I see now your point in the quote, but cause shouldn't be as important in this as effect. If previous effects under similar or worse conditions were not harmful, then whether or not the current trend is anthropogenic is immaterial. It's like saying that a tree set on fire by lightning is somehow different from a tree set on fire by a man. Regardless of cause, in the end it's still a tree on fire.
I was clear on the point of the page that the person who wrote it (no doubt with a selection bias) argues that popular media diverged from mainstream science on the issue. What I was saying is that you don't have this happen without overlap and convergence. Researchers with credentials were interviewed. They must have existed, they must have written things, but it seems they've been swept under the rug. Just like the IPOCC tries to do with the dissenting researchers interviewed in productions like the Great Global Warming Swindle and Doomsday Called Off.
It was your example, not mine, so if it's apples to oranges, blame yourself.
I have both gone without sleep for 54 hours straight (which is a few hours short of what is supposed to kill people) and also some years later put in 105+ hours awake and working within a single 120 hour span. (That did result in distortions of my visual perception at the end.) Maybe I'm just tougher and more disciplined than the average whiny little bitch, but as far as I'm concerned if that's too much for somebody, it's their weakness.
Also, I thought one of the common arguments against 'torture' (which I don't think sensory stress within reason qualifies) was that it wasn't 'so effective'?
I never said that the warm temperatures of 6000 years ago were in any way causally responsible for temperatures climbing today, so why is that quote relevant? I just said it has been warmer in the past and the world didn't end. Get over it.
Further I suppose all the researchers in 1978's In Search Of... The Coming Ice Age were just actors with made up credentials. The whole thing used to be on youtube but now it's gone so I can't name any names.
I think it is within boundaries. Detrimental? Of course, but 'serious' is in the eyes of the beholder. You might well mark that Noriega outlasted the music, so it wasn't serious enough to be effective.
Simply being incarcerated is more cruel than watching a movie. I suppose there shouldn't be any incarceration then, as that's done because of the 'history' of the 'victim'. I suppose the rejoinder is that the keyword is 'needless'. Who decides? Most prisons outside of the US are 'more cruel' in their nutritional and hygienic standards, perhaps the international community can fix themselves up first.
You're being deliberately disingenuous. I was replying to somebody that said 'It's ok when we do it.' Which implies, sarcastically, that it's not ok when terrorists do it. What I said was not anything like 'terrorists are the limit of standards' as you imply, but rather specifically that even if terrorists behaved exactly as the US armed forces did in this instance, that would be just fine with me.
In brief, an accusation was made of a double standard. I said no double standard exists, the behavior could and should be seen as universally acceptable.
Where you've managed to pull out of your ass that I'm even implying that we should accept merely being better than the worst I can't see.
Not to say that being forced to watch a film over and over again couldn't be torture - a TV with the volume turned up to maximum, outside the cell but pointing in, playing the same film on repeat 24 hours a day for example.
You do realize all you've described is what the staff of many electronics stores have to endure? That was just like my first job... I can still hear the soundtrack to 3DMark99 ringing in my ears... guitar solo! Da na NAAANG! Boo. Fucking. Hoo.
Like I've been saying, nobody has any perspective anymore.
I hate to break it to you, but even if modern humanity has been catalytic in a mass extinction, it's not the first, and even if every human disappeared tomorrow, wouldn't be the last. 99% of the species that once lived on earth are now extinct. Extinctions occurred more frequently before the Jurassic period than they do even now. That's how natural selection works, earlier forms of life were more fragile, less adaptive, more tenuous. Those mutations that were more robust and adaptable survived.
Even if we lost a fuckton more species, even ones we think are critical links in the chain like bees, life would go on. Other species would adapt to fill in the gaps. Humanity itself would adapt or perish. That's just the way it is. People have gotten this strange idea in their heads that we're somehow obligated to keep everything the way it is. The whole biosphere has been in motion for millions of years, we wake up to that fact and the first thing we do is try to freeze it. Oh no, species x, y, z can't become extinct! I think they're cuddly and cute! Whatever doesn't adapt, dies. The universe doesn't care. The planet doesn't care. We're the only ones who care, and not rationally. If a species can no longer get the resources out of its environment, you don't blame the environment, which of course includes humans.
