unixknight

So... relevance?

It doens't matter. If there's data to suggest a social factor impacting the number of Diabetes cases, that's enough, for some, to justify Government intervention. Besides, I could turn that same argument back on you by saying a person can choose to avoid contact with those who are unvaccinated. ... in your opinion. There are compelling arguments saying that forced vaccination violates the 4th and 5th Amendments. Again, that same logic applies to driving cars. I can form an argument saying the threat is real as long as I'm not the only person on the road in a car. (Of course, there's no way to make myself or my kids completely safe from traffic accidents, I can only mitigate the risk by driving skill and good habits.) People who can't get vaccinated for whatever reason are perfectly well aware of their vulnerability and can (and do) take steps to mitigate the risk to themselves of contracting diseases form others. The point is that the threat is vastly overstated in order to justify Government force. My kids are vaccinated, as are the overwhelming majority, so the threat is minimal. If I were to chose otherwise, I'd have done so with a full understanding of the risks.

Until the technology itself becomes the agent of apocalypse.

Of course it's silly, and not what @SpiritDragon's evidence says. It's saying bad easting habits are a social factor. Bad eating habits lead to obesity, which is a major contributor to Diabetes. (Poor people tend to be obese more often than wealthy people, because they tend to eat cheaper, less healthy fare). Yes that's correct, the Constitution DOES limit Government. Too bad we have so many movements in this day and age eroding it. I happen to agree with your reasoning here, but that's all beside the point. If the Government is going to enforce vaccinations, it's not going to wait until an unvaccinated kid gets someone sick before imposing control on the grounds of protecting the community. Editing for clarity: I'm talking about individuals. It won't force individuals to get vaccinated only after they make somebody sick. It'll enforce it for ALL, regardless of the individual risk factors. Tell that to the government in places where firearm ownership is banned or severely curtailed. People ignore the Constitution when they think they have a legitimate gripe. Again, I agree with your words here, but they don't refute the topic at hand. A Constitutional argument can also be made against the Government forcing a medical procedure like a vaccination, but still there's people calling for it. All of this, by the way, is a hypothetical discussion. The community in which there was an outbreak was an isolated community, where only other members, who had chosen not to vaccinate, had issues. The general public was not affected because it had chosen to vaccinate. That's another reason @Godless' argument from earlier fails. My next door neighbor's kid might not be vaccinated, but mine are, so the threat is imaginary.

The evidence provided by @SpiritDragon suggests otherwise. Ignore that if you like, but don't expect other people to follow you. Besides, drawing the line between someone's freedom and someone else's nose is pretty arbitrary. It's one thing to justify legislation by saying your freedom ends at someone else's nose. It's another entirely to say something like "your freedom ends if anything you do could ever possibly hit someone else's nose." By that logic, the Government should provide drivers for our cars, since our freedom to drive can cause someone else to get hurt or die. It's also a great gun control argument. Take it to its logical conclusion and all the sudden you open up a wide range of excused for greater and greater Government crackdown.

Exactly. And, people who call for more Government authority never think it'll go any farther.

Then let her go. She's either worth waiting for or she isn't. From what you're saying it sounds like you don't think she is.

Easily, though in that graph it's probably more like $1,500, since about half of that was there before in 1970. I could believe 3k though. EFI systems consist of: The ECU, a computer which takes inputs from sensors, driving habits and variables for fuel economy, performance and emissions and decided how much fuel to inject into the intake manifold 1 injector per cylinder, which pulses in a waveform pattern based on instructions from the ECU (In TBI systems, it's a single throttle body with one or two injectors that sit where a carburetor would be) High pressure fuel hose (often around 35psi) Electric fuel pump, usually (but not always) located inside the fuel tank A variety of sensors, including the oxygen sensor, intake air temp sensor, manifold pressure sensor, coolant temp sensor, mass airflow meter, intake air temp sensor, throttle position sensor, etc. fuel rails and return line (I used to be a Master Certified auto tech before I was reborn as a Software engineer)

There isn't very much official at all, and the current speculation on the reason for that is that they don't want to devalue licensed merch from the Original Timeline by admitting that it's been laid to rest. If sales of Prime or Abramsverse merch were better, they'd probably be more open, but right now, only the stuff based on older Trek is selling.

As a side note, robots and A.I.s are no longer purely sci-fi concepts, and we, as a species, need to start deciding now how we're going to deal with them. Personally, I'm a fan of making use of Asimov's Robot Laws: First Law: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. Second Law: A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. But personally, I'd update them to: Zeroth Law: An A.I may not interfere with human agency. First Law: An A.I. may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, except where action would conflict with the Zeroth Law. Second Law: An A.I. must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the Zeroth or First Law. Third Law: An A.I. must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the Zeroth, First or Second Law. That would remedy one of the conflicts illustrated in the book I, Robot as well as the film adaptation.

