You are missing the point.
You can make fun of everything. You can jam in jokes anywhere.
Hell... just put a laugh track on it and some people will laugh at anything.
Just like with that show where people tune in to laugh at how awkward nerds are.
You can also parody SciFi up the kazoo. Most of it has already been done by Red Dwarf though.
The fact that there is room for jokes can't change the fact that Galaxy Quest was not about joking about SciFi tropes or making fun of such shows or its audiences.
That's what The Big Bang Theory is about.
Galaxy Quest is your classic "the dream is real and I am secretly a hero king" story.
And THAT story can't be stretched out for too long before it becomes a genuine story of heroics and NOT a parody.
Galaxy Quest ends by becoming Galaxy Quest the Journey Continues.
It stops treating the show or the work of those actors on the show as a joke - but as a real and highly important MISSION.
They are no longer actors. They are an ACTUAL HEROIC CREW of NSEA Protector which was a real starship.
They are no longer acting. They are on a diplomatic mission, sending messages into outer space.
They have a real living alien with them on the set. They KNOW things and they did things that have changed them and the entire universe they live in.
The ending changes the GENRE for the audience. It becomes obvious that it is not a SciFi parody but genuine SciFi.
Because it is a love letter - not a parody. Goofy characters become heroes.
Seen Guardians of the Galaxy?
MASH never stopped being a comedy, turning around and making every joke actually just a bizarre scene in a gritty war drama. If it did, it would be Kafkian.
Neither did Hogan's Heroes.
Nor did Lost in Space or Star Trek get a laugh track and started being about crazy hijinks of a wacky crew.
They can try doing that, sure, but all they'll end up with is just another lame "reference is a joke" show, like that crap Seth MacFarlane keeps churning out.
This was my thought, especially it they made it as much a parody of Star Trek as the movie was of the cast and culture.
The same actions, characters and tropes that movie is poking fun of, turn out first heroic then triumphant by the end.
They really become heroes they were playing on a show, they save the world, help out friendly aliens, redeem their fans AND they get a revival of their show.
I doubt that the same effect can be achieved with a lesser (cheaper) cast and as a running gag over a season or more.
Sam Rockwell alone already used up most of those jokes.
While being awesome and ultimately - heroic.
Trying to copy Rickman on the other hand... simply won't work.
...but tear GAS is addressed "To Whom It May Concern".
As for those other "less lethal" weapons... aiming skills are not the issue.
Fact that they are LEGAL means that should they want they can employ any kind of technique to achieve that hit with a drone.
Be it "painting" the target with a laser by a human or any and all AI or assisting technology available EVER in the future... Doesn't matter.
The fact that this legalizes drones equipped for "less than lethal" drone strikes against civilian population is what matters.
Drone strikes against civilians. It has a certain ring to it, does it not?
Clearly, AK he had was already illegal.
And clearly, everyone knows where to get illegal guns.
And clearly, everyone knows that there are A LOT of illegal guns.
And clearly, Belgium has gun permits and other regulation.
The issue is that Belgian cops are not doing anything about it.
I.e. There is NO ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATION of clearly and obviously illegal guns.
Making guns illegal is a thing that exists in your head.
The article and my point are about easy access to guns (through lack of enforcement of regulation) making everyone LESS safe.
I never claimed there was a conspiracy, I claimed that people commonly call things "science" in order to manipulate the public and provided examples which are easy to find and validate.
That "people" lying i.e. "call things science" in order to manipulate - that's a description of a conspiracy by definition. ANY definition.
If it walks like duck... Meeh... you know the rest.
As for examples "easy to find"... Go find me a James Bond movie I'm thinking off right now. Here's a hint: he kills a guy in it.
You provided vague anecdotes you only half remember as "examples" of your conspiracy theories about manipulators of the public calling non-science science - and you expect everyone else to know your thoughts.
Onus probandi much? No?
You do realize that the examples I gave (without handwaving "it's out there... find the truth yourself") ARE science?
Nothing unscientific about them.
It's just that their methodology and conclusions are (probably) tainted by biases.
