Zack Snyder Fundamenal Flaw(Batman v Superman) - Nerdwriter has been added as a related post - related requested by Mordhaus.

I disagree that it cannot be adapted to film. It could be done with a director that can function in a storytelling environment, which Snyder simply cannot do. The problem with Snyder was covered very well here recently, *related=http://videosift.com/video/Nerdwriter-Fundamenal-Flaw-Zack-Snyder-Batman-v-Superman
He was exactly the wrong director to have film this. I would have went with Del Toro or Whedon, but even they have their flaws.

Now, if the question is, can an adaptation be done that Alan Moore will feel 'suits' his vision? Probably not. He is an artist, in very good ways, but also in some very bad ones. He has a specific idea of how his creation must flow, which means he will never be satisfied with a medium outside of the graphic novel or comic.

Personally, I think one of the few un-adaptable works would be Gaiman's Sandman, but that's just my opinion.

"Years earlier, they had amassed...", before building the model.

The model came later as a result of the failed projects, realizing that a symptomatic approach was flawed. The model was to take a more holistic methodology to addressing the flooding along the Mississippi.

The timeline is as follows:
the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927:
Flood Control act of 1928-
Army Corps of Engineers gets to work
Sec. of Commerce H.Hoover directs Flood Relief
towns & cities which had flooded get levees
The Great Flood of 1937:
towns downstream of newly protected communities get flooded.
ACE begins with simple models in dirt
1943 gets funding to build largest scale model for study:
1"=1000' horizontal, 1"=100' vertical
German POWs used for initial labor.

sorry that wasn't clear enough before. There was no model before.

"They modeled all 1.25 million square miles of the Mississippi River and surrounding areas on more than 200 acres with the sole purpose of understanding how it would flood and which techniques worked best and how they affected things up/down river. Years earlier, they had anassed several failed large scale prevention/levee projects."

The way you wrote this---implies to me that they either misunderstood the model or the the model gave them flawed data. Or perhaps, that they got good data and ignored it (lol). I'm curious: which was it?

I, like most, don't need absolute proof, proving that kind of thing unless it's ridiculously done in writing is impossible. The appearance is enough, but more than that, it's clear, I have no question about it and would require some incredible evidence to the contrary to think differently at this point. It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it swims like a duck, it flies like a duck, it lays eggs like a duck...I'm just going to go ahead and call it a duck. DWS cheated and lied to force a Clinton nomination. The DNC purged it's voter rolls, gave Sanders zero support and actually worked against him while doing whatever the Clinton campaign asked them to, no matter how biased it was, under her leadership, then she was given an important job in the campaign and will likely get a cabinet position for her immoral, unethical work done for Clinton's benefit. If that's not quid quo pro, it doesn't exist.

Yes, Clinton and her campaign have had zero insight on how they appear, and are still indignant about people not just loving her because....woman.

Clinton helped put her in position to help win the election, then hired her when that work got her fired. her job WAS to regulate elections to be fair, and her complete and utter failure in doing that job is why she has a job as the head of Clinton's campaign today....and is one reason Clinton will lose.

Perhaps a few might say that, they're wrong. It was stolen by every means possible, no matter how unethical it was to purge voter rolls in poor areas but not affluent areas, or to close most polls in poor areas and limit the hours of the few left opened, but actually increase the hours and number of polls in affluent areas. He lost for a number of reasons, but largely because the DNC did their job for Clinton and worked actively against him the entire election while smiling and lying to our faces about 'fairness' and 'impartiality'. No leap at all to make that claim, my feet don't have to leave the ground.

Yes, since she REWARDED DWS's guilt with a top level position in her campaign and a promise of more important jobs to come, that guilt transfers to Clinton. Had she come out publicly and said 'this behavior is inappropriate, unethical, and I won't have anything to do with a person who clearly has no respect for the rules/laws' she might not be so guilty...but she did the opposite.

Um...didn't Bush himself say her name in a public interview? That's how I recall the Valerie Plame incident.

I'm talking about a person who's job it was to be impartial who was clearly heavily biased and lied about it for a full year publicly....and the person she performed these unethical acts for that rewarded her after it became public.

