290 Forum Posts by "DrBrainTrust"
At 10/2/07 06:07 AM, SlithVampir wrote:At 10/1/07 08:55 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:Thanks.At 10/1/07 06:07 PM, SlithVampir wrote: Now he says Not Christians can't be president. So much for everybody saying he's so moderate.Nice spin.
the link
My apologies. He said they wouldn't be good at it.
He never said non-Christians can't be president. In fact he also said:
No, he didn't. He just said he didn't feel he could he could endorse someone who didn't share in his faith/idealogical values. I don't even like McCain much for president, but there's no need to lie about him.
At 10/1/07 09:08 AM, Drakim wrote: Heh, this debate is becoming quite good.
At 10/1/07 08:11 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:At 10/1/07 07:00 AM, Drakim wrote:
Why exactly? How come killing people. Ending their very lives, leaving loves ones with nothing (if they weren't killed along too). How can that possible be acceptable before, but suddenly not now? Did God become a little more loving? What happened to forgiveness anyway? You can't be forgiven if some Christians kill you!
Well, you have to think of the historical context and try to think about why it may be necessary to kill homosexuals at that point in history. As we now know, anal sex is more prone to spread disease than just about any other sexual practice. Homosexuals, especially at that period in time, had tendencies to swing both ways, and since barrier devices were nonexistant at that time, homosexuals could potentially spread a contagious disease through a population quickly. God probably prescribed the execution of homosexuals in order to protect the population. Nowadays such extreme measures are unnecessary.
At 9/18/07 12:11 AM, Elfer wrote:At 9/18/07 12:01 AM, DrBrainTrust wrote:Does that include people who take their first drag off a cigarette, their first shot of alcohol, and their first cup of coffee too?At 9/17/07 03:45 PM, Flaming-Dookie wrote: Out of sight, out of mind?That's about how it is now.
Let me make things perfectly clear, the moment a person chooses to take their first hit, snort their first line, or shoot up for the first time, I'd consider putting a bullet through their head as assisted suicide rather than murder since they seem intent on killing themselves.
Why is it that there's so many people who are absolutely convinced that there's no responsible level of drug use?
A person who can take a drug and still function in society is fine. If a person doesn't let their recreational activities spill into their public or professional lives, then there is no problem. As long as a person understands the risk and chooses to engage in it without endangering the lives or health of other, that's perfectly fine. I believe that there are plenty of drugs that can be taken recreationally in this matter. However, there is no responsible level when it comes to meth, crack, and heroine. Those drugs have the power to enslave people and fundamentally corrupt a person. While I believe that nobody has the right to tell them they can't take those drugs, we don't have to allow them to stay among us while they transform from a decent person to a crack fiend or a meth zombie.
At 9/17/07 03:45 PM, Flaming-Dookie wrote: Out of sight, out of mind?
That's about how it is now.
Let me make things perfectly clear, the moment a person chooses to take their first hit, snort their first line, or shoot up for the first time, I'd consider putting a bullet through their head as assisted suicide rather than murder since they seem intent on killing themselves. Since it's illegal to go on a junkie killing spree, I'd rather separate them as far from decent society as possible, and prevent gangs and street dealers from getting rich off their personal weakness.
I agree with the topic starter that the drug problem needs to be handled differently, but the idea of giving free drugs to whoever wants them seems problematic and prone to abuse. If we were to legalize drugs across the board, I would suggest letting corporations handle the wholesale purchase and distribution of drugs. They would do to drug dealers what Wal-Mart did to small "mom and pop" stores and run them out of business. Any place selling formerly illegal narcotics would be required by law to be zoned well away from residential areas, and there would be absolutely no advertisement for those drugs. Addicts who can no longer afford to feed their habit would be "recruited" by the government to perform in exchange for food, lodgings, and drugs. Those who fail to perform adequately will not only be deprived of their drug, but would also not be allowed back into the general public.
If we're interested in saving money, I would also propose removing mandatory rehab. While drug rehab should be encouraged for drug addicted offenders, the amount of people who slide back into addiction is too high. If a person seeks out rehab, it should be available, but there is no point in wasting money trying to save people who don't want to be saved.
