Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:
Clear bookmark | How bookmarks work
Note: Bookmarks are ignored for all search results

Total Found: 1,330 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 54
Set Bookmark
Wed, Sep 30, 2020, 11:02am (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S2: Sanctuary


Still all this would mean tens of thousands of operations every day. Let's just agree that Star Trek had it's logic gaps and the Orville often is a few steps less sophisticated. It is probably better to not overanalyze this. I also find the message slightly confusing.
Suppressing women is bad?
Forced sex change is bad?
refugees something??
Set Bookmark
Wed, Sep 30, 2020, 6:43am (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S2: Sanctuary

I have watched the presi debate yesterday and might still feel a little dizzy but are you saying that they kept a tight lid on the secret that around 50%? of society undergoes a sex change? Here I can make the standard sentence about conspiracies: "Too complex to be kept secret"
What would that mean:
- A gigantic amount of sexchange operations. Let's say the Moclans have around as many people and offspring as Humans today. That would mean 130 million children ergo 65 million sex changes per year or around 178.000 per day.
- There would be hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of doctors and nurses involved. They would all know the truth.
- It seems like the people who had a sex change all know it and they also occasionally talk about it. Does nobody ever wonder:" Man/Woman I constantly meet other former women?!!"
- The societal costs must be endless. The doctors and nurses, die administration, materials, facilities. These cost would be gigantic. So everybody involved with the Moclan budget would also know.
- Why would a society even start with all this considering the gigantic costs. There must have been a gigantic effort by the state to start all this. Again it's almost 200000 operations a day!!!

And so on and so on. A "secret" like this would be impossible to keep.
Set Bookmark
Sat, Sep 26, 2020, 2:16pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S5: The Ship

Yeah I'm somewhat with Jason here. The Nazi totalitarianism was way worse than GB or the USA. Sure empires were killing millions left and right but Nazi Germany was doing things on a whole different level.
Set Bookmark
Sat, Sep 26, 2020, 4:07am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S5: The Ship

"but so much could or would have gone terribly wrong before that which could have effectively ended the war before then"
As they say in the states woulda coulda shoulda. :)

" Maybe Churchill's books on the series are biased"
Maybe... As one historian wrote: In Callahan's view, Churchill was guilty of "carefully reconstructing the story" to suit his postwar political goals.

"No documentaries I have seen about the Battle of Britain suggest that it was some cakewalk -"
As I said between the defeat of France and the invasion of Russia there was a short time were the Axis was superior in some areas. In 1943 on the other hand most major German and Japanese cities were already what the historian calls "completely destroyed". Germany and Japan as the upstarts could get some wins in during the first two years of major warfare (mid 1940- mid 1942) but after that the complete superiority in every area became more and more overwhelming. It was the time span GB and the USA needed to convert their much larger economies from peacetime to wartime and mobilize their populations.

"Frankly I am a little surprised at you agreeing with Trent's borderline equivalence between Nazis and allies - you always seem more hardcover anti fascist in these situations."
In these debates I'm always reminded of what Michael Shermer said about scientific training. It makes it really hard to not see objective reality, if it is pleasing or not doesn't matter.
I wouldn't say that there were "good" countries on either side but the allies definitely included the better countries. It is true though the Nazis copied the race laws of the southern states in the USA. GB let millions starve to death in India in 1943. The Soviet Union under Stalin did (insert horrible crime here). The Allies weren't knights in shinning armor but compared to the Nazis and imperial Japan they were the better side. A somewhat free press and an equally somewhat fair legal system (for some), a certain hesitancy to actively murder millions. It was good that they won. :)
Set Bookmark
Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 6:08pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S5: The Ship

"I am not trying to be difficult here but the French lost."
Sure, doesn't mean that France didn't have a better army. The Sickle Cut was just batshit crazy. It was an incredibly risky gamble.

"I mean the Iraqis might have had more ground troops than the USA in the Gulf War but who cares? The Arabs also had a ton more men and tanks than the Israelis during the s?Six-day-war - big deal."
The first example is obviously off and in the second the Israelis were definitely the underdogs.

I'm not sure if we are actually debating the word underdog. What I want to say is that Germany and Japan could have never won that war. If the BEF would have been annihilated maybe GB would have sued for peace, maybe but probably not. It's like with the Confederacy. They beat the USA in what 10 battles in a row. Didn't matter. Lee remarked after Fredericksburg that this victory meant nothing because the USA could easily replace the losses.

