It *was* the best thing on TV... when Carl Sagan did it. In the time and place that the original series ran, it was a refreshing and needed mixture of education, propaganda, and philosophy. Yes, propaganda, and that's not a bad thing, considering that most folks at the time had no awareness of the impacts mankind was wreaking on their environment, or the dangers that the then-escalating Cold War posed to humanity.

Nowadays, people are on forced-empathy overload of a sort... everywhere they turn for entertainment, they're bombarded with preaching. Eventually, it turns one off to the idea, then makes one hostile to it - especially when it's being pushed from every orifice of the media, you know?

They took yer jobs!

It is fairly common. Sometime the terminatees will delete files, copy confidential information, or even sabotage equipment. I have seen all of these things happen, and was sometimes surprised by who did it. The polite quiet submissive people often have the most bottled up rage.

Not really. Historically, "fired" meant you permanently lost your job, while "laid off" means you were furloughed but would be called back when more work was available. Today, "fired" is generally used to mean "terminated for cause", while "laid off" is generally used to mean terminated as part of a head count reduction or, in C-speak, "right-sizing". But mostly the two terms are used interchangeably. People use "fired" when they are being blunt, and "laid off" when they prefer a more euphemistic phrase.

Might be more rules with the police, but at least with private parties in Colorado a verbal agreement is a legally binding contract.

Even if they had it in writing, a purely one-sided contract would typically count as unconscionable. Since his "chat" with them didn't involve any actual concessions on their part (and "play nice and we won't harass you until the day you die", would make it equally unenforceable), I doubt you'll see them try to press this as a matter of contract law.

The fact they even mentioned it I'd call more of a smear campaign - The FBI needs to make this guy look like a complete asshole, because any other outcome would require actually acknowledging and fixing the underlying problem, rather than harassing the guy who pointed-and-laughed at the naked emperor.

I guess I don't see it. While P 0.05 isn't all that compelling, it does seem like prima facie evidence that the rats used in the sample prefer to turn left at that intesection for some reason. There's no hypothesis as to why, and thus way to generalize and no testable prediction of how often rats turn left in a different circumstances, but it's still an interesting measurement.

You have evidence that the null hypothesis is flawed, but none that the alternative hypothesis is the correct explanation?

The scientific method centers on making testable predictions that differ from the null hypothesis, then finding new data to see if the new hypothesis made correct predictions, or was falsified. Statistical methods can only support the new hypothesis once you have new data to evaluate.

"Lost" can mean (1) you don't know where something is OR (2) you no longer possess something. In the second case you may no longer possess something but still know where it is. For example you lost something to a friend in a bet.

This second case is also somewhat of a nautical term. The Captain of a ship and its Chief Engineering can be standing on the bridge of the ship and the Chief Engineer may report the ship to be "lost", meaning uncontrollable sinking.

Also when a ship is sunk you only have the position of where it slipped below the surface, you don't necessarily know how it traveled on the way to the bottom. More importantly prior to GPS ship position weren't necessarily that accurate. Wrecks are often considered lost until someone has eyes (real or synthetic, ex side scan sonar) on them. Which is what seems to be happening here.

So the FDA doesn't determine various drugs cause the various healing effects prior to approving them for doctors to proscribe to treat those illnesses?

Do you see how bad your logic is here? I mean... I laid it out for you in the previous post and you didn't figure it out... you just thought you had something to troll me with and you could keep going.

Never mind that I annihilated it in about two seconds. You're still waving the burned tatters of your argument in front of me like you're not already done.

You are little more than a living reminder of why the real world is better than the internet... Real people can be locked in little white rooms and fed mind destroying quantities of sedatives when they act like crazy people. Here on the internet, we just have to suffer through this shit.

Kindly troll someone else with your idiocy... I'd had to tolerate far more of this crap from you than any one person should have to bare.

Please... Fuck off.

This is a social science journal. Statistics are obviously a tool of the Patriarchy and should be shunned. (This mockery has become a meme now - you can buy "logic is a tool of the Patriarchy" t-shirts for goodness sake.)

Tax day reminds us, that all taxes are regressive.

The idea that a tax can be "progressive" is simply a fairy-tale lie to get people to pay more taxes, under the guise of "their fair share" (nebulous term meaning anything and everything). The reality is, taxes are falling on those that cannot afford to not pay, and those that cannot afford to avoid them (i.e. Middle Class).

Every time a liberal cries about the rich, just know it is your pocketbook that will be impacted.

I love how you literally just throw the word "MRA" out whenever you want to insult someone or something.

Yeah a brand spanking new STEM facility and program for girls, who are already utterly dominating virtually all education and already have a 2:1 advantage in tech fields, and "language arts" for the guys. That's TOTALLY equitable. I'm SURE it won't wind up like basically everything else where the girls get amazingly better facilities and the guys get screwed.

Because a "seperate but equal" program benefiting the class of people already utterly dominating all of education as a whole is TOTALLY the same as going into the locker room.

You're right, he doesn't have the problems girls face. Instead he has problems so severe that they lead to suicide being the second leading non-accidental cause of death for boys starting at age 10 and boys being barely over 1/3rd of college graduates. Problems like systemic and institutionalized discrimination which excludes him from better facilities, better opportunities, and results in him getting graded worse for the same work and disciplined far more and more harshly.

Girls already dominate virtually every aspect of education. They get better grades, better facilities, and better treatment to the point of being nearly 2/3rds of college graduates and having a 2:1 advantage in tech fields post-graduation.

If you can't see how this rampant and blatant inequity is sexist and harmful then your staggeringly skewed perceptions are a living demonstration of exactly the problem.

So what you're saying is you believe we need to take drastic steps to address the fact that boys are being systematically discriminated against in virtually every way and girls are given extraordinarily preferential treatment in virtually every way (better grades, better facilities, exclusive opportunities, less discipline and drugging...) to the point that women are nearly 2/3rds of college graduates, have a 2:1 advantage over men in tech fields, and dominate virtually every measure of academic achievement we have?

I'm glad you believe it's time we do something about the extreme sexism and rampant inequity of our education system. What do you propose to do to deal with these problems?