Humans, fresh from subjectively coddling the unsuccessful species they happen to like, will then attack the successful species they don't like. Oh eww cockroaches are nasty! Kill them all!
Species are going to die, sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly, with or without us. Whether we are catalysts doesn't really matter. Whether we survive is the only thing that matters. That's the only prerogative of any species. Most of them fail.
Yeah, I sure wouldn't want to be accused of showing a criminal a movie he wouldn't want to see. That sure is the basest thing imaginable.
Even being sarcastic about it is hard because it's so ludicrous that people can be upset about this. Not only would I do it myself in a heartbeat, if the roles were reversed I'd have bigger things on my mind (like imminent execution) than what some bored non-coms think is a funny movie.
Stereotyping an entire organization as "egotistical macho jackoff[s]" is not the rational path away from worship. It is one thing to criticize an act, but to attack a person (ad hominem fallacy) or worse a group of people (negative stereotyping) turns this into exactly what it was moderated: hypocritical flamebaiting.
I really like how he says roughly that if somebody in the military knows of people that could have that sign hung on them then they themselves are safe. It's like saying most Jews are miserly fascists, but if you happen to be a self-hating Jew and agree, you're safe. People are right to mod that down.
I wish the worst thing that happened to Americans when they're being held captive by enemy organizations/states was just being forced to watch a movie. Seriously, if I heard that some American prisoner had been captured by terrorists and forced to 'watch a movie' I would shrug that off and ask if anything actually serious had happened. What has happened to perspective anymore?
You're forgetting that Iraqis can only be believed if they're talking about American atrocities, not when they talk about their own. It might undermine the talking points!
If I were in prison, I would enjoy watching South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut. Oh wait, you mean we can't judge things by such an oversimplified moral standard? Shiiiit. Now who's the epic fail?
Brutality. A movie. I don't care if he were forced to watch Waterworld or Battlefield Earth, that's still not brutality or torture. Has everybody lost perspective? What's next, the prosecution of prison wardens by the International Criminal Court because they force people to watch over-the-air TV instead of cable? Surely that's a miscarriage of justice, a breakdown of rule of law, etc. etc. I can't even do this. It's just so stupid and ludicrous. Oh no a movie! The brutality of it all!
Ever heard of the holocene maximum? Far from being an overn, the last two hundred years have been the coldest in the last TEN THOUSAND. A scant 30-40 years ago, climatologists were awake at night wondering if a glacial period was imminent and inevitable. Even if the last 20ish years have seen a warming trend, that's pissing into the sea considering that's still part of climbing out of one of the deepest low temperature holes (the mid-late 19th century) since the end of the last glacial roughly 11000 years ago. We're nowhere near the high temperatures of the holocene optimum of 4000 to 7000 years ago. One might well note that those higher temperatures didn't kill all the polar bears like global warming apologists rant about happening today.
Contrary to all the 'sky-is-falling' BS that people who produce bad computer models to scare the public enough to make government give them more money to find scarier and scarier models, the global average temperature is in a pretty good place. Not as warm as the PAX Romana or the holocene optimum, but far better than the 'little ice age' of the 19th century and certainly better than a real glacial period.
It's actually a different paradigm. There are only so many 'complex and sophisticated' solutions out there right now, so it's easy for malicious code writers to produce systems that can beat them. However, if everybody and their dog starts creating gimmicky in-house things, freaking Deep Blue won't be able to adapt to them all. It kind of turns malware on its ear. That's why malware is so successful, because there are so many variants no scanner can be designed to handle them all.
Don't you see, all we have to do is get temperatures to drop! Then all the problems will magically go away when all the mass extinctions occur just like every other ice age.
All these dolts with hardons for Al Gore seem to forget that while a warming trend may be harmful to a few species and a small percentage of geographic areas, a glacial period will be harmful to a metric fuckton of species and a large percentage of geographic areas.
