When the primary is failure prone and the backup is a known to be defective, the situation is far riskier than when you have a solid backup. Deny it, if you will, but denying it only demonstrates a wilful blindness to reality.
They made a different argument, as I recall, not that his health disqualified him but that McCain was running with TweedleDum and his fragile health could put a total nut job in charge of the country.
WTF is this, reddit? Goddamn slashdot's gone to shit. I mean, it's gone to shit several, several times since I started posting here, but every time I keep thinking we've hit bottom, no the editors find a way to dig deeper.
That's not the editor's writing, it's the submitter's writing, which you should know by now.
Both Voyager and Enterprise share one other thing in common, they were largely run by two Paramount executives Rick Berman and Brannon Braga. Not even Manny Coto's surprising good final season of Enterprise could pull the show out of the nosedive that Berman and Braga had put it into.
Personally Enterprise failed because it got everything wrong. Wrong tone, wrong characters, wrong plots, wrong settings, wrong acting, wrong characterization, wrong logic, wrong common sense.
My personal pet peeve is episodes that just didn't make any sense. For example, there was an episode where they could have transported a crewman and an alien up to the ship, but they couldn't change the temperature in the transporter room to match the temperature on the planet so the alien would have died from the temperature change? What they don't have thermal blankets they can use? WTF? So they decide to send a shuttle down instead, but it took them something like 20 hours to adjust the shuttle so they could put the heat up high enough on the shuttle (WTF?) and the pair on the planet nearly died from dehydration while they waited (WTF?). If the transporters were working, so why didn't they transport a bottle of water down? If they couldn't do that, why didn't they send a shuttle down early, drop off some bottles of water, some food, and a tent so they could arrange a shelter? Why risk the death of the crewman and alien by doing nothing whatsoever to help them while they were waiting for a stupidly long plot device? I know the answer is "narrative" but it should still make some god-damend sense. This was endemic to first few seasons, stupidly obvious plot holes that would leave anyone with a lick of sense wondering how such amazing huge incompetents ended up running a starship*.
Actually, according to the pilot episode we know why Archer was pilot, his dad designed the ship. And the rest of the crew was hand picked by Archer. Good old nepotism. Of course that begs the question of why anyone would ever do something so stupid as put the son of the designer in charge...
I'm pretty sure you're wrong on both fronts, from what another poster put up, Bell Canada has licensed the show for their stations and included exclusive digital distribution rights in the contract. No CBC or government involvement at all, just plain old corporate greed and one-upmanship.
Maybe this will get us back to the idea that movies should portray a story instead of a bunch of action shots blowing things up and a line or two of dialog here and there.
Well, that should put Michael Bay out work then, and good thing too
But in reality, Trump's trade plans are very simple. In the environment we already have, the government trade policies put the international corporations first, and the workers are just the scum to be exploited by them in every part of the world, be it USA, Mexico, or Asia. Trump wants to end this, and wants the trade to benefit everyone, and specially the American people, instead of just the faceless international corporations.
In case anyone doesn't know why DarkVader is using Drumpf, Donald Drumpf's last name was legally changed to Trump many years ago.
Most likely, DarkVader is using it because Trump had a giant hissy fit over John Stewart's last name actually being Leibowitz, presumably after John Stewart said something less than complimentary about Trump. Trump accusing John Stewart of being an anti-Semitic coward is hilariously stupid.
But yeah, it's unnecessary and a bit childish, just like Trump.
Wait, wait, wait. We're supposed to vote for Trump because he will raise taxes on businesses?
Doesn't that go against everything Trump, the Republican party, and their generous contributors stand for?
Oh wait, Grover Norquist has endorsed Trump's tax plan, so it seems unlikely that taxes will be raised on anyone, unless the tax plan is full of lies... Which, admittedly, is certainly a possibility with Trump.
The same thing holds true for public policy. Do you want "most lives saved?" Do you want "greatest economic output?" Do you want "Least tax burden?"
So independent of any other consideration, there is huge judgement and therefore huge variation when trying to conduct 'rational policy' by what you choose as your utility function.