@anatess2 I had that very quote in mind as I was writing that post. @NeuroTypical Glad to hear that. I thought some drones were purely robotic.

Late as I am to the discussion, I have a couple pennies to toss in. Maybe that court hearing is happening at this very moment as I type. That thought is a sad one, but maybe there are still useful things here to learn for future use. I read the entire original post and much of the following, and the themes that I picked up were "I'll do anything to get her back" and "I know I screwed up so how can I Make her see I'm different?" The word "desperate" also came up a few times. That leaves a bad taste in my mouth, because it kind of makes the wife an object of desire, a prize to be won, as it were. It also feels like the OP's thoughts are all very self-centered. It sounds like lots of effort was made to "win" back her affections or to "earn" it, in a way that it feels formulaic. "I did x, y and z, but she still won't take me back! What's wrong???" The answer is this: It sounds like the biggest pain she was feeling during the time they were together was feeling powerless during these fights when he'd shut down emotionally on her. She must have felt like nothing she could do would be enough to get through the barrier until he decided it was time to open back up to her emotionally. He controlled when emotions would be shared, he controlled the intimacy level. What power did she have? None at all. It's no wonder her mantra is now "It's my choice." She finally found a way to feel empowered and she won't give that up. She couldn't stop the emotional distance, the verbal abuse or the lack of intimacy, but she's in the driver's seat now, and she's not relinquishing that. The toxic part of all this is that it's a power struggle and has been the entire time. He had the power before, she has it now. When he makes an effort to contact her, to talk to her, to see her at work... It feels to her like an attempt by him to regain that control. (Not saying that's his motive, just that it's how it might look to her.) Even after things blew up, it's all about what he wants. He wants her back. He wants to talk to her. He wants to see her. He wants to reconcile. He wants this and that and all the other things she's not in a position emotionally to give, even if she wanted to. From what I can see, at no time has he given her reason to think that he honors her agency. Of course, all we know is one side of the story in what can be told in a few long forum posts, but that's just what jumps out at me.

I was following the discussion in the SOTU thread and @Traveler made some comments referencing the idea of a robotic firing squad. That got me thinking about the use of robots for such purposes in general, and I find myself viscerally against that notion. I'm also strongly against robots fighting in battle. (Funny how this isn't a science fiction discussion.) Isaac Asimov's Robot Laws are, to me, a stroke of genius. The wisest thing ever written in any sci-fi, IMHO. I don't think robots (or computers) should ever, EVER be used in the taking of human life under any circumstances. Why? Because killing would become too easy, that's why. As humans, we have a moral aversion to the taking of human life. Even in those times when we may consider it "necessary" such as capital punishment, self defense or war. I agree that it's sometimes necessary, but not something to celebrate or enjoy. The killing of a fellow human is a life changing event, and never to be taken lightly. Robots being used for the purpose insulates us from the gravity of it. By sending the robot in to do it, we can absolve ourselves of any personal responsibility and the problem of desensitization rockets to a new level. Remember that original Star Trek episode, "A Taste of Armageddon?" That's the one where Kirk and crew encounter a civilization at war with a neighboring planet, but despite the massive casualties, there was no physical damage to either world. The war, you see, was being simulated in a computer, and whenever an attack was launched, the computer would calculate the number of deaths that resulted. Then, that number of people would be voluntarily disintegrated. This allowed for the war to carry on without destroying the underlying infrastructure of society. The result was that the war had been going on for centuries, because the people fighting it were so far removed form the reality of what was happening, that they had no incentive to stop. Is that our future? We already have robotic drones out there. What happens when entire armies of robots are meeting on the field? Sure, one can say it saves lives by keeping living people out of direct combat, but is that really a justification? Casualties, suffering, loss and destruction of lives are the reality of war. It's what makes war an undesirable thing. Shall we throw away our incentive to avoid war so that we can instead dump resources into these sterile, pointless robot wars? On a smaller scale, can the same thing happen in our application of capital punishment? Will it become easier to execute people if no living person has to throw the switch?

Gonna start a thread, as I have some thoughts on this but I don't want to derail you guys' discussion.

Kinda. I think personally it has more to do with keeping their narrative options open. They aren't locked into the canon of the Original Timeline, but can always pick and choose what might be the same. For instance, Picard Prime may at some point refer to the Farpoint mission, even though that's from the Original Timeline. In doing so, that would establish that those events are common to both timelines without having to go through the effort of retelling the story. At the same time, they aren't locked into anything, so the Enterprise-D might yet exist there, or the whole Tasha Yar timey wimey ball leading to the character Sela might never have happened.