You're helping Trump win because Clinton can't, and shoving her down our throats as the DNC and her supporters have guarantees a Trump win. She's unelectable, and her supporters have blinders on to her myriad of faults and flaws.

In this country, we are supposed to vote for a person we want to win, not against someone. If people did that, there might be a chance at not having Trump, but because Dumbocrats and Retardicans both vote against the other, and every idiot follows along, we get this.

"Most qualified? Most experienced?" Not more so than Johnson, who has more experience actually governing than she does by far. You might not agree with his policies, but he's not immoral, not unethical, not hated by a majority of Americans, not batshit crazy, and is a candidate. he only has less chance of winning because people think like you and want to vote for someone who sucks ass because they're against someone who is an ass. That leaves us all covered in shit, no matter who wins.
Sanders has far more experience governing than she does. What the hell are you talking about? She has one thing going for her, her stint as Sec of State, but her record there is abysmal and not a positive for most Americans when seen as a whole. She has no experience in domestic policy beyond her short time as a senator, while Sanders has been one for how long? Again, what the hell are you talking about?

Rewarding incontrovertibly unethical behavior with a top position says everything that need be said.

OK, if you want the most reliable president, why didn't you vote for Sanders, who actually keeps his stated positions and votes on them, completely unlike Clinton.

I agree with your characterization, but it's the Clinton campaign that's the rolling dumpster fire and the Sanders campaign that was a Honda Accord that got hit by the rolling dumpster fire and pushed off the road. Now it's a rolling dumpster fire VS a leaky 40000 gallon septic tank, and they're both poised at the top of the hill with all of us stuck in the danger zone.

This is really important. *promote
MM lays out how REAL a President Trump is, based on some of Hillary's fatal flaws, like the TPP support and the loss of the Rust Belt support.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/michael-moores-5-reasons-why-trump-will-win

Yet she still continues to make poor choices, like double-down on Wall Street/Banking support with Caine, and a big wet sloppy kiss to Wasserman-Schultz after evidence surfaces of their conspiracy. This is the behavior of the Entitled, not the Deserved.

@SDGundamX, first up, it was a throwaway line, you're reading way too much into it.

I'm not going to go over Jim Jeffries joke (it's been discussed to death already), except to say that, yeah, I got what he was trying to do and no, it still wasn't that funny or clever.

Besides, I wasn't trying to compare the two. Mine was a throwaway line, his was an extended sketch by a touring professional comedian. My point was simply that taste is in the eye of the beholder.

And would you please do me the courtesy of not telling me what I'm thinking. I'm not angry about ignorance, I'm angry about woolly thinking (specifically, lack of critical thinking).

If you're ignorant, then you just need to be taught. I'm not angry at ignorant people, I'm sorry for them and I want to help them.

My problem is with people (like the guy in the video) who have been presented with evidence, but ignore it because it doesn't fit their worldview.

200 years ago, if you believed that disease was a result of demonic possession, that's unfortunate. If you believe that today, you're deliberately ignoring knowledge.

As far as viewing people who reject evidence as a dangerous "other", I'm ok with that. As I've said before, I don't believe in "tolerance" as a virtue. If someone isn't bothering me, or someone is doing something I don't like, but it doesn't harm anyone, then I'm fine with them; I have no need to "tolerate" them.

But if people are doing something that causes harm (racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc), I don't tolerate that at all, and will speak out against it.


As for your torture example, it is flawed. You're saying that you wouldn't reconsider the ethics of torture, even if evidence of its efficacy was available. Do you see the problem?

You proposition was that torture is unethical, and your hypothetical evidence states that it is effective. The two are orthogonal properties. It is possible to be both effective and unethical.

Besides, I didn't say you had to change your position, I said you had to reconsider. If someone presented you with a philosophical argument arguing for the ethics of torture, are you saying you wouldn't even hear it out?

I hold positions like that myself. Despite everything, I believe that one day, people will overcome their petty differences and venture out into the stars. That doesn't mean I don't question it..

@ChaosEngine

Comparing your joke to Jim Jeffries joke is a bit unfair, I think. @Chairman_woo gave an excellent analysis of why Jeffries's joke was masterfully crafted, with multiple levels of irony that all orchestrate beatifully together to subvert the listeners' expectations--even if you disagree with the subject matter of the joke.

