The press response, like the engineering response, is in direct proportion to the consequences of failure. The plant was shut down, and as you say that was the right course of action, because failure would have significant negative consequences. The Dreamliner fleet was grounded, and as you say that was the right course of action, because it is potentially unsafe.
I don't know that you can really criticse them for a "lack of attention to details" when the whole intention of the project was to relieve the continuity burden. It was getting very difficult to create a Trek storyline that was more than trivially consistent with canon.
I dunno, the Groundhog Day episode of SG:1 is as near as damnit to a perfect comedy SF episode as I can think of. Admittedly it's harder to pull off in a serious concept.
I give him a free pass for Trek because they needed a cue to viewers that any inconsistencies between that movie and the rest of the franchise were deliberate. The time travel aspect could've been written out very easily.
I'd be amused to see them fight it out in a universe where physics as we know it operates. The Enterprise's antimatter engine would be a liability, but an Imperial Star Destroyer can pull several thousand gees so I don't think it'd end well for that crew either.
I'm not sure what's worse, that you feel the need to specify that it's the "liberal left" who you spend your time slagging off on internet comments threads (as opposed to...?), or that you think the media industry is largely stocked with baby boomers, a generation that is currently either retired or getting ready to do so. If you're going to go off on one at least make your pejoratives self-consistent.
Isn't the Star Trek reboot largely about how our "base instincts" are not necessarily value-less? Spock's entire character arc is about him embracing his emotional reactions to take the moral, risky choice over the logical, safe one.
I thought that the prequel was an attempt to get back at that, by being based around Spock's struggle with his humanity and Kirk's rebelliousness. If they can get an emotinally convincing story arc for McCoy into the sequel they might be onto something good.
A, yes, Star Trek III, V, Insurrection, Nemesis, what classics of cinema those were. Why, you couldn't move for intricate drama or beautifully espoused science themes like "let's have some space ships shoot eachother", "photon torpedos versus God", and "here's a bunch of aliens you've never heard of to fight over a planet you don't care about".
If your first critique of a movie is "I see a lot of people talking about transwarp beaming, with some even defending it" you have no business attempting to review science fiction. By Grabthar's Hammer, you've managed to write a half-dozen paragraphs and have not addressed one character in the entire fucking movie. This is the series that gave us "The Inner Light", and "The City on the Edge of Forever", and you're going on about the tech like it's anything more than frilly window dressing.
Conceptual dead weight like this is why they needed a fucking reboot.
I've got a very well-written response here but in order to stick to my rule of not feeding the trolls I'll just point out that your clearly don't know the facts of the case very well and your argument is laughably specious.
I think that timothy is confusing Wolfram with the new Graph Search. As far as I know the amazing granularity of the latter is not yet available in the former.
Just to be clear, their protocol states that they observed a group of birds who were free to eat as much as they wanted and noted how much the different birds ate. This was a parallel study, where they just correlated food consumption to patterns with no intervention. Then for the intervention study, they fed the experimental group at the low end of that range.
They kept the "restricted diet" birds' food intake within the range of the free-to-eat birds in the parallel observational study. To put it another way, it'd be like finding a group of people and feeding them my shrew-like diet, but not like feeding them the diet of a dying child in a drought zone.
While I agree with you that this skirts the boundaries of research ethics (frankly the whole field of animal behaviour research is troubling):
i can give you thousands and thousands of examples of where 'science' committed horrifying atrocities against human beings in the name of 'basic research' and used that same argument to justify it.
Dozens, yes. (Mostly in secret, and without any a priori justification by the perpetrator.) Thousands?
Not "Patriot Act", it's the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, and each of those letters stands for something, because US civil defense policy is now run by the marketing arm of Mattel.
They weren't starved and didn't lose their feathers. They were put on a restricted (but tolerable) diet while the control group was allowed to eat as much as it wanted. (Which gets into the longstanding question of whether ad libitum-fed animals are really good control groups, given that they're pretty far from wild behavior.)
It's a gag. The authors of the paper, and of the article about the paper, are not seriously suggesting that the birds understand fractals. The fractal dimension is just a useful descriptor for pattern complexity.
Slashdot Mirror
The press response, like the engineering response, is in direct proportion to the consequences of failure. The plant was shut down, and as you say that was the right course of action, because failure would have significant negative consequences. The Dreamliner fleet was grounded, and as you say that was the right course of action, because it is potentially unsafe.