As far as I'm concerned, people who don't like ST:IV don't like Star Trek. The Original Series frequently frequently used stories that were driven by humor and drama in either the real past through time travel (Tomorrow is Yesterday, The City on the Edge of Forever, Assignment: Earth) or through analogues of the past (Miri, Shore Leave, The Squire of Gothos, Who Mourns for Adonais, A Piece of the Action, The Omega Glory, Patterns of Force, Bread and Circuses, The Paradise Syndrome, Spectre of the Gun, Plato's Stepchildren) albeit too frequently by way of the ludicrous Hodgkin's Law of Parallel Planetary Development.
While certainly they all weren't good episodes, some of the best ones like A Piece of the Action, Bread and Circuses, etc. were well-written, well-acted, generally engaging and integral to the quality and tone of the series. ST:IV was made very much in that tradition.
They were both equally bad, just in different ways. Insurrection was boring as hell. I have a hard time remembering it exists. It might have made a passable TNG episode, but it couldn't scale up to be a movie. As other responders have mentioned, the characters were turned almost into cartoons of themselves at times in what I perceived to be attempts at alleviating the pervasive ennui of the plot.
Nemesis, rather than being boring per se, was more like the idiots running the franchise taking turns relieving themselves on Gene Roddenberry's grave. It was a disgusting Frankenstein's monster of plot devices from some of the movies and shows that didn't suck, as though ripping them into tiny pieces and sewing them together would be as magical and compelling as their natural and original form.
Both movies provide an incredibly low bar for the newest one. Quite frankly I would rather watch ST:I or ST:V than ST:IX or ST:X.
Slashdot Mirror
I see now your point in the quote, but cause shouldn't be as important in this as effect. If previous effects under similar or worse conditions were not harmful, then whether or not the current trend is anthropogenic is immaterial. It's like saying that a tree set on fire by lightning is somehow different from a tree set on fire by a man. Regardless of cause, in the end it's still a tree on fire.
I was clear on the point of the page that the person who wrote it (no doubt with a selection bias) argues that popular media diverged from mainstream science on the issue. What I was saying is that you don't have this happen without overlap and convergence. Researchers with credentials were interviewed. They must have existed, they must have written things, but it seems they've been swept under the rug. Just like the IPOCC tries to do with the dissenting researchers interviewed in productions like the Great Global Warming Swindle and Doomsday Called Off.
It was your example, not mine, so if it's apples to oranges, blame yourself.
I have both gone without sleep for 54 hours straight (which is a few hours short of what is supposed to kill people) and also some years later put in 105+ hours awake and working within a single 120 hour span. (That did result in distortions of my visual perception at the end.) Maybe I'm just tougher and more disciplined than the average whiny little bitch, but as far as I'm concerned if that's too much for somebody, it's their weakness.
Also, I thought one of the common arguments against 'torture' (which I don't think sensory stress within reason qualifies) was that it wasn't 'so effective'?
I never said that the warm temperatures of 6000 years ago were in any way causally responsible for temperatures climbing today, so why is that quote relevant? I just said it has been warmer in the past and the world didn't end. Get over it.
Further I suppose all the researchers in 1978's In Search Of... The Coming Ice Age were just actors with made up credentials. The whole thing used to be on youtube but now it's gone so I can't name any names.
I think it is within boundaries. Detrimental? Of course, but 'serious' is in the eyes of the beholder. You might well mark that Noriega outlasted the music, so it wasn't serious enough to be effective.
Simply being incarcerated is more cruel than watching a movie. I suppose there shouldn't be any incarceration then, as that's done because of the 'history' of the 'victim'. I suppose the rejoinder is that the keyword is 'needless'. Who decides? Most prisons outside of the US are 'more cruel' in their nutritional and hygienic standards, perhaps the international community can fix themselves up first.