As far as the whole idea that if drugs were legalized, half the country would be junkies is rediculous. I'm fairly certain that there arent a whole bunch of people sitting around saying "man I'd like to get some crack, too bad it's illegal." The only people who would seek drugs, are the same people who do it now anyway. While legalization may reduce the lethality of drugs a little, I'm well aware of the fact that drugs are generally dangerous. I just don't care, and neither do the fiends that shoot that poison into their arms. It makes no difference to me whether a person puts a hole in their brain using a gun or a crack pipe, as long as they don't harm anyone else as they go. If you don't want to see piles of dead junkies in the streets, we can move them somewhere out of sight.
At 9/14/07 08:56 AM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: That's bound to lead to diagnostic fuck ups. Patients can't be depended on to accurately describe or entail their symptoms, and a computer can't employ judgment and human thought to properly diagnose.
That's why the computer won't be diagnosing patients. The only thing the computer will be doing is prioritizing patients, and ordering certain routine tests to check for some serious diseases, like EKGs, having blood and urine collected, or a finger stick to test blood sugar. It just saves the doctor the trouble of having to ask for some of these things after he's seen the patient when it would be more convenient for this stuff to be done before the he sees the patient.
At 9/14/07 06:38 AM, Drakim wrote: Agnostics says that it is impossible for them to know if God exists or not, therefore they don't want to take a stance about it. Fair enough.
An agnostic could technically believe one way or another, they just admit that they're not sure
But what's with the "Nobody else can know either" stance? I've seen in a very lot of agnostics. I'd go so far to say that most agnostics I've spoken to take this stance. They claim that not only can they not find out the truth about God, but absolutely onbody else can either.
For someone to say that they know whether or not God exists it would imply that God's existence or lack thereof is a verifiable fact. Since neither side has ever been able to produce any concrete evidence one way or another, how can they claim to "know" about his existence?
Isn't this a good old case of pushing your beliefs? You are an agnostic, and you don't know the answer to the grand question, that's all nice and fine, but you are also insisting that this applies to everybody else? Everybody else is wrong and you are right?
No, it's simple logic. If you know something, then there is proof to verify that knowledge. If there is no proof, then you don't know, you believe.
How is this different from the believer that claims all non-believers are simply in denial, or the atheist that claims all believers are idiots?
Its different because we're not saying you're wrong for believing in God, we're saying you're wrong for claiming knowledge when there is none to be had.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not attacking the position of agnosticism here. The position itself is pretty waterproof, but, the far majority of agnostics I've debated with know that they are right. They know that you cannot find out the truth about God, and that everybody that says otherwise are idiots.
A lot of theists and atheists can admit that they're not sure, but they believe in whatever anyway. It's mostly the fundies and the militant athieists who are convinced of the infallibility of their position while offering no proof to justify their hubris. All agnostics are saying is that if you can't submit any proof of you "knowledge", then your belief isn't any more valid than anyone else's.
At 9/14/07 12:57 AM, stafffighter wrote: That's the next step from these automated kiosks being used to register non-emergency patients. Using a system of questions on a touch screen the patients are said to be be able to be processed faster.
What this fails to address is that in diagnosis speed is not the bottom line. Theres also the issue of accuracy that this system does not address. To use this someone has to be able to read ( dyslexics and other such learning impaired people would have issue with this) have appropriate muscle control to push all the right buttons and have an accurate view of what was wrong with them. Someone could have spasms that throw them off so they have to start over or have an exxageratted view of their own symptoms. They could also outright lie for reasons as varied as seeking higher priority to lieing for the sake of lieing. The simple fact of the matter is that no questionnair can effectivly take the place of the observations of a trained and expereinced medical professional. Automation is not a cureall.
These kiosks don't diagnose patients, they just seem to reference the reported symptoms with possible diseases. It's not like they're being used as a substitute for a trained medical professional's observations, but rather as devices that will save doctors much needed time. With some complaints patients come in with, like chest pain, mandatory tests are needed before the doctor can diagnose the patient. If, while the doctor is with another patient, a nurse could see that a person needs an EKG because they have chest pain, they could have the results ready for the doctor by the time he's finished and know whether the situation is urgent or not, rather than the person waiting to see the doctor only to find out they need to have an EKG done before the doctor could be sure of what's going on.
As for people lieing to the kiosks, it's not much different from how people lie to receptionists.
