Labour tried to (re-)introduce ID cards; they oversaw the expansion of the national DNA database to retain records of anyone arrested for any offense whatsoever; and under Harriet Harman they attempted a strong version of the 'snoopers' charter'. No different; worse in some ways.
Prof. Tallis has constructed a critique of something he clearly isn't willing to understand: his example of a straight line connecting two points on the earth's surface through means of a tunnel is simply the invention of an extra dimension, a simple concept that even a superficially educated but curious layperson (like me) would recognize.
He creates a bizarre straw man equivalency between 'social space' and curved mathematical space based apparently solely on the fact that they're both labeled by the same word, then kind of axiomatically assigns legitimacy to the former over the latter without any explanation. The whole thing is bizarre in the extreme.
I think Tallis is thinking at the level of the words and the analogies. But the thing is, what the physicists really believe are the equations. (Hat tip to C. S. Lewis, from whom I stole that observation.) Tallis is expecting the physicists to talk in the same way (using the same tools of communication) that philosophers do, and they don't, so Tallis misses the point.
Oh I agree. And if you're right, it's a pretty thumping indictment of Prof. Tallis, don't you think? On what basis does he form that expectation? If a man is so conscious of language and meaning that he feels confident dissecting a long-established tool of physics on the grounds of semantics, and he simultaneously ignores the existence of jargon, culture, and context in another field, then I think it's hard to take him seriously at all.
(Sorry if that sentence was hard to parse; this horrid article infected me.)
I really try to keep things open-minded and supportive. Since I have no idea what their conversion metrics look like (much less what kind of internal pressures their design team was facing) I really make an effort to not throw fellow designers under the bus. Glad you picked up on that!
I don't think you're right there at all. Taking your specific example, a '95 Golf got about 24mpg (combined cycle). Today, the 2 liter gasoline engine gets ~36 combined. That's despite the '95 golf having a curb weight of around 2,500lbs, and the 2015 being over 3,000lbs.
Don't forget that since the '90s, European and USA crash safety legislation has caused very large increases in vehicle mass. Airbags, collapsing structures, side impact beams, rollover protection all are required now.
And finally (though you didn't mention this), the crappy visibility of today's cars is directly as a result of increases in crash safety standards: poor visibility is a function of thick A, B, and C pillars; they are thicker today because cars have to stand up to more.
I thought this broadly applied to auto insurance. It does in NY state at least. Anyone can drive my car with my permission; the co. just wants to know who they are if they're 'regular' users (a nanny, long-term guest etc.)
She's over it now, but my wife's biggest complaint when I unilaterally cut the cord 5 years ago was that she couldn't be a passive consumer: she had to actively choose what to watch at any moment. Hulu Plus's automatic next show thing was a help with that, but I eventually ditched that too (money for ads - no thanks).
The net out is that she reads a lot more.
(No particular lesson, just another piece of anecdata to join the growing pile that always ends up on threads on this subject.)