The moment Japan attacked the USA and Germany declared war on the USA as well (even though the Japanese never declared war on the Soviet Union) both Japan and Germany were doomed. The GDP of the USA was bigger than that of all Axis powers combined. Russia alone had more soldiers than all the Axis powers combined. From then on it was just a matter of time. The only thing that could have saved them... Prophets. :)

"They were hardly churning the things out like gumballs!"
They kind of did but it took a while. The span between Pearl Harbor and Midway was what, seven month? Takes a little longer than that to build Carriers.

Wouldn't it have been cooler if the Dominion had been as strong or maybe even somewhat weaker but still won at first? Or Proxy wars...
But they went with the most simplistic option. Big unstoppable empire has to be stopped. I found the Klingon war far more interesting. It made no sense because the Klingons don't border the Cardassians but hey the Federation supported a former enemy for zero political gain because it was the right thing to do.
Set Bookmark
Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 1:26pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S5: The Ship

You are not debating me but reality. I posted the numbers above.
It is not revisionist history.
The French had more and better tanks but these tanks often had no radio and were supposed to be coordinated by flag commands which obviously is not a good solution. They were also used as infantry support and not as separate units like the German army used them. The Maginot line wasn't build up to the channel because of Belgian protests and the French military deemed the Ardennes impassable for a larger force which made the Sickle Cut possible.

Yes, the Germans had better/very risky strategies !because! they were inferior. They left very little troops in Poland on the Soviet border, while the French had their troops everywhere. For gods sake, in 1935 Germany basically didn't have an army and no air force. What do they teach you in Canada?

"So yes, I am taking serious issue with this revisionist history casting Axis powers as the underdogs in this"
Can you take it down a notch. Don't worry the Nazis still lost the war. If you want to believe that Nazi Germany was this gigantic empire and those plucky soldiers of the tiny British Empire stood against it, fine.

"And on the Pacific side, awfully lucky that America's carriers were on exercises during Pearl Harbor and weren't sent to the bottom of the ocean. No carriers = no chance of victory against Japan."
What?! Can you research this stuff before you post it. At the end of the war the USA had 28 heavy carriers and 71 Escort carriers. In 1943 with or without the original carriers the US would have had superiority in this area.
This is not about heroism or anything this is about industrial capacities.

@Top Hat
Set Bookmark
Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 9:11am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S5: The Ship

"The Pacific Ocean comprises 30 percent of the Earth's surface. The Gamma Quadrant is 25 percent of the galaxy. Close enough."
I meant it in the sense that even if the Dominion would control all of the gamma quadrant it wouldn't border the Federation while the USA border the Pacific.

"The Dominion flat out told the Federation that *any* incursion into the gamma quadrant was a violation of their territory."
When did they do that?

"As for the Axis being the underdogs in WW2 that is a little hard to swallow but I suppose it depends on the time frame. After the fall of France and Dunkirk? Very hard to swallow."
They were from start to finish. Maybe the short phase between the defeat of France and the attack on Russia.
The French army was bigger and better equipped than the German army (apart from the air force) and there the was the BEF as well. Not to forget the Maginot line.
The French were just lead very badly and made some grave strategic and tactical mistakes. Same is true for the Red Army in 41, less so in 42 and after.
When the USA joined, the production of the Allies vs the Axis was around 10 to 1.
Set Bookmark
Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 2:14am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S5: The Ship

"If Imperial Japan declared the entire Pacific Ocean their domain, should the USA as an enlightened power accede to this demand to avoid provoking them? More importantly, does this avoid war or make it even more likely to occur?"
That is not really comparable. More like Japan declaring the Chinese sea/East Asia their domain. The whole Allies vs Axis thing doesn't work anyway because the Axis even at the height of their power never came close to the endless amounts of production and resources the Allies had at their disposal.

Here a few numbers to highlight that: Production 1939-1945 Allies vs Axis
- Tanks, self-propelled artillery, vehicles 4,358,649 670,288
- Artillery, mortars, guns 6,792,696 1,363,491
- Aircraft 637,248 229,331
- Ships 54,932 1,670
- military personal 80,000,000 30,000,000
- Crude oil 1,043,000,000 66,000,000
- GDP 97,707,908,723.20 10,268,201,776.37

As you see the Allies were vastly superior which is a reversal of the Dominion Federation/Alpha Quadrant situation.
As Trent said. They Federation should have armed itself, strengthened any alliance and avoided any action that could have lead to a sooner war.
Trent is also right in saying that if the Federation doesn't have the power to enforce anything in the Gamma Quadrant then it really doesn't matter what the Federation thinks.
It is also true that the Federation made the attempt of the Romulans and Cardassians to commit genocide possible. What did the Federation think the Romulans would do with the info of the founders homeworld.