You're being deliberately disingenuous. I was replying to somebody that said 'It's ok when we do it.' Which implies, sarcastically, that it's not ok when terrorists do it. What I said was not anything like 'terrorists are the limit of standards' as you imply, but rather specifically that even if terrorists behaved exactly as the US armed forces did in this instance, that would be just fine with me.
In brief, an accusation was made of a double standard. I said no double standard exists, the behavior could and should be seen as universally acceptable.
Where you've managed to pull out of your ass that I'm even implying that we should accept merely being better than the worst I can't see.
Looking things back up on Youtube, I wasn't remembering right. It was the 3DMark2000 demo that I got to watch over and over and over.
See my reply to VenomPhallus. Been there, done that, myself. Granted I got paid for it.
Not to say that being forced to watch a film over and over again couldn't be torture - a TV with the volume turned up to maximum, outside the cell but pointing in, playing the same film on repeat 24 hours a day for example.
You do realize all you've described is what the staff of many electronics stores have to endure? That was just like my first job... I can still hear the soundtrack to 3DMark99 ringing in my ears... guitar solo! Da na NAAANG! Boo. Fucking. Hoo.
Like I've been saying, nobody has any perspective anymore.
I hate to break it to you, but even if modern humanity has been catalytic in a mass extinction, it's not the first, and even if every human disappeared tomorrow, wouldn't be the last. 99% of the species that once lived on earth are now extinct. Extinctions occurred more frequently before the Jurassic period than they do even now. That's how natural selection works, earlier forms of life were more fragile, less adaptive, more tenuous. Those mutations that were more robust and adaptable survived.
Even if we lost a fuckton more species, even ones we think are critical links in the chain like bees, life would go on. Other species would adapt to fill in the gaps. Humanity itself would adapt or perish. That's just the way it is. People have gotten this strange idea in their heads that we're somehow obligated to keep everything the way it is. The whole biosphere has been in motion for millions of years, we wake up to that fact and the first thing we do is try to freeze it. Oh no, species x, y, z can't become extinct! I think they're cuddly and cute! Whatever doesn't adapt, dies. The universe doesn't care. The planet doesn't care. We're the only ones who care, and not rationally. If a species can no longer get the resources out of its environment, you don't blame the environment, which of course includes humans.
Humans, fresh from subjectively coddling the unsuccessful species they happen to like, will then attack the successful species they don't like. Oh eww cockroaches are nasty! Kill them all!
Species are going to die, sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly, with or without us. Whether we are catalysts doesn't really matter. Whether we survive is the only thing that matters. That's the only prerogative of any species. Most of them fail.
They are actually Libertarians, not Republicans. Or did you miss the all the Pro-Stem Cell Research, Pro-Drug Legalization undertones?
Seriously. I'm confused as to where they all came from. Is there some like to Slashdot from Daily Kos?
Yeah, I sure wouldn't want to be accused of showing a criminal a movie he wouldn't want to see. That sure is the basest thing imaginable.
Even being sarcastic about it is hard because it's so ludicrous that people can be upset about this. Not only would I do it myself in a heartbeat, if the roles were reversed I'd have bigger things on my mind (like imminent execution) than what some bored non-coms think is a funny movie.
Stereotyping an entire organization as "egotistical macho jackoff[s]" is not the rational path away from worship. It is one thing to criticize an act, but to attack a person (ad hominem fallacy) or worse a group of people (negative stereotyping) turns this into exactly what it was moderated: hypocritical flamebaiting.
I really like how he says roughly that if somebody in the military knows of people that could have that sign hung on them then they themselves are safe. It's like saying most Jews are miserly fascists, but if you happen to be a self-hating Jew and agree, you're safe. People are right to mod that down.
I wish the worst thing that happened to Americans when they're being held captive by enemy organizations/states was just being forced to watch a movie. Seriously, if I heard that some American prisoner had been captured by terrorists and forced to 'watch a movie' I would shrug that off and ask if anything actually serious had happened. What has happened to perspective anymore?
You're forgetting that Iraqis can only be believed if they're talking about American atrocities, not when they talk about their own. It might undermine the talking points!
... you should treat others as yourself.
