I think it's probably you that has the cognitive problems, seeing as you apparently can't hold a colloquial spelling used by pretty much everyone in English-speaking North America, grammatically correct or otherwise.
It looks like the Aspie pedants have finally taken over the asylum. Tune in next week when it is patiently explained to us how we don't "dial" a phone number any more.
We invented agriculture because the conditions were right to do so. We couldn't have invented agriculture in Eurasia a few thousand years earlier because, well, you know, a mile of fucking ice on top of much of what we would call arable land is not conducive to growing things.
And I'm sure we will adapt, it's just going to cost vast amounts of money and resources, whereas if we can actually stop puking greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, well, you know what, it will cost a lot less money. It depends on how you feel about it. If you despise your grandchildren and want to kick them in the crotch as hard as possible, just keep defending the way we produce energy today. If you actually give a rats fuck about your grandchildren, then advocate for solutions that get us away from the hydrocarbon economy.
They already have. Insurance actuaries have been factoring in climactic effects for years now. Every time you buy house or property insurance, you're paying into the "AGW Fund".
Optimal for what? If you're saying "optimal for large scale civilization heavily reliant on specific climactic conditions for large-scale land-based agriculture and complimentary ocean food sources", then I'd say the post-Glacial epoch is pretty damned optimal. Yes, bacterial mats and Archae populations and cockroaches may have a wider window of optimal conditions, but the capacity to support large concentrations of humans is a good deal narrower.
One way or the other, it comes back to the Aristotelian Prime Mover. Give it whatever name you want, but it's all about "How come God isn't in Big Bang cosmology, you filthy atheist whores?"
That still doesn't answer the question as to why one would insert God, no matter how much of you've watered down the concept, into a scientific theory. This is nothing more than another iteration of Intelligent Design. The concept isn't scientific, at best it's just another iteration of the "god of the gaps" argument, at worst it's a deliberate attempt to try to whitewash theism by saying "it could have been an alien mad scientist!"
Why not just say "God" and be done with it. And then you can tell us all your verifiable, falsifiable theory of God with some predictions on what we should be able to see if the claim "God did it" is true, and how we could go about falsifying the claim (ie. evidence incompatible with "God did it").
But "WTF" is where the best science comes from. Hmmm, the precession of Mercury isn't explained by Newtonian mechanics. WTF? Why here comes Mr. Einstein with an explanation...
As others have pointed out, we know there are issues with the Standard Model, we even have some possible expansions on the Standard Model like supersymmetry, and CERN is doing its darndest to crank up to energy to try to catch a glimpse of the superpartners to the known elementary particles.
Well, we know what increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere does, so shouldn't companies that produce CO2 emissions be forced to pay for what they're doing? Why should the companies with coal-burning power plants get off without paying for emissions? Wouldn't that effectively be a subsidy?
In a lot of workplaces, strong perfumes are often banned., because some people are assholes and don't respect their coworkers, so sadly rules are needed to reign in antisocial types. And we're working on ICE engines, over the kicking and screaming of another group of self-entitled snowflakes who believe it's their God-given right to help melt the ice caps.
You're right. Enterprise squandered so many opportunities, and really only started to deal with storylines I wanted to see from a prequel after the ax had come down and they decided to push through the kinds of stories they should have done all along. But to my mind, the worst sin was that for a show that was supposed to be a reboot, it seemed to possess the worst aspects of DS9 and Voyager, the latter in particular. They had a fresh canvass, but no fresh ideas.
I'm sure for some people, the attraction of Star Trek is largely fulfilled by TOS, TNG and even Enterprise, and the darker vision of the Federation, when pushed to the limit, is unsettling. I even remember at the time that some people had a real problem with some of the later DS9 episodes, like an attempted coup to overthrow the civilian Federation government, or the aforementioned episode where Garak and Sisko plot to use falsified data to get the romulans to abandon their treaty with the Dominion ("It's a faaaaake" isn't a meme for nothing), as compromising Roddenberry's vision.
If you liked DS9, you'll see where Discovery comes from, because Discovery largely plops you down in the Federation's previous existential crisis; the war with the Klingons. Enterprise might even have gone there if season 5 had ever happened, because by all accounts the Federation's war with the Romulans was going to be the overarching arc then.