At 9/10/07 07:33 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:At 9/10/07 09:21 AM, DrBrainTrust wrote:What do you guys think of that model of dealing with criminals?So in other words, we re-open Auschwitz's.
It's not nearly as bad as that, my suggestion merely describes a prison model where the inmates are slowly rendered incapable of violence through multiple types of behavioral engineering. My new prison would function more as a hospital, except the sickness is criminality. The inmates would come to far less harm in my prison (as gangs, drug trafficking, and sodomy could be more easily prevented) while the taxpayer gets more rehabilitative bang for his buck (a two year sentence can feel much longer when you have absolutely no way to tell time, and nothing to occupy yourself with). The prisoners may not have their appetites completely sated, but they'd be far from starving.
There would also be less repeat offenses because the romanticized idea of prison would be shattered; no longer would men return to their neighborhoods proudly bearing battle scars from prison fights, no longer will hardened criminals show the tattoos they received in prison for serving their gang or some such nonsense, no longer will criminals come out of prison in better shape than when they went in so they can offer more resistance to police officers. When prisoners emerge from my facility, they'll be soft, pale, and weak. Since the only refuge from their bleak accommodations would be in the form of books, they'll (hopefully) leave prison with a greater appreciation for knowledge.
Besides, after the prison term, the inmate will be enrolled in a compulsory trade course (if they lack a high school diploma, they will be enrolled in a GED course) while in the "reintegration" period of their sentence. To ensure the inmate takes these courses seriously, failure in the course may result in more prison time. It's perfectly reasonable compared to the ritzy lives our inmates currently have.
At 9/9/07 02:40 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:At 9/8/07 06:12 PM, TheMason wrote:At 9/8/07 01:12 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:
Answer me this: are your civil rights infringed by rocket launchers and flame throwers being banned in the US? Because I'm sure somebody out there has quite probably used this argument at some point.
Flamethrowers are legal in the U.S. and are most commonly used for agricultural purposes. I believe you have to get a special permit to own and operate them. The ownership of explosives such as may be found in ordinances like rocket launcher rounds is a different matter apart from gun ownership. While it may possibly be legal to own the actual rocket launcher, there is no constitutional defense for the ownership of the rocket or warhead since the ownership of several of its components are illegal. Plus the strict liability insurance premiums would be prohibative for individuals.
While we're on the subject of literary works being used as substitutes for actual debate, I would like to submit Gattica, The Island, and Brave New World to my neighborhood fireman. We can't have a decent debate on cloning/genetic engineering without some jackass mentioning one of these. That kind of garbage ruined Drakim's thread on the subject, and I suspect it will keep happening unless we nip it in the bud.
The Civil War wasn't about slavery as much as it was about states' rights vs. the federal government. The southerners believed that each state should be allowed to decide whether slaves should legal or not. When Lincoln was elected, being the abolitionist that he was, the southerners feared a federal ban on slavery and since American law has a strong emphasis on precedent, southerners feared that one "violation" of state sovereignty would lead to others and decided to preempt that situation with their rebellion.
Lincoln, despite popular belief, wasn't the "friend to blacks" that people made him out to be. He may have pushed for the abolition of slavery, but when it came to equal rights, Lincoln's solution was "why don't y'all go back to Africa?"
My idea for an optimal prison situation would be designed on breaking down criminals, making them more malleable and more open to suggestion. The prison would have light grey walls and no windows. There would be no clocks, watches, calendars, or anything else that could be used to determine time or date. The prison would also be dimly lit at all times.
The prisoners would fed the bare minimum of calories needed to keep them alive. Their meals would consist of a flavorless nutrient gruel that would be thin enough for them to drink, meaning utensils would no longer be an issue (not that inmates would be able to use them anyway since the prison uniform would be some kind of one-piece pajama like thing with mittins over the hands). Also, the food would most likely be drugged with something to keep them docile.
There would be no exercise, weightlifting, or sports of any kind, shuffling to and from certain areas of the prison should be enough activity to keep them from atrophying into paralysis. The only recreation allowed to the inmates would be reading, and the subject matter would be controlled. Reading privilages could be revoked for any or no reason at all.
After serving their term in the above described prison, the inmate would then be transfered to a reintigration center where they will be assigned a job and reeducated to return to society as a productive citizen.
