Oh and this plot hole can still be "fixed" and I hope it will. Some possible fixes would be something on the sorts of "only Khan managed to figure out how to jump this far away and the secret is lost with him", or better "it was extremely risky and could catastrophically destroy the point of origin together with whatever is being transported", etc.
All in all it is like the can of worms they opened when they decided to use time travel in the movies. Although I liked both movies that used it, it was despite the many plot holes generated by it.
With this I agree, but it was not a plot hole specific from the second movie, it was a very bad idea carried from the first.
And being fair it is not worse than Picard being able to come with the Enterprise from the Romulan Neutral Zone to Earth to combat the Borgs in a few hours, or, God preserve me, the Enterprise going from the border to the center of the Galaxy in a few days in the 5th movie (the one that never existed), or Scott recursively inventing Transparent Aluminium in the 4th movie.
In the odd chance you are not being a troll and a grammar Nazi, and asking a fair question, the correct spelling is actually "canon", as in "canonical".
The missile thing was indeed a plot hole, but all the rest is unfair critic, sorry.
Yes it is possible to heavily automate a ship whose sole purpose is to fight by Star Trek cannon. It is usually not done because most Federation ships are multi-role exploration ships.
And it is trivial to go from Earth to Jupiter in a couple hours by the same cannon as long as you have a warp capable ship.
Last but not least, the best way to make something secret is to make it in a hiding place few people know about, and you do that by heavily automating the dock too, which makes it a nice target for a genius engineer that is informed where it is.
All in all it was a very good movie with great actors and just a few plot roles (less than the average Star Trek movie for sure, and much less than the average Sci-fi movie)
On the contrary. Selfishness as Ayn Rand describes, is based on taking responsibility and credit for you and your actions, and not behaving like a child and depending on someone else to provide for you and to take responsibility for your well being.
And if this person was not selfish at all he would have let his team take credit for the work, win the million dollar prize and go on and never even mentioned it. It was selfish and nothing else that made him take action and claim to himself the credit for his work, and that is a good thing.
The fact that there is always someone with the opposite opinion does not mean that it is the same person. Yes, a public person will be attacked no matter what he does, but that does not mean that whatever he does is fine or indifferent because of this.
Even though some people would voice the complaints you just listed, most people would and did voice the complaints the GP listed. Obama didn't just hide stuff, what I bet all presidents did anyway, he also defied the common will and defended the continuation of this surveillance state even after it was exposed and shunned at by the people who put him up there.
That is his main fault and he will go to History as the bully paternalist president who openly stated that submitting his people to a surveillance state and fiercely hunting down anyone that exposes this policy is just fine.
To be orthogonal two things must be completely independent from each other. Authoritarianism can exist without Communism, but Communism cannot exist without Authoritarianism and therefore cannot be considered orthogonal to it.
And no Communism is NOT a pure economic theory. Communism is a political ideology based on fantasized economic and social principles that do not exist in our world.
Nobody is ever competent in the beginning. The fact is that they managed to be competent enough to actually produce working nuclear weapons when most of the world did not, and to make dealing with them by force not worth the risk as long as they keep to themselves, which is also more than most of the world can say.
That is a romantic and naive view of the world, my friend. Even if a small community manages to implement such a system it will be torn apart by internal or external forces. Either the strongest inside would take power and organize the society into an hierarchy, or they would be enslaved by those that did it.
And no, the Inuit were never communist. They may have some communist traits in their culture, but they did have private property. Only land was a shared resource mainly because land was plentiful and useless as they survived exclusively from hunting and fishing.
Your hopes are misplaced, my friend. Socialism will always imply in restricting people economic freedom, and that will always lead to Totalitarianism. There is no other way, and all the experiments made in Human History show this. You can keep believing that the implementation that will make this flawed concept magically work hasn't come yet, but you will be just fooling yourself.
