Johnny Elbows on :
Not all moons are spherical, even in our solar system. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Themisto_(moon) for an example.
Monday, April 27. 2009Podcast 15: Yar, she's back!
Well as much as I love to go on and on about how horrible Tasha Yar is, her character actually put in a pretty good performance in "Yesterday's Enterprise." Denise Crosby reprises her role as Tasha Yar for a very good time disruption episode. Perhaps absence made our hearts grow fonder for her, or she actually managed to do a good job. Either way, I think everyone can agree, Wesley Crusher needs to be smacked in the face.
This podcast covers episodes 13-16 of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Season 3. While there was no special guest for this podcast, My Friend Jon Madsen did send us some notes over IM during the recording. So our thanks to him. Various topics discussed in this podcast include: Curing sleep Compassion Guilty until proven Innocent - Why not? New tv show idea: Star Trek JAG Prune Juice: The Edible Enema Joey doesn't understand time The robots are taking over! Joey doesn't like touching people: People Everywhere Rejoice! Emotional awareness is a malfunction Joey gives his highest rating to date Direct MP3 Download RSS Feed Subscribe Using iTunes Here are the ratings that we gave for each show: Deja Q: 39min 39sec
Joey: SciFi - 8 Television - 7 Peter: SciFi - 7 Television - 6 Matter of Perspective: 42min 55sec Joey: SciFi - 4 Television - 5 Peter: SciFi - 4 Television - 3 Yesterday's Enterprise: 32min 25sec Joey: SciFi - 5 Television - 4 Peter: SciFi - 6 Television - 6 The Offspring: 40min 29sec Joey: SciFi - 7 Television - 9 Peter: SciFi - 7 Television - 7 If you have something to say then we welcome your comments below, or feel free to email us at [email protected]. Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Radar on :
Don't follow that link. He is just trying to rick-roll you.
Johnny Elbows on :
In regards to Joey's attitude about sleep, I think this comic is a great commentary on sleep. http://xkcd.com/203/
Johnny Elbows on :
One of the things that I've noticed as I've studied the early history of the United States is that the founding fathers did not trust government. They believed that power corrupts, and so they built their system so that no single person had too much power, and so that the rights of individuals were preserved even when those rights made governing more difficult.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is one of these situations. Convicting criminals is much simpler if they are not presumed innocent. However, changing the burden of proof does not, as Peter stated, guarantee that all of the guilty will go to prison. It does create the possibility that many people will be sent to prison for their political views: what could be easier than accusing one's political rivals of a crime, and then, since they can't prove their innocence, sending them to prison? It also creates the possibility that multiple people could be imprisoned for a single crime: The police could simply round up everyone that had been in the area, and send them to prison. You may say that I'm creating situations that could never happen, that our government can be trusted to wield its power more judiciously, but I would argue that recent events, as well as history, are on my side, and that a fundamental mistrust of government and power on the part of the ruled and the ruling creates the best government. Swatson on :
If we assume that everyone the police arrests are guilty until proven innocent, and the "suspects" can't prove themselves innocent, then at least we know some of the people in prison are guilty.
Sideshow on :
Actually No, we don't KNOW that some of the people in prison are guilty. What we do KNOW is that the people in prison were for one reason or another picked by police as a perpetrator. Chances are there would actually be less of a KNOWING that a guilty is in prison.
I would argue that we have a greater sense of "KNOWING" That some of the people in prison are guilty with the current system, where it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Sure there are errors and flaws in the system where. However under the current system most errors end up with Guilty men going free, and a lesser number of errors would end up with innocent people in prison. Under Guilty until proven innocent, yes chances are less likely that an error causes a guilty person to go free, but the Number of innocent people being impisoned would likely sky rocket. Swatson on :
But if everyone was arrested and put in jail, wouldn't some of them have been guilty of something?
Radar on :
There are a few ways to address this. Technically we all are guilty of something. And yes, some of the imprisoned would be guilty. At the time of recording the podcast I was ok with this. But now because of Johnny Elbows argument, I am firmly against this (http://www.thehomestarmy.com/s9y/index.php?/archives/1605-Podcast-15-Yar,-shes-back!.html#c6766)
Sideshow on :
Yes, Some of the people in jail would be guilty, just like some of the people in jail now are guilty.
However, I'd theorize, that under a Guilty until proven innocent model, most people would tend to doubt the actual guilt of most people imprisoned. Sideshow on :
I don't know that your examples are that far out the realm of possibility. Like you said look at history.
I would submit one of the greatest tragedies of all time was a result of one man being in charge of a party and executing a guilty until proven innocent. Hitler blamed the Jews for the ails of the world, and he persecuted them for it. In his mind they were guilty without a chance to prove innocence. Implementing a guilty until proven innocence, would eventually lead to a guilty without a chance to prove innocence society, and would open the door to someone taking advantage of the situation. One smart person/group would be able to work himself into a position of power and then decide who is guilty and who is innocent. And without the means to prove innocence it would be difficult to oppose him/them. Johnny Elbows on :
This is a subject which I am quite passionate about, so I'm going to comment again.
In most crimes, the government, through its police force, is the accuser. If you are "guilty until proven innocent," who is going to gather the evidence to prove you innocent? Are you going to rely on your accuser, the government to gather this evidence? If not, do you have the resources to pay for a private detective to investigate the crime, and prove that someone else is guilty of it? If you do have these resources, are you going to expect the government, your accuser, to believe that your investigation is more thorough, and presents a better argument than their investigation? In short, placing the government in a situation where it has to prove someone's innocence because he is "guilty until proven innocent" and his guilt because the government is accusing him of a crime creates a conflict of interest. This conflict of interest would, in my opinion, make a mockery of the justice system. Radar on :
Now this is an explanation that persuades me. Guilty until proven innocent would not be acceptable to me. But that stems from the assumption that I do not trust anyone.
Ancient of Days on :
I've asked a former employee of the Utah Public Defender Office to chime in here, but I'll just post my initial thought: Is this really any different than the situation today? The District Attorney and the Public Defender are both governmental agencies, and in the bulk of legal cases, they're most likely the prosecution and the defense, respectively. That is to say: the government is already responsible for proving both guilt and innocence, so how is this "conflict of interest" any different than the one that already exists?
Radar on :
I think it comes down to the fact that proving guilt is harder to do than proving innocence. If I have to prove guilt then I need to find irrefutable evidence. If I have to prove innocence, then a lackluster effort can be put in and the conviction secured. All they have to do is say "yup, I looked around but found nothing. He must be guilty."
Johnny Elbows on :
I can think of one situation where a null-G ward would be very useful in medical treatment. A burn victim who has burns over a large portion of his/her body is quite difficult to treat, because they always end up laying on a portion of their body that is burned. In a null-G ward, a burn victim would not have to lay on an injured portion of his body.
|
Items of InterestTrekWest5 Subscriber Count: Syndicate This Blog |