If I were in prison, I would enjoy watching South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut. Oh wait, you mean we can't judge things by such an oversimplified moral standard? Shiiiit. Now who's the epic fail?
Brutality. A movie. I don't care if he were forced to watch Waterworld or Battlefield Earth, that's still not brutality or torture. Has everybody lost perspective? What's next, the prosecution of prison wardens by the International Criminal Court because they force people to watch over-the-air TV instead of cable? Surely that's a miscarriage of justice, a breakdown of rule of law, etc. etc. I can't even do this. It's just so stupid and ludicrous. Oh no a movie! The brutality of it all!
Ever heard of the holocene maximum? Far from being an overn, the last two hundred years have been the coldest in the last TEN THOUSAND. A scant 30-40 years ago, climatologists were awake at night wondering if a glacial period was imminent and inevitable. Even if the last 20ish years have seen a warming trend, that's pissing into the sea considering that's still part of climbing out of one of the deepest low temperature holes (the mid-late 19th century) since the end of the last glacial roughly 11000 years ago. We're nowhere near the high temperatures of the holocene optimum of 4000 to 7000 years ago. One might well note that those higher temperatures didn't kill all the polar bears like global warming apologists rant about happening today.
Contrary to all the 'sky-is-falling' BS that people who produce bad computer models to scare the public enough to make government give them more money to find scarier and scarier models, the global average temperature is in a pretty good place. Not as warm as the PAX Romana or the holocene optimum, but far better than the 'little ice age' of the 19th century and certainly better than a real glacial period.
It's actually a different paradigm. There are only so many 'complex and sophisticated' solutions out there right now, so it's easy for malicious code writers to produce systems that can beat them. However, if everybody and their dog starts creating gimmicky in-house things, freaking Deep Blue won't be able to adapt to them all. It kind of turns malware on its ear. That's why malware is so successful, because there are so many variants no scanner can be designed to handle them all.
Yeah, well, in the new green religion, when the facts don't fit the theory, you fire the scientists. Welcome to politicized science.
Don't you see, all we have to do is get temperatures to drop! Then all the problems will magically go away when all the mass extinctions occur just like every other ice age.
All these dolts with hardons for Al Gore seem to forget that while a warming trend may be harmful to a few species and a small percentage of geographic areas, a glacial period will be harmful to a metric fuckton of species and a large percentage of geographic areas.
As far as I'm concerned, people who don't like ST:IV don't like Star Trek. The Original Series frequently frequently used stories that were driven by humor and drama in either the real past through time travel (Tomorrow is Yesterday, The City on the Edge of Forever, Assignment: Earth) or through analogues of the past (Miri, Shore Leave, The Squire of Gothos, Who Mourns for Adonais, A Piece of the Action, The Omega Glory, Patterns of Force, Bread and Circuses, The Paradise Syndrome, Spectre of the Gun, Plato's Stepchildren) albeit too frequently by way of the ludicrous Hodgkin's Law of Parallel Planetary Development.
While certainly they all weren't good episodes, some of the best ones like A Piece of the Action, Bread and Circuses, etc. were well-written, well-acted, generally engaging and integral to the quality and tone of the series. ST:IV was made very much in that tradition.
They were both equally bad, just in different ways. Insurrection was boring as hell. I have a hard time remembering it exists. It might have made a passable TNG episode, but it couldn't scale up to be a movie. As other responders have mentioned, the characters were turned almost into cartoons of themselves at times in what I perceived to be attempts at alleviating the pervasive ennui of the plot.
Nemesis, rather than being boring per se, was more like the idiots running the franchise taking turns relieving themselves on Gene Roddenberry's grave. It was a disgusting Frankenstein's monster of plot devices from some of the movies and shows that didn't suck, as though ripping them into tiny pieces and sewing them together would be as magical and compelling as their natural and original form.
Both movies provide an incredibly low bar for the newest one. Quite frankly I would rather watch ST:I or ST:V than ST:IX or ST:X.
Mod parent up. That kind of thinking is how you win.