Oh they weren't ever communistic. There was always the boss, the chieftain, the witch doctor, who had power over others and used his authority to get privileges and rule the rest. There is no register of ANY human society were people lived in equality and weren't eventually violently bossed by someone or some group.
Nah. It doesn't matter if the power is acquired by a coup or by democratic vote if all political and economic power are state controlled. In this case you will still have Authoritarianism, because those in power will very very quickly find a way to remain in power forever, abusing the power democratically entrusted to them. Hitler was a very clear example of this.
Unlikely. Most vaccines need reinforcement shoots periodically, and flu vaccines need this in very short periods comparatively to other kinds of vaccines.
Oh and there have been many major antibiotics developments since the 80's, just a lot less that would be necessary to keep with the building resistance. One of the main problems is the increasingly costly and time consuming processes for approval of such drugs. Currently there are 9 major antibiotics waiting for FDA approval, but the chances of them being approved before 2020 are almost zero. By then they will be insufficient to deal with the increasing resistance of bacteria.
So again I must point you that the major cause of the problem is not the free market, but as usual, the government.
The free market cannot solve ALL problems, but it probably can solve THIS problem.
As long the government stops intervening and heavily regulating the market it is doable. Some regulation is necessary, but the costs added by the current government set of regulation and bureaucracy guarantee that no company smaller than Pfizer or Roche will ever enter the market.
That said, I have to disagree with you. The free market didn't fail here. Almost all antibiotics we use to this day were developed by private companies. The government has a very poor history in R&D of anything and especially in medicines.
The fact that the private sector is getting worse in providing what is needed from it is not fault of the Free-Market, but a fault of the increasing absence of a Free-Market due to regulations created mainly to avoid competition.
Most civil servants are average people no more or less "evil" than anyone else. The two main problems is that as the power accessible to them increases so increases the temptation to abuse it, and that groups usually have very different ethics than the people who constitute them do individually.
Discrimination kind of throws the whole "personal responsibility" thing right out the window, doesn't it?
It certainly does not. Discrimination is actually desirable in many cases. For example when you are hiring people to be picture models you want them to be handsome. When you are hiring people to be scientists you want them to be intelligent. When you are hiring someone to play the role of Martin Luther King in a movie you want him to be black.
What is not desirable is discrimination for the wrong motives, based on prejudices, but that harms the discriminator far more than it does to the people being discriminated in any competitive field. If companies decide not to hire black people, for example, because of prejudice, those that do decide to do so will pay less because there will be more offer and less demand. If they pay less and get the same work they will be more competitive and win the competition. Those that, by prejudice, refuse to adapt will lose and fail, and the system will reach an equilibrium eventually where nobody that lasted will hire discriminating by prejudice and where the amount paid equalizes.
That is simple logic and has worked very very well in the last decades, at least anywhere the government hasn't applied affirmative action, as affirmative action transforms discrimination by prejudice in discrimination with good motives very quickly,
We have a personal responsibility not only to take care of ourselves if we're lucky enough to be able to do so, but also to take care of others who are not
You may have as many responsibilities as you wish to carry, but do not try to push them to me. Personal responsibility is the responsibility to take care of yourself and to deal with the consequences of your own wrong decisions and nothing else.
The same people that defend higher taxes are those that thing we should not play by the same rules. That some people should have special grants, that certain groups should be benefited by quotas, etc. And that is just a small part of the hypocrisy you defend.
In your example the football coach does not have the power to directly change parts of the game or a given match on his own, without waiting for "the rules to be changed". He must stick to the rules until they are changed if his campaign is successful.
On the other hand a person that thinks he is paying to little of his income in taxes and thus depriving or great government from the money he could and should give can already give all his money even donating in excess of current taxes while still trying to change the laws and force everyone else to do the same. It is actually the only non hypocritical way of acting.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh and this plot hole can still be "fixed" and I hope it will. Some possible fixes would be something on the sorts of "only Khan managed to figure out how to jump this far away and the secret is lost with him", or better "it was extremely risky and could catastrophically destroy the point of origin together with whatever is being transported", etc.