Your joke, on the other hand, has none of that. It belongs in the same category as Dave Tosh's joke to the female heckler in the audience:

“Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by, like, five guys right now? Like right now?”

Tosh said that in anger and frustration. I see yours and newtboy's comments coming from the same place. Both are jokes filled with malice and lacking cleverness, and therefore I find them to be wholly unfunny and in fact disturbing. Of course, YMMV.

Now, as far as the rest of your post goes, I think you might have missed the point of my previous post: your anger is misguided because the gentleman who made the comment that outraged you said what he said because he was put under pressure to make a statement that opposes his own party's rhetoric at his party's national convention during a Presidential election year!

It's pretty easy to see how someone, knowing they were likely going to be on TV and seen by millions, might make an overzealous statement to show support for their party that in hindsight turns out to be asinine. In fact I'm sure that's what the show's producers were banking on when they originally came up with the idea for the segment. Whether this particular person--or really any person--will ignore evidence that is contrary to their beliefs is unknown no matter what they may say in public. And their statement is especially suspect when being asked to give an unrehearsed response to a question on TV.

You say your are angry at "woolly thinking" but I think what you really mean is you are angry at ignorance. Personally, I agree with you that feigned ignorance is something to be angry at--politicians who know the facts but continue to say despicable things (i.e. Trump) that they know their people want to hear in order to further their own careers are most certainly deserving of our anger and possibly some form of appropriate punishment, such as being removed from office, if it can proven that they were being dishonest with the public.

But I can't be angry at actual ignorance--people don't know what they don't know. Or even worse, people who think they know when in fact they only have some (but not all) of the facts. Not everyone is lucky enough to grow up in an environment that values education, critical thinking, and seeking out multiple opinions. And even growing up in such an environment is no guarantee that a person is going take advantage of the priviledges presented and become a reasonable and reasoned adult. But my own personal belief is that all of us who are healthy individuals have the capacity to learn, grow, and change our minds given the proper environment and time, regardless of the current state of our knowledge or beliefs. All those things you mentioned--slavery, homophobia, the drug war, etc.--it's pretty clear we are in fact learning and moving on. The transition may be painful but it is happening.

One thing I find interesting about your thinking on this matter is how it exactly mirrors that of the Republicans presented in the video. You see "wholly thinkers" or ignorant people or whatever you'd like to call them exactly as these Republicans see Black Lives Matter activists--as some nefarious and dangerous group of "others" that should be distrusted. I prefer to see them as human beings who are, admittedly, flawed... as am I in a great many ways. I guess it just comes down to having a more optomistic view of humanity.

EDIT: "Would you reconsider in the face of new evidence?" is not a simple question at all. For example, I don't believe torture is an acceptable method of intelligence gathering. You could show me study after study "proving" its effectiveness and I still would never approve of it. On the other hand, if you showed me a study that found a competing laundry detergent got stains out better than the one I was using, I'd probably switch detergents the next time I went shopping.

Science is the best tool we have for discovering true facts about the universe we live in, but the humans practicing science can be flawed.

Science "works" when scientists bother to actually try to replicate claims, no matter how bizarre they may be. And as this video and my comment shows, that's not happening in a number of scientific fields. Which is really, really bad for human knowledge and society in general, as billions of dollars and countless work-hours get wasted since researchers base future research on what turn out to be unreliable past claims.

The "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" flies in the face of everything the scientific method espouses. Evidence is evidence. It is not supposed to matter who finds the evidence. Someone who is famous in the field should not be given more benefit of the doubt than someone who is not, yet that is exactly what happened in Shectman's case. He was removed from his lab and an actual expert in the field, Linus Pauling, verbally abused him for literally decades.

That's not how science is supposed to work at all. If someone finds evidence of something that contradicts current theory, you're supposed to look at their methodology for flaws. If you can't find any flaws, then the scientific method demands you attempt to replicate the experiment to validate it. You're not supposed to dismiss evidence out of hand because the person who found it isn't a leading expert in the field. In Shectman's case, other labs replicated his results and the "experts" still wouldn't budge... to this day in fact Pauling refuses to admit he was wrong.