But wouldn't it be grand, if having chosen either "most lives saved", "greatest economic output" or "least tax burden" that the policies implemented to carry out the chosen objective actually worked towards achieving that goal? Rather than against the stated goals as seems to happens all too often...
I think people in this thread are missing the deepest problem with Tyson's idea.
The problem is that science, if done well, can tell us what the observable consequences of our actions might be, but it will never tell
us what outcomes we should value. For instance, do we value equality or progress? Do we value the happiness of animals as much as that of humans? Do we value freedom or security? The answers to none of these questions are self-evident (and saying that they are self-evident does not make it so).
I've seen many similar assertions and I can't help but feel that this is attacking a straw man. Tyson wrote:
Earth needs a virtual country: #Rationalia, with a one-line Constitution: All policy shall be based on the weight of evidence
I think he wrote policy for a reason and I think he wrote it because he actually meant policy. You seem to have replaced the word policy with values, with morals, with goals, but I don't think those were the intended meaning. I read the tweet as declaring that once we've decided what the government (or other party) should do, the course to achieve those ends should be based on sound evidence. I think Tyson meant that we should only impose laws when we know the ends we are trying to achieve and that the means proscribed to achieve those ends are as effective as we can make them.
For instance it brings to mind the goal of preventing teen pregnancy and the policy of abstinence only education. If I remember correctly, the preponderance of evidence shows that abstinence only education actually increases the rate of teen pregnancy. The effective policy to reduce teen pregnancy appears to be teaching teenagers about birth control. However, there are still many people in many jurisdiction who would ignore the evidence and impose their preferred policy of abstinence only education to achieve that goal. I suspect many of them are only paying lip service to the goal and the implementation of the policy is the actual goal, but that wouldn't matter if the policy had to be shown to be effective at reaching it's stated goals.
You'll never improve the position of the major party most closely aligned to your views if you vote for one you dislike just because the other one is worse.
While I agree with the sentiment, I've become much more sceptical about the effects of voting for third parties. The problem is that any time a third party gets a significant amount of votes, they become the scape goat for why one of the major parties lost the election. That narrative suppresses future votes for the third party and I've yet to see a good counter to that narrative. This effectively creates a glass ceiling of support that a third party can't inch it's way past. Under the current system, the only way to succeed is to smash through the ceiling, and the only one to have a chance at doing so recently was Ross Perot and he screwed it up.
You have to be willing to lose in the short term to win in the long term.
Actually, you have to be willing to lose in both the short term and the long term, because short term gains can often be parleyed into longer term gains. The Republicans are virtually guaranteed to control the House of Representatives for years to come, not because they get more of the popular vote, but because they've parleyed gains in the states through gerrymandering into a permanent district advantage.
If the major party closest to your preference sees they can pick up a bunch more votes by tilting slightly your way, then the next election might have someone more palatable.
The problem here is that you are trading a potential major short term loss now for a potential minor short term gain in the future. In any case, the candidate is chosen by the people voting in the primaries, so it seems the most effective way to exert an influence for better candidates is to actually get involved with the lesser-of-two-evils party and vote in the primaries, and maybe even volunteer to work for the primary candidate who's the least worst.
Doing what she did was precisely what got Petraeus prosecuted and sentenced to a few years of probation.
Petraeus gave notebooks containing classified material to his biographer/lover. Clinton received and/or sent classified material using a personal email server from and/or to people who were cleared to receive it. I'm not seeing how these are "precisely" the same?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's not and you know it.
When the primary is failure prone and the backup is a known to be defective, the situation is far riskier than when you have a solid backup. Deny it, if you will, but denying it only demonstrates a wilful blindness to reality.
They made a different argument, as I recall, not that his health disqualified him but that McCain was running with TweedleDum and his fragile health could put a total nut job in charge of the country.
According to the corporate world, you're not paying enough if you still have money and/or all of your internal organs.
Still too long, try:
According to the corporate world, you're not paying enough
Because I'm sure that even if you don't have any money or internal organs left, they'd find a way to make you pay more...