All in all it is like the can of worms they opened when they decided to use time travel in the movies. Although I liked both movies that used it, it was despite the many plot holes generated by it.
With this I agree, but it was not a plot hole specific from the second movie, it was a very bad idea carried from the first.
And being fair it is not worse than Picard being able to come with the Enterprise from the Romulan Neutral Zone to Earth to combat the Borgs in a few hours, or, God preserve me, the Enterprise going from the border to the center of the Galaxy in a few days in the 5th movie (the one that never existed), or Scott recursively inventing Transparent Aluminium in the 4th movie.
In the odd chance you are not being a troll and a grammar Nazi, and asking a fair question, the correct spelling is actually "canon", as in "canonical".
The missile thing was indeed a plot hole, but all the rest is unfair critic, sorry.
Yes it is possible to heavily automate a ship whose sole purpose is to fight by Star Trek cannon. It is usually not done because most Federation ships are multi-role exploration ships.
And it is trivial to go from Earth to Jupiter in a couple hours by the same cannon as long as you have a warp capable ship.
Last but not least, the best way to make something secret is to make it in a hiding place few people know about, and you do that by heavily automating the dock too, which makes it a nice target for a genius engineer that is informed where it is.
All in all it was a very good movie with great actors and just a few plot roles (less than the average Star Trek movie for sure, and much less than the average Sci-fi movie)
Man, if you call this "correction" you need psychiatric help and urgently.
On the contrary. Selfishness as Ayn Rand describes, is based on taking responsibility and credit for you and your actions, and not behaving like a child and depending on someone else to provide for you and to take responsibility for your well being.
And if this person was not selfish at all he would have let his team take credit for the work, win the million dollar prize and go on and never even mentioned it. It was selfish and nothing else that made him take action and claim to himself the credit for his work, and that is a good thing.
Or that haters like you are talking bullshit without anything to substantiate them...
Which by itself means there were improvements after all.
And how exactly do you define and measure "improvement" in order to conclude that there was none.
The fact that there is always someone with the opposite opinion does not mean that it is the same person. Yes, a public person will be attacked no matter what he does, but that does not mean that whatever he does is fine or indifferent because of this.
Even though some people would voice the complaints you just listed, most people would and did voice the complaints the GP listed. Obama didn't just hide stuff, what I bet all presidents did anyway, he also defied the common will and defended the continuation of this surveillance state even after it was exposed and shunned at by the people who put him up there.
That is his main fault and he will go to History as the bully paternalist president who openly stated that submitting his people to a surveillance state and fiercely hunting down anyone that exposes this policy is just fine.
To be orthogonal two things must be completely independent from each other. Authoritarianism can exist without Communism, but Communism cannot exist without Authoritarianism and therefore cannot be considered orthogonal to it.
And no Communism is NOT a pure economic theory. Communism is a political ideology based on fantasized economic and social principles that do not exist in our world.
Nobody is ever competent in the beginning. The fact is that they managed to be competent enough to actually produce working nuclear weapons when most of the world did not, and to make dealing with them by force not worth the risk as long as they keep to themselves, which is also more than most of the world can say.
That is a romantic and naive view of the world, my friend. Even if a small community manages to implement such a system it will be torn apart by internal or external forces. Either the strongest inside would take power and organize the society into an hierarchy, or they would be enslaved by those that did it.
And no, the Inuit were never communist. They may have some communist traits in their culture, but they did have private property. Only land was a shared resource mainly because land was plentiful and useless as they survived exclusively from hunting and fishing.
I wouldn't call Pakistan and North Korea "responsible" or even "stable"...
Your hopes are misplaced, my friend. Socialism will always imply in restricting people economic freedom, and that will always lead to Totalitarianism. There is no other way, and all the experiments made in Human History show this. You can keep believing that the implementation that will make this flawed concept magically work hasn't come yet, but you will be just fooling yourself.