BUT! Because it is science, the proofs and examples where they went wrong are RIGHT THERE, in the studies. Built in.
No one had to manipulate, lie, hide, conspire...
They wrote down exactly where they fucked up. That's a feature of the scientific method.
What you are describing sounds like tabloid "science" and conspiracy theories.
Manipulation does not require one form, it takes many forms. Similarly dishonesty is not simply a lie, but can also be withholding information or re-ordering information to present a false reality.
You don't seem to understand the difference between a scientific study and a tabloid article.
Main feature of science is that it can be taken apart because - it is science.
And it MUST be taken apart during scientific work because - it is science.
You can't "re-order" or "withhold" gravity or any other established law of nature or a finding proven previously.
It is not some secret art. It is all out in the open already. You WILL be called out as a bad scientist and a kook if you try to do that.
Richard Feynman called out Linus Pauling as a "vitamin C cures cancer" kook in a damn song.
All you can do is fiddle with numbers and hope no one tries to replicate your results while you live.
P-hacking is obvious, mislabeling too, using vague survey questions, badly set up controls...
It is all obvious and it will be right there in the paper. Or it will not be - WHICH WILL MAKE IT EVEN MORE OBVIOUS.
You are basically tossing ad hominems (though maybe unintentionally... you seem to have a misunderstanding of topics you are arguing), strawmen (again... maybe you don't understand the scientific process) and demanding of people to prove that you are right.
Which is ironic... cause my original post was supporting yours, though through a more moderate explanation.
But you seem to be too enamored in your "EVERYONE LIES!!! ALL THE TIME!!!" theory to realize that.
Then again... you find it "amazing" that 1 in 5 Americans comes out to "about 63 million people" in my guesstimate and in the "BS study you referred to".
As if dividing about 318 million with about 5 should change significantly depending on who does such basic math.
I have a feeling that when you say "science" you do not think it means what it actually means.
which would have made everything a lot easier.
And I'm not talking about that executed police officer.
Or the executed Protection Service officer (French version of Secret Service), assigned as a bodyguard to Stephane Charbonnier.
I'm talking about this guy reportedly getting his guns and ammo at the same place where terrorists in France have been getting it "traditionally" - Belgium.
Matthew Holehouse writes from Brussels:
The attack on the Thalys train brings fresh scrutiny on the ease of purchasing weapons in Belgium.
The gunman is believed to have entered the train at Brussels Gare du Midi, Belgium's busiest station and the terminus of the Eurostar rail link to Britain.
He was carrying a short-stocked Kalashnikov assault rifle, at least five magazines of ammunition, a handgun and knives, according to witnesses.
It comes eight months after the terrorist attacks in Paris in January. The weapons used in those attacks were bought from criminal gangs and arms dealers in Belgium.
Amedy Couliby, whose attack on a Kosher supermarket killed four Jewish Parisiens, bought his Scorpion machine gun and Tokarev handgun in Brussels and Charleroi.
The Kuoachi brothers, who slaughtered 12 people at Charlie Hebdo magazine, received their weapons from Coulibaly, who bought them near Gare du Midi for around Â£3,800.
The scruffy backstreets around the station host a large market and the area is well known as a marketplace for illegal arms.
Many weapons are thought to be left over from the wars in the former Yugoslavia. Typically, a Kalashnikov automatic rifle, could be bought for several hundred euros in Bosnia, and then sold on in Belgium or the Netherlands for use in organised crime for ten times that sum.
Earlier this month police in Charleroi broke up a suspected international arms smuggling ring, alleged to be using crude forged paperwork to import Glock and Sauer handguns fitted with silencers, Browning rifles, and shotguns.
Gun ownership is permitted under licence in Belgium, although automatic and military-grade weapons are illegal.
There are around 900,000 firearms circulating in the country of 11 million, of which around 300,000 are thought to be unregistered, according to official estimates.
Easy access to guns is what has made this attack in France and those before possible.
What prevented it from becoming a tragedy were people willing, ready and able to rush and tackle the gunman.
Modern diets are only about 10,000 years old, and the calorie rich eating of today is less than 100 years old.
