I really liked Fringe but Revolution and Falling Skies were pretty bad, agreed.
I mean to each his/her own, but I was truly shocked at how bad The After was after watching just the one pilot.
"The After" was absolutely terrible. I am pretty sure it was a ballot box stuffing / fake user rating bonanza. IT had 15,000 reviews which is 5-10x as many as most classic shows (like X-files, Firefly, Star Trek), and as much as Transparent which won 2 major awards (not my cup of tea but clearly more popular than The After).
It had 2x the reviews as many popular movies such a Hunger Games 2, World War Z, the new Star Treks, etc etc. The whole thing was like the start of a bad joke. "A clown, lawyer, hooker, cop, escaped con, etc etc walk into a garage and the world ends. What do?"
Amazon was right to can it. I hop they toss it off the site entirely.
You >:-o bro?
That is the most wonderful and disturbing thing I have heard since
He said at the end no one is paying him. If this article is something you think should be ignored because he is somehow playing politics as deflected Karmashock, then you're just obtuse.
He is no more a political strategist than you or I. Maybe you should re-read the article.
Political strategist? His "strategy" is to communicate with the public about science. It's not like he is planning out press releases and talking points and media buys. This is not some Karl Rove or David Plouff.
He's advocating scientists not remain silent. He is standing up for the right for scientists to be part of the conversation. And about how to spot disingenuous arguments. So yeah, this is the wrong time for the "oh stop the politics" argument. Trotting out and attacking Al Gore (as the GP poster did) is exactly the kind of bullshit arguments Mann is warning about.
I think that it is indeed our responsibility collectively, as scientists, to convey the societal implications of our work (Mann, 2014a). Just because we are scientists does not mean that we should check our citizenship at the door of a public meeting. There is nothing inappropriate about drawing on our scientific know-ledge to speak out about the very real implications of our research. As Stephen Schneider used to say, being a scientist-advocate is not an oxymoron. If scientists choose not to engage on matters of policy-relevant science, then we leave a void that will be filled by industry-funded disinformation.
Funny, this article is by a climate scientist.
Karmashock is just trying to misdirect by pointing fingers at unrelated political arguments to create FUD and guilt by association. All of which are decidedly political tactics.
"Advice"...? Not so much.
What are you trollboating?
What you did here, I see it.
Is it? How many people switched back after being switched without being asked?
It might be but TFA is useless as far as details go.
Indeed. I think he was originally on record as wanting to find a solution that didnt involve title II -- but this is what got the FCC into trouble with the Open Internet Order.
Yet a couple of days ago he is now hinting he will use title II.
So I guess we will see.
Very true. I was referring more towards Wheeler's FCC though. He's been full of talk but light on substantive action. They seem to dance around imposing any real burden on telcos or ISPs.
Wheeler was only on the job for a month or two before the Verizon court win (I think).
That's what the "common carrier" part of title 2 protects against.
Pretty sure it was soulskill that added that gem of stupid