Oh they weren't ever communistic. There was always the boss, the chieftain, the witch doctor, who had power over others and used his authority to get privileges and rule the rest. There is no register of ANY human society were people lived in equality and weren't eventually violently bossed by someone or some group.
Nah. It doesn't matter if the power is acquired by a coup or by democratic vote if all political and economic power are state controlled. In this case you will still have Authoritarianism, because those in power will very very quickly find a way to remain in power forever, abusing the power democratically entrusted to them. Hitler was a very clear example of this.
By its own nature Communism cannot be achieved by anything other than Authoritarianism, even in theory.
Unlikely. Most vaccines need reinforcement shoots periodically, and flu vaccines need this in very short periods comparatively to other kinds of vaccines.
Oh and there have been many major antibiotics developments since the 80's, just a lot less that would be necessary to keep with the building resistance. One of the main problems is the increasingly costly and time consuming processes for approval of such drugs. Currently there are 9 major antibiotics waiting for FDA approval, but the chances of them being approved before 2020 are almost zero. By then they will be insufficient to deal with the increasing resistance of bacteria.
So again I must point you that the major cause of the problem is not the free market, but as usual, the government.
The free market cannot solve ALL problems, but it probably can solve THIS problem.
As long the government stops intervening and heavily regulating the market it is doable. Some regulation is necessary, but the costs added by the current government set of regulation and bureaucracy guarantee that no company smaller than Pfizer or Roche will ever enter the market.
That said, I have to disagree with you. The free market didn't fail here. Almost all antibiotics we use to this day were developed by private companies. The government has a very poor history in R&D of anything and especially in medicines.
The fact that the private sector is getting worse in providing what is needed from it is not fault of the Free-Market, but a fault of the increasing absence of a Free-Market due to regulations created mainly to avoid competition.
Which is a risk orders of magnitude lower than dying in your next car trip.
Most civil servants are average people no more or less "evil" than anyone else. The two main problems is that as the power accessible to them increases so increases the temptation to abuse it, and that groups usually have very different ethics than the people who constitute them do individually.
Discrimination kind of throws the whole "personal responsibility" thing right out the window, doesn't it?
It certainly does not. Discrimination is actually desirable in many cases. For example when you are hiring people to be picture models you want them to be handsome. When you are hiring people to be scientists you want them to be intelligent. When you are hiring someone to play the role of Martin Luther King in a movie you want him to be black.
What is not desirable is discrimination for the wrong motives, based on prejudices, but that harms the discriminator far more than it does to the people being discriminated in any competitive field. If companies decide not to hire black people, for example, because of prejudice, those that do decide to do so will pay less because there will be more offer and less demand. If they pay less and get the same work they will be more competitive and win the competition. Those that, by prejudice, refuse to adapt will lose and fail, and the system will reach an equilibrium eventually where nobody that lasted will hire discriminating by prejudice and where the amount paid equalizes.
That is simple logic and has worked very very well in the last decades, at least anywhere the government hasn't applied affirmative action, as affirmative action transforms discrimination by prejudice in discrimination with good motives very quickly,
We have a personal responsibility not only to take care of ourselves if we're lucky enough to be able to do so, but also to take care of others who are not
You may have as many responsibilities as you wish to carry, but do not try to push them to me. Personal responsibility is the responsibility to take care of yourself and to deal with the consequences of your own wrong decisions and nothing else.
The same people that defend higher taxes are those that thing we should not play by the same rules. That some people should have special grants, that certain groups should be benefited by quotas, etc. And that is just a small part of the hypocrisy you defend.
In your example the football coach does not have the power to directly change parts of the game or a given match on his own, without waiting for "the rules to be changed". He must stick to the rules until they are changed if his campaign is successful.
On the other hand a person that thinks he is paying to little of his income in taxes and thus depriving or great government from the money he could and should give can already give all his money even donating in excess of current taxes while still trying to change the laws and force everyone else to do the same. It is actually the only non hypocritical way of acting.