TOS and TNG really show us the Federation as pretty much the supreme power in what we would later call the Alpha Quadrant. It was sort of the United States of its era, and it's no accident that Roddenberry called it the United Federation of Planets, and that later TOS's filled that out with a presidency and council which heavily resemble the USA or the UN. That was Roddenberry's idealism, but we all know you don't get that kind of idealism without sacrifice, that peace requires a readiness for war. I like Discovery for that, because, and maybe this isn't intentional, it is the spiritual heir of DS9, intentionally plopping us right down into the era immediately preceding TOS, when the Federation is fighting a determined enemy that is threatening the Federation's existence.
I believe Captain Archer, Captain Kirk or Captain Picard would have done well in such an era, but I believe that necessity would make them more like Sisko and less like the idealists both men really were. They were the beneficiaries of the kinds of peace that harder and yes, much more amoral men win. The best one could hope for is that they become like Sisko, idealistic men who are forced to become considerably more nuanced, and yes, even compromised, forced to admit that sometimes the greater good requires sacrifices of not just lives, but ideals.
Don't listen to the naysayers. Discovery isn't perfect, but it's a definite nod to DS9, which I regard as the second best Trek after TOS, because instead of being about the cultural issues that Trek and TNG often were about, it's about the fundamental nature of the Federation, and how such a government would have to work, and how it will offload its dirty deeds on to secret agencies and the military.
I'd say he's already the focus. Burnham appears to be the cipher; the outsider (due to her upbringing and mutiny), so she's a proxy for the viewer. But Lorca is absolutely fascinating. Clearly damaged, so damaged that he probably should be in a rubber room, but he's the kind of man that is created by the fortunes and necessities of war.
When General Sherman began his March to the Sea, which some argue is the first true example of Total War, the entire intention was to utterly cripple the Confederacy at every point; burn their fields, terrorize their populace, disrupt infrastructure. The only thing Lincoln, Grant and Sherman cared about at that point was the destruction of the Confederacy's ability to make war. In every way it was amoral, if not outright evil, and yet that's what technically advanced warfare is. Once you have a fully industrialized war, there's only one way to win against an enemy of similar capability, and that is to smash their ability to supply and feed their troops, and even further, to utterly demoralize the civilian population.
Lorca is just that kind of commander, a man who apparently only has one thing in front of him, defeating the Klingon Empire. He doesn't care who he has to draft, who he has to send to their death, or any other objective. His focus on that goal makes him possibly the most frightening Trek captain ever, but it makes him a fascinating character study in a creature of war.
Everything that made DS9 what it was comes down to Elim Garak. He was the very epitome of what that series ended up being about. He was the ultimate pragmatist, the very living embodiment of Asimov's axiom "Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right." When he goes beyond even Sisko's plan of giving the Romulan's fake evidence of the Dominion preparing to attack them, and actually bombs the Romulan Senator's ship to out and out frame the Dominion for his murder, and thus draw Romulus on to the Federation and Klingon Empire's side, you watched probably the most extraordinary ST episode of them all. In the final scenes, where Sisko basically says "Yeah, that totally sucks what Garak and I did, but I can live with it," it was like a smack in the face, because really, that's what total war is. Whether it's the March to the Sea during the US Civil War, the horrors of the Western and Eastern Fronts during WWI, and really, every damned second of the Second World War, the only objective becomes victory.
And Garak represents that fundamental amorality of war, where the sort of high-minded talk of "doing the right thing" fades in the face of the necessity. Both DS9 and now Discovery show us what I imagine the Federation really is like, a relatively liberal, plutocratic and benign government, but one that is prepared, if its survival is at stake, to do whatever is necessary.
Lorca is Sisko on steroids, who has abandoned even the handwringing that Sisko would do when he was forced to compromise his principles. Perhaps if the Dominion War had gone on longer, Sisko would have become Lorca.
I think it's a damned fine show. It hasn't any episodes I particularly dislike, some have been better than others. By this point in Enterprise and Voyager, I was going "oh oh".
Yes, you see, but when Kira and Jadzia make out, that's totally hot. But if you have two men in a pretty innocuous same-sex scene (they're brushing their fucking teeth, for chrissakes), oh my goodness, the end of the world is nigh!.
Lesbian makeout scenes don't ruffle Alt-right feathers, but showing a gay couple doing something mundane, well you know, SJW!!!!!!!!
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's probably you that has the cognitive problems, seeing as you apparently can't hold a colloquial spelling used by pretty much everyone in English-speaking North America, grammatically correct or otherwise.
It looks like the Aspie pedants have finally taken over the asylum. Tune in next week when it is patiently explained to us how we don't "dial" a phone number any more.