Well to be fair, he got bored part way through Genesis, but he's pretty sure that he already knows how it ends.
"Our favorite science guy?"
WTF is this, reddit? Goddamn slashdot's gone to shit. I mean, it's gone to shit several, several times since I started posting here, but every time I keep thinking we've hit bottom, no the editors find a way to dig deeper.
That's not the editor's writing, it's the submitter's writing, which you should know by now.
Dunning Kruger effect.
You're talking about Poe's Law.
And he'll use all the BEST nukes to bring it to us...
Actually, I think you were moderated down because your post contained nothing of value. Next time try less profanity and more expository.
Both Voyager and Enterprise share one other thing in common, they were largely run by two Paramount executives Rick Berman and Brannon Braga. Not even Manny Coto's surprising good final season of Enterprise could pull the show out of the nosedive that Berman and Braga had put it into.
Personally Enterprise failed because it got everything wrong. Wrong tone, wrong characters, wrong plots, wrong settings, wrong acting, wrong characterization, wrong logic, wrong common sense.
My personal pet peeve is episodes that just didn't make any sense. For example, there was an episode where they could have transported a crewman and an alien up to the ship, but they couldn't change the temperature in the transporter room to match the temperature on the planet so the alien would have died from the temperature change? What they don't have thermal blankets they can use? WTF? So they decide to send a shuttle down instead, but it took them something like 20 hours to adjust the shuttle so they could put the heat up high enough on the shuttle (WTF?) and the pair on the planet nearly died from dehydration while they waited (WTF?). If the transporters were working, so why didn't they transport a bottle of water down? If they couldn't do that, why didn't they send a shuttle down early, drop off some bottles of water, some food, and a tent so they could arrange a shelter? Why risk the death of the crewman and alien by doing nothing whatsoever to help them while they were waiting for a stupidly long plot device? I know the answer is "narrative" but it should still make some god-damend sense. This was endemic to first few seasons, stupidly obvious plot holes that would leave anyone with a lick of sense wondering how such amazing huge incompetents ended up running a starship*.
Actually, according to the pilot episode we know why Archer was pilot, his dad designed the ship. And the rest of the crew was hand picked by Archer. Good old nepotism. Of course that begs the question of why anyone would ever do something so stupid as put the son of the designer in charge...
I'm pretty sure you're wrong on both fronts, from what another poster put up, Bell Canada has licensed the show for their stations and included exclusive digital distribution rights in the contract. No CBC or government involvement at all, just plain old corporate greed and one-upmanship.
Because they created their own steaming service, and they think they can compete with Netflix in the U.S. with one original show.
Maybe this will get us back to the idea that movies should portray a story instead of a bunch of action shots blowing things up and a line or two of dialog here and there.
Well, that should put Michael Bay out work then, and good thing too
But in reality, Trump's trade plans are very simple. In the environment we already have, the government trade policies put the international corporations first, and the workers are just the scum to be exploited by them in every part of the world, be it USA, Mexico, or Asia. Trump wants to end this, and wants the trade to benefit everyone, and specially the American people, instead of just the faceless international corporations.
Ha, ha, ha.
In case anyone doesn't know why DarkVader is using Drumpf, Donald Drumpf's last name was legally changed to Trump many years ago.
Most likely, DarkVader is using it because Trump had a giant hissy fit over John Stewart's last name actually being Leibowitz, presumably after John Stewart said something less than complimentary about Trump. Trump accusing John Stewart of being an anti-Semitic coward is hilariously stupid.
But yeah, it's unnecessary and a bit childish, just like Trump.
Like it or not, Hillary was the choice of the majority of democratic voters in the primaries. She was chosen by the voters in the primaries.
Wait, wait, wait. We're supposed to vote for Trump because he will raise taxes on businesses?
Doesn't that go against everything Trump, the Republican party, and their generous contributors stand for?