I don't know that you can really criticse them for a "lack of attention to details" when the whole intention of the project was to relieve the continuity burden. It was getting very difficult to create a Trek storyline that was more than trivially consistent with canon.
I dunno, the Groundhog Day episode of SG:1 is as near as damnit to a perfect comedy SF episode as I can think of. Admittedly it's harder to pull off in a serious concept.
I give him a free pass for Trek because they needed a cue to viewers that any inconsistencies between that movie and the rest of the franchise were deliberate. The time travel aspect could've been written out very easily.
It also resulted in White Tulip.
I'd be amused to see them fight it out in a universe where physics as we know it operates. The Enterprise's antimatter engine would be a liability, but an Imperial Star Destroyer can pull several thousand gees so I don't think it'd end well for that crew either.
In science, the multiverse is book-keeping; by definition contactable multiple universes are not the thing that quantum mechanics is talking about.
I'm not sure what's worse, that you feel the need to specify that it's the "liberal left" who you spend your time slagging off on internet comments threads (as opposed to...?), or that you think the media industry is largely stocked with baby boomers, a generation that is currently either retired or getting ready to do so. If you're going to go off on one at least make your pejoratives self-consistent.
Isn't the Star Trek reboot largely about how our "base instincts" are not necessarily value-less? Spock's entire character arc is about him embracing his emotional reactions to take the moral, risky choice over the logical, safe one.
I thought that the prequel was an attempt to get back at that, by being based around Spock's struggle with his humanity and Kirk's rebelliousness. If they can get an emotinally convincing story arc for McCoy into the sequel they might be onto something good.
A, yes, Star Trek III, V, Insurrection, Nemesis, what classics of cinema those were. Why, you couldn't move for intricate drama or beautifully espoused science themes like "let's have some space ships shoot eachother", "photon torpedos versus God", and "here's a bunch of aliens you've never heard of to fight over a planet you don't care about".
Boke.
If your first critique of a movie is "I see a lot of people talking about transwarp beaming, with some even defending it" you have no business attempting to review science fiction. By Grabthar's Hammer, you've managed to write a half-dozen paragraphs and have not addressed one character in the entire fucking movie. This is the series that gave us "The Inner Light", and "The City on the Edge of Forever", and you're going on about the tech like it's anything more than frilly window dressing.
Conceptual dead weight like this is why they needed a fucking reboot.
My bad. It's the largest organisation to be fined that is not a local authority.
I've got a very well-written response here but in order to stick to my rule of not feeding the trolls I'll just point out that your clearly don't know the facts of the case very well and your argument is laughably specious.
I think that timothy is confusing Wolfram with the new Graph Search. As far as I know the amazing granularity of the latter is not yet available in the former.
That's what I thought but I was curious, you patronising ass.
It's a detailed close up of the same bird to show the pattern. Did you think it was meant to be a different one?
Just to be clear, their protocol states that they observed a group of birds who were free to eat as much as they wanted and noted how much the different birds ate. This was a parallel study, where they just correlated food consumption to patterns with no intervention. Then for the intervention study, they fed the experimental group at the low end of that range.
They kept the "restricted diet" birds' food intake within the range of the free-to-eat birds in the parallel observational study. To put it another way, it'd be like finding a group of people and feeding them my shrew-like diet, but not like feeding them the diet of a dying child in a drought zone.
While I agree with you that this skirts the boundaries of research ethics (frankly the whole field of animal behaviour research is troubling):
i can give you thousands and thousands of examples of where 'science' committed horrifying atrocities against human beings in the name of 'basic research' and used that same argument to justify it.
Dozens, yes. (Mostly in secret, and without any a priori justification by the perpetrator.) Thousands?
Not "Patriot Act", it's the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, and each of those letters stands for something, because US civil defense policy is now run by the marketing arm of Mattel.
Angus cross is also permissible.
It just occurred to me: does a Gmail message ever reach the public internet when it's sent to another Gmail user?
They weren't starved and didn't lose their feathers. They were put on a restricted (but tolerable) diet while the control group was allowed to eat as much as it wanted. (Which gets into the longstanding question of whether ad libitum-fed animals are really good control groups, given that they're pretty far from wild behavior.)
It's a gag. The authors of the paper, and of the article about the paper, are not seriously suggesting that the birds understand fractals. The fractal dimension is just a useful descriptor for pattern complexity.