What do you guys think of that model of dealing with criminals?
Ive said it before, but I believe they say it better, the U.S. has weak border control which makes smuggling contraband fairly easy, and with an illicit narcotics industry valued at around $300 billion, I'd say criminals have a very good incentive to arm themselves with or without a ban on guns (even though it's already illegal for them to posess firearms with the curent laws in place and we see how much that's done to stop them from obtaining guns).
At 8/29/07 03:09 PM, Drakim wrote:At 8/29/07 02:23 PM, DrBrainTrust wrote:But why does God allow this temptation to exist? or even have it be so strong? to me, it seems to imply a neutral God of some kind, not a good one.At 8/22/07 04:24 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: If your god is of infinite power, why is it he allows Satan to still exist and "cause the weak to sin"?Free will wouldn't do much good without choice. Besides, Satan doesn't cause the weak to sin because if he did, they wouldn't be responsible for their actions. Satan provides temptation to turn away from what one is supposed to do, but ultimately it is still up to the individual to decide whether or not to give into temptation.
God may not be perfectly benevolent, that's an assumption you made. Besides, what would be the point of even having temptation if it wasn't very tempting.
As for disease and disaster, I believe that they are necessary to spur humanity into devloping knowledge and technology and to help us grow as a whole. If things were going perfectly for us, we would grow complacent or start finding petty bullshit to kill each other over. Adversity gives humanity a common goal to strive for.The very reason we need those things are just because of illness and such. If it illness hadn't existed, neither would medicine have, since we didn't need it. This goes mostly for all problem solutions. And now we are destorying our planet as a result of it.
I believe that was what I said, that the ravages of nature were necessary for the development of science. The fact that our current solutions are damaging the planet means that we need better solutions.
Those "logical" proofs as to how God is paradoxical are just childish, and they represent an argument from ignorance. You would think that an omnicient, omnipotent being could find a way to perform any of those tasks, considering that his omnipotence would allow him to manipulate reality or work around the semantics of our ability to express spatial relations. Also the idea of an omniscient god isn't incompatible with free will because there is the posibility that there is no future. God could just be an excellent sociologist in his predictions of the actions of man.But then he wouldn't be omnipotent, as the free will of a mere human could keep him in the dark.
If God chose to make a fixed future, it would defeat the purpose of giving man free will. Have you considered the idea of God choosing to be in the dark? Just because God is omnipotent doesn't mean he has to exercise every power he has.
At 8/21/07 02:48 PM, Brick-top wrote: Let also whack some self mutilation in there as well. You know what I hate my right leg, a bit of dry ice and a chainsaw will sort this problem, and while I'm doing it a nice bag of cocane will make me feel better.
Well, we are perfectly fine with someone who hates the sight of their penis going to a plastic surgeon and getting pumped full of morphine while the doctor goes to town on their junk. If someone opted to do some impromptu surgery on themselves, I don't see why, legally, they shouldn't be allowed to do so, unless they have been found to have some kind of prior mental defect.
If a person, knowing full well the side effects and consequences, decides to shoot an 8-ball of smack into his scrotum, it is none of my concern. The only offence, in my eyes, would be if he robbed or attacked someone in his drug haze.
You would think that if it was costing them so much money to kick gays out of the military, they would stop doing it and let them serve. Ignorance is not only reducing the numbers of people serving in the military, but it's also costing the taxpayers an assload of money.
At 8/22/07 04:24 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: If your god is of infinite power, why is it he allows Satan to still exist and "cause the weak to sin"?
Free will wouldn't do much good without choice. Besides, Satan doesn't cause the weak to sin because if he did, they wouldn't be responsible for their actions. Satan provides temptation to turn away from what one is supposed to do, but ultimately it is still up to the individual to decide whether or not to give into temptation.
As for disease and disaster, I believe that they are necessary to spur humanity into devloping knowledge and technology and to help us grow as a whole. If things were going perfectly for us, we would grow complacent or start finding petty bullshit to kill each other over. Adversity gives humanity a common goal to strive for.