That's a bit of a fallacy there.
Corn, potato, beans, tomato, turkey, cocoa, peanuts, sunflowers (8-11% of vegetable oil comes from its seeds)... and many more.
All those didn't exist as far as the world is concerned until the discovery of America.
And so many more would only become common and thus cheap after being transplanted to Americas and farmed there on all that empty and rich land, with free slave labor, then traded with the rest of the world.
Sugar was known for thousands of years, but it didn't "take off" until 18th century.
And that's all just before we changed those foods to be better. Wind the clock back mere decades and look up Norman Borlaug.
The bread we eat today could not exist mere 50 years ago.
So, from one side, 10000 years as a limit to the "change in our diet" due to agriculture is nonsense.
From another, we didn't go out there into the wild, experimenting willy-nilly what to grow agriculturally.
We just picked the BEST food for US and planted and cultivated MORE of it.
We have an enzyme which takes a rather rare (in nature) sugar called sucrose and splits it into fructose and glucose so we could both get energy and save energy (eat our cake and have it too) from a single molecule.
We EVOLVED to be able to do that - so we planted crops that make more of that molecule.
Some of us have an enzyme which allows us to digest lactose and get energy from that too - after we wean off from our mom's milk.
So we bred cattle that produce THAT molecule (and fat, and meat, and hides...).
Some Japanese can digest cellulose cause they have special gut bacteria with enzymes which allow them to get energy from algae.
Why all those various ways to harvest energy from all those plants and animals?
Because there never was enough of it. We went hungry.
Again - India mere decades ago. Parts of Africa today. Europe and Americas before that, mere decades not centuries ago.
Heck... centuries ago we had nearly no way to preserve food.
Canning is an early 19th century invention. Refrigeration took decades more. Modern refrigeration took even longer.
Before that we ate when we could, what we could, stored some dried foods and prayed for short winters.
And we went hungry.
We did not "change our diet" 10000 years ago by content, nor did we do it by quantity until recently.
The fact that we ARE getting fat off of modern food PROVES that we have evolved to eat that kind of food.
We did not evolve to not spend those calories by sitting the whole day working, sitting while going from place to place, spending winters in comfortably warm rooms with all that cheap food we don't have to hunt, or plant, or harvest or even steal... right there at our arms reach.
There's no "modern" diet, in a biological sense. Same food, just more of it, more easily.
There IS a modern lifestyle and modern technology. Like cars, electricity, penicillin...
That's the bit we haven't yet figured out how to adapt to ourselves in a way that we get more benefits.
Just like we fixed plants to be more nutritious. Or edible.
There's a technology we figured out long ago that allows us to digest otherwise indigestible or poorly digestible food.
I.e. To get more benefits out of food by adapting it to ourselves.
It's called cooking.
There is a science that's equivalent of cooking for modern life, but it is in its infancy.
It's called ergonomics.
But it is where cooking used to be back when we would scour the ground after a forest fire, looking for animals that got cooked alive.
See, most of their customers, including their largest customers, are very likely to be unaffected by the change as they're not buying off-brand or foreign toner cartridges.
This is not about off-brand or foreign cartridges.
Those things are bulky. Any profit made on the favorable exchange rate gets eaten in transport.
This is about "developing markets" in "emerging economies" being forced to buy local models of Xerox machines - instead of far cheaper refurbished ones which got replaced by new models in the "first world".
At the same time, this would force local cottage industries that provide refills in those countries to start importing "first world" used Xerox cartridges.
And since those things are bulky, it would eat at their profits and many if not all would have to shutter their stores.
It's a win-win-win.
It forces sales of "third world" models in the "third world", it forces sales of original cartridges AND it takes a swing at the refill cottage industries all over the world, at least for some time.
Only issue is that the entire idea revolves around the notion of people respecting their rules of regional encoding.
Instead of finding a way to get around them.
The issue is that people are inherently manipulative, so they don't want better numbers. Studies use intentionally incorrect information, like you point out with male rape not being counted as rape.