If you know that somebody wants to commit genocide, not at some point but now, with the info you provided, and then you don't warn the threatened people. How guilty are you?

The Federation started it's slow descent into the dirty upside down Federation of NuTrek. These people disliked the positive vision of Star Trek or maybe they did but thought that you couldn't market it to a big enough audience.
Especially the US likes to think of itself as the underdog who still somehow wins, even though it is normally vastly superior, like during the cold war were they battled a Soviet Union that was devastated after WW2 and the US is still proud of beating them. It's like being proud about winning in a fight against a guy who coughed blood and had broken arms and legs while you are a heavy weight champion.

So they turned it into a good vs evil plot where good is much weaker. It very simplistically appeals to the emotional desires of much more people.
Set Bookmark
Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:20am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S2: Melora

Yeah and that is why certain groups are often portrayed as being unfriendly or whatever you want to call her behavior so that the normals can feel justified in being annoyed of the groups these people represent.
In essence they turned a script by a guy in a wheelchair that wanted to shine a sympathetic light on how it is to be disabled, especially in connection to the problems normal people create, into a script that made disabled people look shitty.
To give a visual representation of what they did.
Set Bookmark
Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 5:56am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S2: Melora

I get it but in this case it is more about the vast majority often perceiving people who are outside the spectrum of normalcy as bothersome or problematic and switching that around is less easy to digest so they didn't.
Set Bookmark
Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 2:56am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S2: Melora

The disabled person being the problem and acting difficult while the normies are not. Never seen that before...

In the original draft, written by a disabled person, it was actually the other way around. The normies were the once creating the problems and the disabled person was the one who had to deal with that but for some very easily understandable reason they didn't do it that way.
Set Bookmark
Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 9:01am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S3: Distant Origin

"Isn't that like someone fleeing New York on a raft and settling in Japan?"
Or on the moon.
So yeah it is pretty ridiculous for many reasons.
Set Bookmark
Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 7:28am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S6: Statistical Probabilities

@ Peter
What you are describing is empirical research and the divide you see is more because a social scientist cannot put people in the LHC and see what happens because that would be "wrong". :)

The point is that if we could do science without any regard for the wellbeing of the test subjects then we could produce far more general results. Every research that could harm people (and harm is meant in the most broadest sense) has to be cleared by an ethics board. For example, I mentioned this once. A famous study that any fresh student of sociology will encounter fairly early on is the employment discrimination study. You send a certain number of resumes to employers. One with a "white" name and one with a "black" name. Apart from the names they are identical. Then you measure how many invites employers send. (It is 2 to 1 for the US by the way). That has to be cleared with an ethics board because you are stealing the time of those companies and the companies have to be informed later on.
Everybody knows the really messed up stuff they did until the 60s like Milgram. So the problem is ethical boundaries not that we couldn't produce exact results.

"You can look at almost any psych study and poke holes in anything ranging from its methodology, sample size, conclusions, premises, you name it. This is decidedly not a problem in physics, where there is no question of getting 'real data' about projectile motion or luminosity."
That is what statistics is for. Look up confidence intervals if you want to know more.

I also think you are making an over-generalization. There are parts of human science where the data is weak. ex post facto designs often have that problem.
When you construct a questionnaire you have to follow a million rules. You would not believe it. And apart from that you need as much people as possible. The more people you ask the more easily can something be generalized. Optimally you would ask anybody. One form most people have encountered is a census. But there are many parts who are very accurate like demography and other fields.

In German science is called Wissenschaft, which literally means creating knowledge. So yeah there may also be a differing understanding of the term science.

"And I remind you that Kuhn is still current and accepted as at minimum a contender for the theory of how sciences work in practice. "
Sure, sure. I want to mention though that much of Popper's work preceded Kuhn's . I'm not sure what you mean with Popper being based on Kuhn. It's probably the other way around. I also think that you are applying the paradigm shift concept somewhat incorrectly. Popper by the way disliked the book and dismissed it outright and I would argue that he was and is still far more influential than Kuhn. Also one could argue that psychology for example had several paradigm shifts already. They drill far less holes these days, for example. :D

I find it somewhat amusing that you throw Kuhn at me. I'm impressed. Most people here don't have the faintest idea what they are talking about.

Sorry if that is all very incoherent. I'm on vacation, as much as these times allow...