Those "logical" proofs as to how God is paradoxical are just childish, and they represent an argument from ignorance. You would think that an omnicient, omnipotent being could find a way to perform any of those tasks, considering that his omnipotence would allow him to manipulate reality or work around the semantics of our ability to express spatial relations. Also the idea of an omniscient god isn't incompatible with free will because there is the posibility that there is no future. God could just be an excellent sociologist in his predictions of the actions of man.
At 8/29/07 01:37 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: keep them out we dont need them anyways they dont need to have sodomy and vanariel dieses spreading around .
Actually, the main source of VD in the military has historically come from straight servicemen who would go out when they were on leave, and bang the local whores in third-world countries.
Elfer, I'm fairly certain that several people up here (I know I have twice and I think wolvenbear has as well) have already brought up the idea that America's weak border security and close proximity to countries that have been known for smuggling drugs and guns is a major factor as to how a gun ban would fail. It's just that none of the gun ban advocates are interested in trying to refute this claim, and their arguments against cellardoor6 claim the most attention (I guess people are drawn to a flame war).
With regards to endangered species, the most unnatural thing we're doing is attempting to preserve them. In nature, animals who can't adapt to change die out. Most of the currently endangered species are relegated to such a small niche that they absolutely can't handle any disruption in their living situation without facing extinction. Also, Earth has seen millions of species come and go without ecology ceasing to function, so I doubt that the loss of a couple thousand more is really going to do much in the broad scope of things. Also, a cloned animal is just as real as one produced by sexual reproduction. Unless you believe that clones lack souls, and thats between the animal and God, then there is no reason that cloning isn't a viable option for conservation.
There isn't a large enough body of credible evidence to say with any real certainty that global warming is a man-made phenomenon. With the high variability in meteorology, it's hard to isolate one single cause for any major change in climate. Until scientists can rule out all other proposed causes of the global warming trend, including natural sources of methane, it would be reckless to say that man is the sole or even major cause of global warming.
At 8/24/07 01:39 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: You cannot "clone a organ" simply because an organ is not alive, even if we could clone an organ, it would be useless, because it would become unusable before we could make a transplant, If tried to clone an organ, it would probably end upas the animal which you had cloned it from.
First, an organ is alive. It is a mass of living cells that have bonded together to perform a specialized process. Assuming we had the full ability to clone an organ, we would have to grow it from a nutrient medium. That being the case, whatever it was groing on (or from) would be able to sustain it long enough for transplant. Lastly, a lab grown organ will not spontaneously turn into an animal or person just because it may have the DNA of the source organism.
So far, scientists have been able to grow muscle tissue in a lab by manipulating DNA. They have even managed to grow a heart valve that was alive and fully functional. Hopefully this new technology will progress quickly to help save the many people who need or will need organ transplants.
The fact of the matter is that children are taught at a young age that nakedness is something to be ashamed of. We have been taught that the only acceptable time to be naked is during sex, so we have been classically conditioned to associate nudity with sex.
I work in the medical profession, so I've seen many women, of whom quite a few were very attractive, in various stages of undress. At no time while I was working have I ever become aroused; the thought of anything sexual was the furthest my mind even when I had to handle their genitals. Outside of work is a completely different story, and my love of the female body is the same (if not stronger) than any other man's. The fact is that I had to learn how to separate sex from nudity (as I imagine some would consider it rude if their doctor was sporting an erection while diagnosing them). In fact, that line of thought is much more effective in removing the preoccupation with sex than the whole idea of shaming someone into modesty
At 8/2/07 10:32 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:At 8/2/07 11:11 AM, Elfer wrote: He was in his senior year of college. He wasn't being bullied and picked on, he was just nuts.And it had been determined that he was nuts WAY before he killed people...yet he was still allowed to buy a gun under a legal loophole, one that so many deluded people would support. I mean, after all, we can't sue gun dealers anymore! What gives!?
What does suing gun dealers have to do with the VT incident? The gun dealer did everything he was required to do before making the transaction. The failure that led to the VT shooting took place well before Cho stepped foot into the gun store.
At 7/29/07 02:05 PM, Imperator wrote:The US is the only first world nation to have its own unique set of problems.Alright, you're clearly in my realm now, and no we don't. Most major powers undergo many of the same and similar problems, both modern and ancient.