Had they been manipulative they'd change the data and simply report inflated numbers - not use vague, badly worded definitions, prone to misinterpretation, or protocols and methodology prone to bias from both surveyors and surveyed.
You are describing a conspiracy where "studies use intentionally incorrect information".
I am describing a situation where confirmation biases of people designing and running the study, forces them to set goalposts so wide in order to get the results they are expecting - that the results they get are so high it is obviously ridiculous.
Your theory proposes existence of scientifically sound studies which produce correct conclusions based on falsified data (scientists lied), which could not be proven wrong without repeating the study.
My theory suggests a reason for faulty interpretation of correct data (both scientists and subjects told the truth) - which can be proven by just looking at the data and methodology of the study.
Two other manipulations heavily used are studies that count bisexuals as gay and as bisexual to double the wanted demographics numbers. Murders not being counted as murders to make it appear like crime is being reduced. Deaths being linked to a specific cause to manipulate society even when the cause was only a minor factor.
Now that sounds even more conspiratorial.
Fake gays, hidden murders and lying about causes of death. Oh my!
My point was not intended to say that science is not possible
Neither was mine.
It was to suggest that people coming up with those specific studies have their minds set about what those studies MUST show - so they unintentionally or through the lack of scientific rigor (they are often psychologists) produce badly designed studies.
No one is lying, faking or hiding anything. They are just incompetent.
Today I heard yet another bonehead talking about the alleged "Rape Culture" at college which uses a 40 year old bullshit study for it's statistics. Not because we can't do better studies, but because the numbers in that particular study favor the bullshit they want you to believe.
There is a possibility that people who want to do those studies actually CAN'T do better studies.
CDC did a phone survey study on rape. Spent tens of thousands of work hours and several million dollars on it.
And got "rates of sexual violence in the United States...comparable to those in the war-stricken Congo".
Their methodology was tainted at several steps, from framing the questions, through all survey takers being female (which totally can't alter their approach to asking questions after first couple of cases of women reporting rape), to paying for answers (paying more for taking part in the rape-related part of the "health" survey).
So, they did another one.
This one not only had numbers once again shooting through the roof, this time you didn't even have to look up methodology to see glaring errors.
Results: In the United States, an estimated 19.3% of women and 1.7% of men have been raped during their lifetimes; an estimated 1.6% of women reported that they were raped in the 12 months preceding the survey.
The case count for men reporting rape in the preceding 12 months was too small to produce a statistically reliable prevalence estimate.
An estimated 43.9% of women and 23.4% of men experienced other forms of sexual violence during their lifetimes, including being made to penetrate, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences.
If dad forces mom to have sex - that's rape.
If dad forces dad to have sex - that's also rape.
If mom forces dad to have sex... that's not rape. That's "other forms of sexual violence".
It's the old "It's only the guy who's GIVING the blowjob that's gay" logic.
Along with the "men can only be raped by other men" logic - i.e. "women can't rape".
I.e. All rapists are men.
Could it be that people doing these studies simply can't give up their confirmation biases, and that they are taking existence of "rape culture" as a foregone conclusion?
When about 1 in 5 (or more) of population reports being raped... which is about 63 million people in USA...
That either means that there are tens of millions of rapists out there, working overtime to meet their rape quotas while everyone, INCLUDING VICTIMS, is just going with it and shrugging their shoulders without a care for themselves or others - or that the people doing the studies have serious issues with the methodology of their studies.
People with mental issues should be unemployable as police or security officers.
Timothy Loehmann, who shot Tamir Rice, simply joined police force in a different city after he resigned facing termination for "emotional instability".
The other thing that should not be allowed to happen is the militarization of police force.
Neither through pumping surplus military weapons and equipment through billion dollar "reutilization programs", nor through military tactics and training.
It's Special Weapons and Tactics, not POLICE weapons and tactics.
If all your cops act or look like SWAT teams do... That's not policing crime.
That's a country/state/county/city trying to control its citizens through "superior force".
And police will get BOTH military tactics and training AND mentally unstable police officers when it starts dipping into the pool of military veterans, coming home from a decade or so of war.
Neckties strangle clear thinking. -- Lin Yutang