I'm sure all eight remaining BB customers are totally freaked out. Best switch to Windows Phone to keep their niche player cred.
Killing bad mod
https://www.canadianunderwrite...
I think we can safely discount aspie sociopaths like yourself. You really don't matter at the end of the day.
We invented agriculture because the conditions were right to do so. We couldn't have invented agriculture in Eurasia a few thousand years earlier because, well, you know, a mile of fucking ice on top of much of what we would call arable land is not conducive to growing things.
And I'm sure we will adapt, it's just going to cost vast amounts of money and resources, whereas if we can actually stop puking greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, well, you know what, it will cost a lot less money. It depends on how you feel about it. If you despise your grandchildren and want to kick them in the crotch as hard as possible, just keep defending the way we produce energy today. If you actually give a rats fuck about your grandchildren, then advocate for solutions that get us away from the hydrocarbon economy.
They already have. Insurance actuaries have been factoring in climactic effects for years now. Every time you buy house or property insurance, you're paying into the "AGW Fund".
Optimal for what? If you're saying "optimal for large scale civilization heavily reliant on specific climactic conditions for large-scale land-based agriculture and complimentary ocean food sources", then I'd say the post-Glacial epoch is pretty damned optimal. Yes, bacterial mats and Archae populations and cockroaches may have a wider window of optimal conditions, but the capacity to support large concentrations of humans is a good deal narrower.
The only choice Florida residents will have is to build rafts and try to make for Cuba.
One way or the other, it comes back to the Aristotelian Prime Mover. Give it whatever name you want, but it's all about "How come God isn't in Big Bang cosmology, you filthy atheist whores?"
Except that the blackbody radiation is everywhere. It doesn't come from any specific direction, it's literally everywhere in the universe.
That still doesn't answer the question as to why one would insert God, no matter how much of you've watered down the concept, into a scientific theory. This is nothing more than another iteration of Intelligent Design. The concept isn't scientific, at best it's just another iteration of the "god of the gaps" argument, at worst it's a deliberate attempt to try to whitewash theism by saying "it could have been an alien mad scientist!"
Why not just say "God" and be done with it. And then you can tell us all your verifiable, falsifiable theory of God with some predictions on what we should be able to see if the claim "God did it" is true, and how we could go about falsifying the claim (ie. evidence incompatible with "God did it").
But "WTF" is where the best science comes from. Hmmm, the precession of Mercury isn't explained by Newtonian mechanics. WTF? Why here comes Mr. Einstein with an explanation...
As others have pointed out, we know there are issues with the Standard Model, we even have some possible expansions on the Standard Model like supersymmetry, and CERN is doing its darndest to crank up to energy to try to catch a glimpse of the superpartners to the known elementary particles.
Well, we know what increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere does, so shouldn't companies that produce CO2 emissions be forced to pay for what they're doing? Why should the companies with coal-burning power plants get off without paying for emissions? Wouldn't that effectively be a subsidy?
Yeah, because there's no other reason to phase out one of the dirtiest means of generating electricity ever invented.
Thanks Ivan. How's the weather in st Petersburg?
In a lot of workplaces, strong perfumes are often banned., because some people are assholes and don't respect their coworkers, so sadly rules are needed to reign in antisocial types. And we're working on ICE engines, over the kicking and screaming of another group of self-entitled snowflakes who believe it's their God-given right to help melt the ice caps.
You're right. Enterprise squandered so many opportunities, and really only started to deal with storylines I wanted to see from a prequel after the ax had come down and they decided to push through the kinds of stories they should have done all along. But to my mind, the worst sin was that for a show that was supposed to be a reboot, it seemed to possess the worst aspects of DS9 and Voyager, the latter in particular. They had a fresh canvass, but no fresh ideas.
I'm sure for some people, the attraction of Star Trek is largely fulfilled by TOS, TNG and even Enterprise, and the darker vision of the Federation, when pushed to the limit, is unsettling. I even remember at the time that some people had a real problem with some of the later DS9 episodes, like an attempted coup to overthrow the civilian Federation government, or the aforementioned episode where Garak and Sisko plot to use falsified data to get the romulans to abandon their treaty with the Dominion ("It's a faaaaake" isn't a meme for nothing), as compromising Roddenberry's vision.
If you liked DS9, you'll see where Discovery comes from, because Discovery largely plops you down in the Federation's previous existential crisis; the war with the Klingons. Enterprise might even have gone there if season 5 had ever happened, because by all accounts the Federation's war with the Romulans was going to be the overarching arc then.