You have to admit that while the problems in the US may not be unique in the eyes of history, the combination of problems in the US are rare for such a prosperous country. We have an extremely weak border and relatively close proximity to countries known for producing some of the most addictive narcotics available. America has one of the largest markets for illegal drug trafficking which means an extremely profitable industry for anyone willing to get involved. Some of the countries closest to America are also involved in the traffic of illegally obtained firearms which, due to the drug market, is also extremely profitable. I don't think I've ever heard anything about any other first world country plagued by these problems to the magnitude of the US, especially none of the ones that the US is most often compared to in debates on gun control/bans (UK, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, etc.)
Like I said, maybe this situation isn't unique, it certainly makes things a little different when compared to other countries of similar wealth and power.
At 7/31/07 01:42 PM, AapoJoki wrote:At 7/31/07 07:56 AM, Elfer wrote: You won't die without it, it's not biologically necessary, therefore it's elective.Actually, a lot of people suffering from gender identity disorder go through serious depression during puberty, and many of them even commit suicide as a result. I'm not sure if it's clear that their problem is physiological, rather than mental, but so far it seems the only way to deal with the disorder is to fix the gender of the patient into what he/she or she/he identifies with.
Anti depressants and psychological counseling would probably be more effective treatments for depressed/suicidal transgendered individuals. A person thinking that major cosmetic surgery and hormone treatment will cure their psychological and emotional problems has an unhealthy attitude about his/her situation. If a person in good mental health decides they want to undergo sexual reassignment surgery after coming to terms with their desire to live as the opposite sex, that's A-OK, but it's hardly necessary.
At 7/28/07 06:28 AM, viceman wrote: every day the fuckin sun burns down on my head but everybody wants some waste so u dont want to build solarplants no u want some dirty nuclear plants
That sunlight you're so happy to bask in causes far more yearly deaths than nuclear energy has ever caused. That sunlight you love to bask in isn't nearly as safe as you would like to think it is.
And I haven't even factored in the pollution caused in the production of the photovoltaic cells needed to harness it. Considering the ecological damage needed to harness enough solar energy to be practical and the damage to come when the solar panels and the batteries used to store the collected solar energy become useless and need to be disposed of, solar energy seems far more expensive in terms of mortality, the environment, and economics. Currently, solar plants are
please build it in every street in america becouse if one of it melt down every american die and i dont have to talk to u anymore i go to the next thread and stay there bitches
Unlike solar collection methods, we wouldn't need to build nuclear plants every where as one in a non-residential area could generate power for the surrounding cities without threatening the lives of citizens in case of a radiation leak (though, as has already been explained int this thread, that is nearly impossible with current safety protocols)
Considering that the cumulative death toll for nuclear power is so small and the risk statistically negligible, I feel safer with nuclear power than I do with coal, which has killed far more people than nuclear power, or petroleum based power plants that pose a greater risk to people and the environment
At 7/27/07 11:13 AM, viceman wrote: and actually i am an tough guy
back to topic: maybe its a good clean energy source but im afraid of and i dont want to see one of this plants in my good ol america
build it in the dessert and im fine with it
You still haven't given any kind of proof that the current generation of nuclear power plants are any more dangerous than the ones we that utilize fossil fuels. Until you can back up your claims of the dangers of nuclear power plants with credible sources by people qualified to asses the risk of a power plant, you're just some guy spouting uninformed, barely intelligible nonsense about a field you clearly know little about. The people who are for nuclear power have been able to provide accurate information about the safety of nuclear technology while you, on the other hand, have been able to only contribute your irrational fears of an imaginary nuclear bogyman.
At 7/26/07 06:15 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Nuclear power plants are unsafe: [Sarcasm]
Here's a wikipedia article on the safety measures of nuclear power plants in the united states [The few we do have]
http://www.nmcco.com/education/facts/saf ety/what_makes.htm
I think that people only need to hear or see or conceptualize the idea of nuclear power, or just nuclear, and the images of fishes with 3 heads and 1 eyeball, as well as nuclear explosions is enough to make them conclude adamantly that nuclear power is not the way to go.
Its the same deal with genetically engineered food. People get it in their heads that we'll end up having giant man-eating stalks of corn or tomatoes with fish gills. If they thought about things rationally, they would see that those fears are founded entirely in fiction, but being ignorant is easier so everyone loses out on helpful technology.
