"Suicide does not end the chances of life getting worse". Well yes, it rather does.
You don't actually know that. There is a small but non-zero chance that it -does- make things worse! I would not recommend taking the chance, if you end up seeing lots of flames and melted sulphur, there is no way back. At least no one showed up here afterwards...
Also note that the statistics said by the "Gun Banners" are rather suspect, since several of them have said in public that is is necessary to lie about the data in order to convince people of their claims. 8-{
And of course, most of thir claims have been disproved many years ago, but they continue to claim them anyway...
If someone shoots at you, don't bother finding out who it was, just start shooting random people.
You have a good point, it all depends on how accurate your targeting is. If you can hit the assailant and not hit bystanders, then it is good. If you are not so sure, then best to hold your fire until you can manuver to get a better sight picture.
No one has mentioned how good the targeting for the Cyber team is, but it is probably secret.
... Even if published research checks all the boxes they're demanding, they can grind it to a halt by forcing everyone involved to verify the case.
All of that happens now...
And if there is only one report on a subject, then it is too early to make laws.
Keeping in mind, that the US government is designed to -prevent- laws being made too fast or too often.
look at it this way... if the repubs are pushing a bill, then it must be for a nefarious purpose even if it seems logical on its face. once you realize this and start looking at people's motivations, you'll understand. follow the money!
And the same for the Dems, of course...
Um... If you can't prove it, then you don't really -know- it.
I can't prove that the big corporations are pushing the idea of human-caused global warming because they think they could sell more fossile fuel in an ice age. But, how would you like laws and regulations to be made on that basis, anyway???
Many of his books also featured communal living, with many people living together and freely sharing resources, and even sharing sexual partners. Usually this was not part of the main plot, but just happened to be the way the characters were living.
That was during the 60's and 70's, it was considered Liberal and Progressive. And Innovative. Also, it made good publicity, in the sense that there is no such thing as bad publicity for a productuion.
Try The Door into Summer. 30 year old engineer arranges for an 11/12 year old girl scout to fall in love with him, skirts the issue with some time travel shenanigans.
In Time Enough For Love, Lazarus Long adopts a young girl so he can raise and marry her later. Not, in fact, the only time his Lazarus Long character was involved with an underage female.
If you wait until they are of "legal age", I don't think that is pedophilia.
What's wrong with incest?
It can intensify genetic defects and cause diseases such as hemophilia (unstoppable bleading).
But in those books the people have the technology to fix that.
A satire generally has a different title. In other words, they lied...
... If you're planning on bringing a well known story to the screen, you want to make sure it's easily identifiable, which means keeping the title so people know what you're doing and what to expect.
Well, if they are going to leave out two thirds of the story to fit it into a movie, changing the name at least gives us fair warning.
I have to respect that, after what they did to Starshp Troopers and -didn't- change the title!
I've also felt the same way, Citizen of the Galaxy is one of my favorite Heinlein books (as is The Moon is a Harsh Mistress) and both would make good movies if you could get a good screen writer that doesn't mess too much with the theme and characters and tries to faithfully stick to the story.
Except that one of those books is three times the size of a movie and some of the later ones are much more. Even a miniseries might not be enough. Maybe a few seasons of weekly shows?
His later books got more than a little bizarre and disturbing. Strange things seem to happen to aging SF writers.
Yes. He did get a bit old and grouchy. But I think he was also talking to some Physicists about Quantum theory, at a time when even the Physicists were scared of it!
Apparently you missed the implied <SARCASM> tags.
Don't use sarcasm on the internet, no one will recognise it and they will think you are just an idiot...
You mis-read me. Verhoeven saw the book as an endorsement of the society in the book, and parodied it in his movie, since he saw it as such an awful book. Verhoeven has said as much in interviews.
A parody is not the original. In that case, they should have used a different title. The working title mentioned above was probably more fitting, considering they made a movie that was just a Hollywood horror flick.
My opinion is that the Hollywood "intellegencia" hated Heinlein so much, that they intentionally sabotaged the movie. Not even caring if it made any money. The investors should have sued them...
On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN.