Again my problem was that this guy wrote something akin to all them megalomaniac social scientists who do things should be forced to watch this episode because the word statistics is mentioned in it. I always laughed about the sentence from Bashir which goes like this:" We created an algorithm which becomes more accurate the more we go into the future." This is such obvious nonsense. very funny *chuckling*
Set Bookmark
Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 12:08am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S6: Statistical Probabilities

@ Jason
" And I can sure as heck guarantee that no lawyer is going to tell you law is a "science""
I could mention constitutional scholars but now I have read a little about it. It seems that opinions are going in this direction about law. Stolen from researchgate:
1) "law" means jurisprudence (commentaries, opinions, glosses etc. on legal texts made by lawyers)
2) "science" is viewed as a tool of explaining phenomena (theoretical sciences) or making them more useful (practical sciences). That was - in brief - neo-Popperian paradigm of science (still popular among many philosophers of science).
The outcome of the debate was that jurisprudence is indeed scientific in two senses:
- when lawyers comment on the law as it is (de lege lata) they make so-called "humanistic interpretation" of it and this interpretation is a kind of scientific explanation (it explains why lawgiver issued a given legal text)
- when lawyers comment on law as it should be (de lege ferenda) they formulate postulates of improving legal system and this is a kind of practical science (or one may say "technology of law").

"what we call the "hard" sciences"
That is more a term used by non scientists.
The divide that is most commonly used is not hard and soft science but probabilistic and deterministic. As an example, if you give a group of patients a pill, then only a certain percentage will be cured. Or if you undermine the confidence of people, they tend to be more intolerant but only a certain percentage. Deterministic sciences are technically also probabilistic because we don't know the future, in other words, we don't know if the laws of physics will be true tomorrow or in a billion years. Maybe the apple doesn't fall then, so to speak.
But so far it does. :)

"economists are unlikely to tell you that what they do is on par with what an astrophysicist or epidemiologist does"
economist and epidemiologist are both probabilistic sciences, so in fact closer to each other while astrophysicists are in a deterministic field. But even they are only making interpretations based on the observable universe. Just look up dark matter. They just invented a force so that it fits their models. They really have no idea if it actually exists. That is true for many concepts especially in physics but also in many other deterministic fields.
Set Bookmark
Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 4:01pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S6: Statistical Probabilities

to further explain why I didn't write the law. When I hear that word I immediately think of this movie which coincidentally also is about genetically engineered people, not scientists, though.
Set Bookmark
Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 3:52pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S6: Statistical Probabilities

First I called it the law but that seemed wrong. I wasn't sure what the correct usage in English is, judiciary?

@peter G
medical research and sociological research actually use very similar methods.

"even to the point of world-ending mania - of certain small classes of people thinking they are smarter and know enough to decide for everyone because they are superior."
People believing that the end is near is maybe the most consistent and widespread believe humans have. All the big religions have some form of world end. I really don't see the connection to social science or that episode.

I mean all complex societies everywhere try to have a small group of people at the helm of societal institutions,

" but in that field time and again we see "brainiacs" who don't know wtf they're talking about but couching their statements in jargon that sounds compelling. Presidents fall for it all the time, as these theories come in an out of vogue. None of it has anything to do with science, mind you."
You are saying that economics isn't a science? Man I have to tell my former roommate, she studied economics. I knew that these endless pages of math weren't useful!

"We don't know jack about human behavior yet on a truly scientific level."
We actually know quite a bit. For example if you are a child of a working class family then the chance to get a phd is (I don't know the exact number for Germany or how it is in the US)around twenty times less likely than for somebody from the upper class. For masters degrees it is around 1 to 6.

Or how much money people in a certain part of a city earn and based on that predict the crime rate, domestic violence, drug use, political views. So many things.

I could give a million examples like that.

How any of this is related to a few nutjobs with magic iq in a DS9 episode still mystifies me.
Set Bookmark
Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 9:27am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S6: Statistical Probabilities

You statement is a testament to ignorance. First, many things can be very accurately predicted. second this show and many other shows depict a genius intellect as a form of super power which it isn't. Third, I doubt that you have even the faintest understanding of social scientific method.

And what false promises??? Do you know what science is? Social scientists make predictions based on empirical research. It is all build around falsifiability. These sciences are literally called probabilistic sciences, not deterministic, so no the people in the episode are doing the opposite of how social scientific method actually works.

Plus all the things, like predictions and measures based upon them, are done/provided by numerous scientific fields, first and foremost, economics, medicine and the legal system.

Medical researchers stop working! Dreubarik believes that what you do is witchcraft. How do you think the military works?!