TOS and TNG really show us the Federation as pretty much the supreme power in what we would later call the Alpha Quadrant. It was sort of the United States of its era, and it's no accident that Roddenberry called it the United Federation of Planets, and that later TOS's filled that out with a presidency and council which heavily resemble the USA or the UN. That was Roddenberry's idealism, but we all know you don't get that kind of idealism without sacrifice, that peace requires a readiness for war. I like Discovery for that, because, and maybe this isn't intentional, it is the spiritual heir of DS9, intentionally plopping us right down into the era immediately preceding TOS, when the Federation is fighting a determined enemy that is threatening the Federation's existence.
I believe Captain Archer, Captain Kirk or Captain Picard would have done well in such an era, but I believe that necessity would make them more like Sisko and less like the idealists both men really were. They were the beneficiaries of the kinds of peace that harder and yes, much more amoral men win. The best one could hope for is that they become like Sisko, idealistic men who are forced to become considerably more nuanced, and yes, even compromised, forced to admit that sometimes the greater good requires sacrifices of not just lives, but ideals.
Don't listen to the naysayers. Discovery isn't perfect, but it's a definite nod to DS9, which I regard as the second best Trek after TOS, because instead of being about the cultural issues that Trek and TNG often were about, it's about the fundamental nature of the Federation, and how such a government would have to work, and how it will offload its dirty deeds on to secret agencies and the military.
I'd say he's already the focus. Burnham appears to be the cipher; the outsider (due to her upbringing and mutiny), so she's a proxy for the viewer. But Lorca is absolutely fascinating. Clearly damaged, so damaged that he probably should be in a rubber room, but he's the kind of man that is created by the fortunes and necessities of war.
When General Sherman began his March to the Sea, which some argue is the first true example of Total War, the entire intention was to utterly cripple the Confederacy at every point; burn their fields, terrorize their populace, disrupt infrastructure. The only thing Lincoln, Grant and Sherman cared about at that point was the destruction of the Confederacy's ability to make war. In every way it was amoral, if not outright evil, and yet that's what technically advanced warfare is. Once you have a fully industrialized war, there's only one way to win against an enemy of similar capability, and that is to smash their ability to supply and feed their troops, and even further, to utterly demoralize the civilian population.
Lorca is just that kind of commander, a man who apparently only has one thing in front of him, defeating the Klingon Empire. He doesn't care who he has to draft, who he has to send to their death, or any other objective. His focus on that goal makes him possibly the most frightening Trek captain ever, but it makes him a fascinating character study in a creature of war.
Everything that made DS9 what it was comes down to Elim Garak. He was the very epitome of what that series ended up being about. He was the ultimate pragmatist, the very living embodiment of Asimov's axiom "Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right." When he goes beyond even Sisko's plan of giving the Romulan's fake evidence of the Dominion preparing to attack them, and actually bombs the Romulan Senator's ship to out and out frame the Dominion for his murder, and thus draw Romulus on to the Federation and Klingon Empire's side, you watched probably the most extraordinary ST episode of them all. In the final scenes, where Sisko basically says "Yeah, that totally sucks what Garak and I did, but I can live with it," it was like a smack in the face, because really, that's what total war is. Whether it's the March to the Sea during the US Civil War, the horrors of the Western and Eastern Fronts during WWI, and really, every damned second of the Second World War, the only objective becomes victory.
And Garak represents that fundamental amorality of war, where the sort of high-minded talk of "doing the right thing" fades in the face of the necessity. Both DS9 and now Discovery show us what I imagine the Federation really is like, a relatively liberal, plutocratic and benign government, but one that is prepared, if its survival is at stake, to do whatever is necessary.
Lorca is Sisko on steroids, who has abandoned even the handwringing that Sisko would do when he was forced to compromise his principles. Perhaps if the Dominion War had gone on longer, Sisko would have become Lorca.
I think it's a damned fine show. It hasn't any episodes I particularly dislike, some have been better than others. By this point in Enterprise and Voyager, I was going "oh oh".
Yes, you see, but when Kira and Jadzia make out, that's totally hot. But if you have two men in a pretty innocuous same-sex scene (they're brushing their fucking teeth, for chrissakes), oh my goodness, the end of the world is nigh!.
Lesbian makeout scenes don't ruffle Alt-right feathers, but showing a gay couple doing something mundane, well you know, SJW!!!!!!!!