Oh wait, Grover Norquist has endorsed Trump's tax plan, so it seems unlikely that taxes will be raised on anyone, unless the tax plan is full of lies... Which, admittedly, is certainly a possibility with Trump.
According to Forbes, "though speaking engagements, book deals, and consulting gigs".
Which ever side will get him more money and/or votes.
So Trump hasn't learned anything new since 1980 and that's a good thing?
The same thing holds true for public policy. Do you want "most lives saved?" Do you want "greatest economic output?" Do you want "Least tax burden?"
So independent of any other consideration, there is huge judgement and therefore huge variation when trying to conduct 'rational policy' by what you choose as your utility function.
But wouldn't it be grand, if having chosen either "most lives saved", "greatest economic output" or "least tax burden" that the policies implemented to carry out the chosen objective actually worked towards achieving that goal? Rather than against the stated goals as seems to happens all too often...
His lazy-boy chair must have 3 times the padding, and twice as many cup holders, then he will be 50% more comfortable.
I think people in this thread are missing the deepest problem with Tyson's idea.
The problem is that science, if done well, can tell us what the observable consequences of our actions might be, but it will never tell us what outcomes we should value. For instance, do we value equality or progress? Do we value the happiness of animals as much as that of humans? Do we value freedom or security? The answers to none of these questions are self-evident (and saying that they are self-evident does not make it so).
I've seen many similar assertions and I can't help but feel that this is attacking a straw man. Tyson wrote:
I think he wrote policy for a reason and I think he wrote it because he actually meant policy. You seem to have replaced the word policy with values, with morals, with goals, but I don't think those were the intended meaning. I read the tweet as declaring that once we've decided what the government (or other party) should do, the course to achieve those ends should be based on sound evidence. I think Tyson meant that we should only impose laws when we know the ends we are trying to achieve and that the means proscribed to achieve those ends are as effective as we can make them.
For instance it brings to mind the goal of preventing teen pregnancy and the policy of abstinence only education. If I remember correctly, the preponderance of evidence shows that abstinence only education actually increases the rate of teen pregnancy. The effective policy to reduce teen pregnancy appears to be teaching teenagers about birth control. However, there are still many people in many jurisdiction who would ignore the evidence and impose their preferred policy of abstinence only education to achieve that goal. I suspect many of them are only paying lip service to the goal and the implementation of the policy is the actual goal, but that wouldn't matter if the policy had to be shown to be effective at reaching it's stated goals.
You'll never improve the position of the major party most closely aligned to your views if you vote for one you dislike just because the other one is worse.
While I agree with the sentiment, I've become much more sceptical about the effects of voting for third parties. The problem is that any time a third party gets a significant amount of votes, they become the scape goat for why one of the major parties lost the election. That narrative suppresses future votes for the third party and I've yet to see a good counter to that narrative. This effectively creates a glass ceiling of support that a third party can't inch it's way past. Under the current system, the only way to succeed is to smash through the ceiling, and the only one to have a chance at doing so recently was Ross Perot and he screwed it up.
You have to be willing to lose in the short term to win in the long term.
Actually, you have to be willing to lose in both the short term and the long term, because short term gains can often be parleyed into longer term gains. The Republicans are virtually guaranteed to control the House of Representatives for years to come, not because they get more of the popular vote, but because they've parleyed gains in the states through gerrymandering into a permanent district advantage.
If the major party closest to your preference sees they can pick up a bunch more votes by tilting slightly your way, then the next election might have someone more palatable.
The problem here is that you are trading a potential major short term loss now for a potential minor short term gain in the future. In any case, the candidate is chosen by the people voting in the primaries, so it seems the most effective way to exert an influence for better candidates is to actually get involved with the lesser-of-two-evils party and vote in the primaries, and maybe even volunteer to work for the primary candidate who's the least worst.
Doing what she did was precisely what got Petraeus prosecuted and sentenced to a few years of probation.
Petraeus gave notebooks containing classified material to his biographer/lover. Clinton received and/or sent classified material using a personal email server from and/or to people who were cleared to receive it. I'm not seeing how these are "precisely" the same?