda. Either way, in the end, when you lose the ability to judge the truth or wisdom of information, you can no longer make intelligent decisions. There are many casualties as a result. When we complain how our political system is broken, we have to realize that it's broken in large part because of us as a whole. And it's not lost on those that make and manipulate the "news", or politicians who clamour for our votes, that we are headline readers. If we want to change this...and change our world in the process...we'd better learn to stop fighting and start re-learning the lost art of arguing!

The Oncoming Storm of Driveless Vehicles...and FedEx!?!?

2015-09-10T20:45:00.001-04:00

Did you know that there are driverless vehicles already operating on our roads??!! I sure didn't...which I found particularly disturbing, as it's my job to know something about everything. At least that's the way other people (read: friends and family) might look at it. Needless to say, I found myself intrigued at how much closer this may be to reality than I realized.

A few weeks ago, I was driving up from Florida to Massachusetts, for an obstacle course race. One of the little inconveniences of driving long distance is that eventually, you have to look for new radio stations. I mean, there are only so many times you can listen to the same Cd's, and I don't have a Bluetooth connection yet for my radio. So there I was, surfing the radio for something decent to listen to...in an area apparently bereft of radio signals. Suddenly, on came NPR (National Public Radio), beginning a program on driverless cars!

At the forefront of the drive to driverless vehicles appears to be Google. Google has not only developed and tested it's vehicles, but has already logged considerable mileage on public roads. While some experts say that 2020 is extremely unlikely to see these vehicles on the road for consumers and that even 2025 may be too optimistic, there is a company that says it will have it's vehicle ready by 2017. Although in all likelihood, that vehicle would probably be limited to a specific, well defined operational area at that point.

Another interesting aspect are the ramifications of this new technology on other areas. From car insurance to car manufacturers (who are now getting serious about entering the game) to taxi service and beyond. Even reliance of governments on petty traffic enforcement like speed traps would be impacted by this new technology. Computers would keep vehicles from exceeding speed limits (which by the way could probably be raised) or parking illegally. In fact, this new technology would potentially lower the need for individual ownership of cars in the first place, resulting in no need for them to park at all.

Of course, once I started thinking more about this, it became apparent that, like Uber and current airport limo services, driverless 'taxis' would make multiple pickups and drops routinely. Taking it a step further, since there are now no drivers needing to return home, much longer...substantially longer...trips would now be possible. Leading to larger vehicles as well as increasing complexity.

Can you imagine, millions upon millions of people scheduling daily (hourly?) rides of virtually unlimited distances? Potentially hundreds of thousands of vehicles criss-crossing the cities and country to meet these needs. At first I thought of the concept of airline hubs...concentrating riders regionally. This was different however. Even the airport hub system requires people to start from a limited number of airport locations.

And that's when it become clear. There was already an industry that was moving millions of items daily to and from almost anywhere. And one particular company in fact that had not only pioneered the logistics necessary for this, but was at the forefront today of this industry. FedEx! After all, picking up people/packages from numerous locations and transporting/delivering them to their destination is a very similar process. While there are any number of technology/software companies to watch in relation to building/operating the actual vehicles, I would be very surprised not to see FedEx as a big winner when it comes to actually implementing a new driverless vehicle-for-hire network. Possibly even operating like a utility with multiple companies actually owning and operating the vehicles themselves.

Another interesting incidental impact would be on the whole concept of Transit Oriented Development (TOD), where developments are concentrated near mass transit hubs. These TOD's generally eliminate the need for individual transportation (read: cars), while allowing residents easy access to any other similarly interconnected locale. But with the advent of these driverless vehicles, it would no longer require a person to live near these mass transit hubs, which may put a completely new light on even this aspect of our lives.

We never quite know how much change a new technology may bring. In the end, driverless vehicles may impact our lives in ways that we can't even imagine today. One thing is for certain, if the technology succeeds in putting 'no-one' behind the wheel, the changes will be immense!

What do you think about driverless vehicles?

Three Reasons I'm Not Looking Forward to the Upcoming Season of Doctor Who

2015-09-09T11:34:00.000-04:00

I've been watching Doctor Who for so long now that I can't remember when I first saw it. Starting back when it was still a relatively low budget, 1950's style sci-fi show. It was an odd match for my tastes even then...I've always leaned more towards the Star Wars style, but good acting and decent plots always trumped on-screen glitz (take a note George Lucas!)

However, it was never really a show that I was overly fanatical about (don't try to tell that to my brother-in-law though). That changed in 2005 with the latest incarnation of The Doctor with Christopher Eccleston and Billie Piper as Rose Tyler. From that point on I was drawn back into the world of Doctor Who and the show seemed to become better with every show...and with each new Doctor.

While I enjoyed Eccleston, the next Doctor, David Tennant, stepped it up another notch and continued to draw me into this 21st century version of Doctor Who. But the pinnacle of these latest versions of The Doctor has to be Matt Smith. From the very first episode it was obvious he brought a new dimension and a new chemistry to the show. It also brought with it a new audience.

Along with Amy (Karen Gillan), Rory (Arthur Darvill) and of course River Song (Alex Kingston) the show achieved that near perfect inter-relationship of characters and story that were mesmerizing to watch. It also brought together the pieces for that rare show which can be enjoyed by the whole family. My grandchildren (to my daughter's lasting chagrin) loved this new Doctor Who.

So what happened? The next Doctor (Peter Capaldi), while I find him more than capable and a great Doctor Who personally, apparently does not have the character appeal for the younger viewer of the Matt Smith Doctor. The show immediately had a darker feel than the previous shows. Two episodes in and my grandchildren were now done with Doctor Who (to my daughter's anti-chagrin).

So what's all this concern over the upcoming season? While I feel (once Danny disappeared...mind-boggling to me how that 'character' lasted as long as he did!) that the show's new darker setting was quite entertaining, there are several things I personally just cringe at every time they appear. Now I know these are central to the Doctor Who series and that purists will be burning me in effigy, or at least pointing some very angry sonics this way. But the three things that appear to be coming up next season that are most likely to have me switching channels are:

1) Daleks - Yes, I get it, they've been there from the beginning and I have no problem when these antiquated mobile cement mixers are an ancillary part of the story. But if I have to watch and listen to these things for any length of time....gone!

2) Cybermen - Again, same story as the Daleks. Ancillary...fine...but these are 1950's robots that are about as threatening as a blowup punching bag and I think we deserve better.

3) The Master - I mean...how many times are you going to kill this guy. I feel like I'm watching the worst-of-the-worst soap opera reincarnation specials. I realize he's a Time Lord...regenerations and all...but please, let him/her go. Mostly because I just despise the original character I suppose. But this one is likely to bring out to remote.

Hopefully I'm wrong...it has been known to happen, every few minutes or so. And certainly the return of River Song can't hurt. I truly have enjoyed Capaldi's Doctor and have even come to enjoy the character of Clara ( Jenna Coleman)...although that has admittedly been one that's had to grow on me a bit.

So while I go into this next season as open minded as possible, I can't help feeling that this new direction will be one I'm not going to enjoy...even with the prospect of an Alex Kingston Christmas. And I'm more concerned that this direction will lose the newest, future fans. But you never know. I never would have expected the 2005 resurrection in the first place...and that has been a great joy in the world of sci-fi TV!!

What are your favorite...or least favorite...Doctor Who characters?

I would love to hear what you think about the upcoming season!

The Top 10 Things Wrong With Orphan Black!