Conversely, there are too many papers out there now with shoddy methodology that shouldn't even be published, yet because the author is a name in the field they somehow make it into top-tier journals and get cited constantly despite the dubious nature of the research. Again, that's not how science is supposed to work.

"Spurious bullshit," as you called it, is not being weeded out. Rather it is being foisted on others as "fact" because Dr. XYZ who is renowned in the field did the experiment and no one looked closely enough at it or bothered to try to replicate it. The spurious bullshit should be getting weeded out by actual scientific testing (like the studies in the video that were found to be unreliable) and not by mob mentality.

4.5 billion dollars.

http://www.forbes.com/donald-trump/#7553bc81790b

I wrote that he has a lot of parliamentary power. And he does. Parliament and congress are synonyms. I clearly wrote the president has to deal with congress.

I know of the Bush junior situation, but that's not what the conversation is about (i.e. it's not about a vote miscount).

Trump has many character flaws (as all people do), but it is unlikely those flaws will lead to a fanciful dictatorship as you have suggested they will.

I didn't write that. Syntaxed, whom you were originally replying to wrote "You could vote for a woman who has on more occasions than is accountable, broken Federal Law, covered up her husband's brutalization of women, and God knows what else, and only manages to escape prison because she is one of the sharpest tools the totalitarian American political establishment has..."

You're not following the conversation.

You're welcome to prove yourself correct in regards to court outcomes. I'm just not that interested in it. I'm trying to save you the bother. What am I enjoying by myself? You making a statement and not providing proof? Sure, super fun. You can enjoy that I defended both Clinton and Trump as innocent until proven guilty. How it should be.

I'm "still incredibly naïve"! Lol, once again, you were replying to Syntaxed and called him naive. You're not following the conversation.

I'm glad you asked how it is different. I pointed out that the word naive (especially in your usage) does not encompass a lack of knowledge (as in he did not know the facts of the case). You were using naive as a pejorative, as in he was simple, unsophisticated, guileless. I showed you a definition of the common usage of the word naive. You found a definition that included the word "information". I pointed out that this is not the common usage (and as above it was not your intention to suggest he didn't know the facts). You could probably use the word naive, which is still a synonym for simple, unsophisticated and guileless, in the context of being those things, because one lacked "information", but it would of course need to be contextually evident in the statement.

As a kindness I'm going to chalk you being confused down to tiredness. Go have a lie down.

Assault rifles ( M16 rifle.) are illegal. People like you don't know what your are talking about.

There are rifles (Ar15)that look like assault rifles abut are just regular rifles.

The guy was on a mission to kill gays in the name of Allah. The gun was just a tool.

The no fly list is woefully flawed. YEs it gets some bad guys but a lot of good guys too.

Check you own name
http://www.no-fly-list.com/

Yep nothing gets fixed- so keep doing the same elect Hillary.

Vote for Trump - I mot saying he is perfect but - he is the only only one standing against the norm.

Unfortunately communism is ran by *government* elected leaders that always stay in power and has the same flaws that humans have so that system will also be crap and there will be no incentive to change for the better.

At least with competition at the very basic level you have to change or go bye bye.

Bail outs makes companies think they can continue to get away with bad stuff and in the GM bailout all the money went to the union leaders not even the workers benefited.

What I don't understand is why do Christians bluntly defend the money system that often kicks them out of their home and become homeless?

Are they afraid God will strike lightning if they say something bad about a rich corporation?

The bible actually had a system called Jubilee where every certain number of years the system will *reset* and people get back what was taken from them as a chance to start over if things got screwed up.

Capitalism lacks any kind of *reset* to give people a second chance.

Listen to Michael Card's song *Jubilee* in which I didn't understand when I was younger so meant nothing to me but now that I understand it I see the flaws in all *systems* that isn't inspired by the true creator.

We need a new kind of *Jubilee* where the (debt) slaves are set free who paid their debts and got their land and home back and their family back if they were sold.

Today's system results in people making poor choices that hurt themselves such as prostitution out of control/drugged out brains where they can't see properly let alone drive.