Almost... Vulcan will be there, because it was only destroyed in the Abramsverse, not in the Prime timeline (or the Original timeline). But it is set after the destruction of Romulus.

I recently watched a video or two on YouTube by Midnight's Edge explaining a theory on how Star Trek continuity is supposed to work, based on licensing, rights, IP, and so on. The video is titled "Why the Star Trek Prime Timeline is NOT Canon Explained" I won't go into the deep details but suffice it to say the reason things are as convoluted as they are is because: The rules for the license Bad Robot holds to make Star Trek content requires it to be distinct from the older Star Trek shows/movies by at least 25% (however that's measured) Due to the unpopularity of the later movies/show, CBS doesn't want licensed merchandise form the old shows to be devalued. Essentially, there are 3 separate continuities (you could think of them as separate universes, if it helps): The Original Timeline, consisting of Star Trek: Enterprise, Star Trek, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Star Trek: Voyager (Along with the movies up to Star Trek: Nemesis) The Prime Timeline, consisting of Star Trek: Discovery and the timeline from 2009 Star Trek that Ambassador Spock and Nero came from, where Romulus was destroyed. The Abramsverse, consisting of the 3 Star Trek movies produced and/or directed by JJ Abrams The implications of that are as follows: The Original Timeline is done. It ended with the last episode of Star Trek: Enterprise (chronologically by TV show airdate. Within the universe, it ends with Star Trek: Nemesis) and there will be no more in that timeline for the foreseeable future. Star Trek: Discovery is in the same universe where Romulus will eventually be destroyed by the supernova. Ambassador Spock and Nero will go back in time through the black hole, which leads to the creation of: The Abramsverse, which is the only timeline out of the 3 in which Vulcan is destroyed. It splits from the Prime timeline (NOT the original timeline) when the Narada arrives and destroys U.S.S. Kelvin. This timeline is also done, due to the unpopularity of the films. Star Trek: Discovery and the new show coming out featuring Picard will be in the Prime Timeline, which is NOT the same as the Original. That means this new Picard will not be the same character as the one we know. (This has been openly stated by Patrick Stewart, among others.) He will be the Prime Timeline counterpart. All other Star Trek TV series currently in development will be set in the Prime Timeline. This explains the visual similarities between the interiors, uniforms and other details between Star Trek: Discovery and U.S.S. Kelvin. They are in the same universe. This also explains why there's a drastic difference between the look of the original U.S.S Enterprise and these ships. They are NOT the same universe. It also explains the major differences in appearance, scale and details of the original U.S.S. Enterprise across the three timelines. It's true that the Klingons in the Prime timeline and the Abramsverse aren't quite the same, but they're far more similar to each other than the Klingons of the Original Timeline are to each other across Star Trek and later series, so we can take that in stride. Note: Why would they call the new timeline the Prime timeline? Well, think about in math. If I have a variable x, and some other variable directly related to it but not the same, I might call it x' or "x prime." It isn't the original.

I think I'm clawing my way back onto the wagon. Yesterday, drank a ton of water, as well as juice(from the juicer) and a smoothie. In fact, the smoothie was my whole lunch. Not looking forward to the weigh-in, but I'll mitigate it as best I can.

That's beside the point I'm making. A lot of people justify using Government force on the grounds that it's bad parenting to not vaccinate and the Government can save the day. This argument simply takes that to its logical conclusion. Namely, that if the Government is empowered to make sure you're parenting in a particular way, then the camel's nose is in the tent, as it were.

So I just saw an argument by someone who is against vaccines. It went something like this (paraphrased): You're a hypocrite if you judge people who don't vaccinate, but then turn around and feed your kids the kind of garbage that puts them on a path to Diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, etc. And that struck me as a good point, because if you're okay with using Government to force people to vaccinate their kids on the grounds that it's protecting the children, then you have a very weak case against the Government also telling you how to feed your own.

I *did* read it. You reference an entire 54 verse chapter just to emphasise 5 verses and highlighted one. Asking you to be specific isn't asking you to spoonfeed it, it's asking you to be clear. Pretttymuch.

Care to elaborate?

Thanks for the detail. I actually edited out the last question because I looked up the novel on Wikipedia, but your answer was more detailed.

Hehe well played. Happily, hard drugs have never been a part of my life or the lives of anybody I know. Some smoke/have smoked weed but at this point it almost doesn't feel like it counts, by comparison. (IMHO alcohol is far more of a scourge.)

My wife had never seen The Joy Luck Club so I rented it for us to watch after dinner last night. I had seen it once before many years ago but I understood it way better this time.