I'm right now watching keeping up with the kardashians and this is still the dumbest thing I have heard today.
Set Bookmark
Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 2:12pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: I, Borg

We can of course speculate how much individuality there is in humans but I think as a matter of degree that their is more possible individuality in the federation than in the borg collective.

"If we're really just plucking ideas from out of a shared idea-space, I don't know what it means to have an individual will"
That would pose the question how ideas came into existence and how this lead to these extremely complex societal structures we have now plus the societal structures often differ widely, sometimes from city to city, house to house.
I believe in Freud's structural model. it, ego, super ego. Sure you can say that these three things are just an illusion but why would nature invent such a thing. What purpose would the false impression of individuality have for us as a species.

The collective takes it, ego and super ego away and replaces it with a single minded purpose.
Set Bookmark
Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 12:54pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

I cannot hear these stories anymore of how much this or that showrunner loves Star Trek sooooooo much.

As most here,I have just no interest in this show. There is so much great stuff to watch. I can barely keep up.
I'm watching maybe 8 shows right now. NuTrek doesn't make the cut.
Set Bookmark
Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 12:46pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: I, Borg

I always saw the Collective as a singular being. The drones are just parts of that being. I guess we never really found out what started the Borg and I shudder about that because we know what that means... fresh meat for NuTrek.

About the individuals being absorbed against their will. I always thought of it as a process that to quote Picard erased the individuality somehow. A drone is just a platform in that sense.

Oh yeah a collective that absorbs individuals against their will and turns them into a thing. Doesn't get more totalitarian than that.

Yeah the whole "I want to go back" was a little underdeveloped. Their is really no smart explanation for it. You could say that all individuals search for purpose. For some it is hedonism or being a degree of eremite, for many others it is about being part of something bigger. Building a better future and so on. The Borg Collective is in a way the ultimate bigger purpose. Or being inside of the collective is just sweetened like some long endless opium rush.
Set Bookmark
Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 7:43am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: I, Borg

"The irony is I liked the Queen's portrayal in the movie. I even kind of sort of get where they were going with the concept because when you think about it logically, a true collective consciousness would be a chaotic mess. If the analogy is an ant colony or something then you definitely need a Queen."
Not really. The Queen isn't telling the ants what to do. Often the queen is so big it can't even move. She just poops out new ants.
I can imagine a collective mind. They somewhat messed with that through Locutus already. The queen is a storytelling device. It is easier for a species that perceives reality from an individual perspective to understand a different species through an individual. Then there was the whole sexqueen stuff...
Was it as good for you, when she blew on his little meatpart... *eyeroll*

But this was also the end of the Borg being remotely scary or interesting. I remember watching BOBW and getting goosebumps when the Collective told JLP that death was "irrelevent". Now that was real menace."
I thought so, too. Before it was an unstoppable force more like a storm. Now it is just a pale perv party.
Set Bookmark
Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 2:40pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

Yes, words are difficult. Parody. I didn't say anything about the quality of this show. I see it on the same level as the Orville which is more of an homage, though.
Again parody ie a show that makes fun of something can not be part of that something. Is that such a hard concept to grasp?
Is this part of Star Wars?
Set Bookmark
Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 6:42am (UTC -5)
Re: BSG S1: Colonial Day

Let me paraphrase that
"I'm not sure what you were smoking sometimes, this is a total non-story. You need to stop with the idiotic, super-PC terrorism stories. You CANNOT fight anything except your own populace with this well poisoning."
See, works much better this way. :)
Set Bookmark
Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 6:36am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S4: Rejoined

Sure, a station in the south actually cut the episode and lots of people complained that their wasn't a warning before the episode
and they got a ton of hatemail.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 2:57am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S4: Rejoined

Having these kinds of parents suck. To quote from Frasier "I know it doesn't help much right now, but the day will come in the next few years when you will have the last laugh."

What I find always the most disturbing is this argument that showing a "gay kiss" is an abnormality, a ratings grab, virtue signaling. It is an abnormality because it is never shown. If I had the time I would love to count all the kisses in DS9 and compare that to the "gay kisses" (We don't have to do it for TNG or TOS because there were zero "gay kisses" in these shows). I doubt the ratio comes close to the ratio of homosexuals and heterosexuals in society. So the fact that a company could make money or score progressive points by "virtue signaling" then that shows the actual abnormality. Homosexuals kissing should be a non event, a black lead should be a non event.

It is also curious though that the white leads(Kirk, Picard, Janeway) always started as captains, while the black leads(Sisko, Burnham) did not. Oh well... :)
Next ►Page 1 of 54
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2020 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.