This! And in Dr. Greger's book he even says this

Something a long the lines of:
Eating a steak once a week has a negligible amount of risk associated with health, as does smoking once per week. But most people find it a slippery slope, so it's easier to avoid it completely.

I agree it's fair to argue there is an incentive in science, fudge statistical methods so your findings are more significant and warrant publishing in a scientific journal. But this is an incentive across science, and it hasn't stopped scientific progress as by nature, the process is self correcting when contradictory studies come out especially in a busy area such as climate science. The cost of falsifying studies or having your study contradicted is also significant however.

If you want to talk incentives though, consider the benefits to spreading doubt about climate change by the fossil fuel industry. 7 out of 10 of the largest revenue generating companies in the world are in oil. The industry stands to lose some $30 trillion from climate change in the next 25 years. Paying a PR firm to promote an agenda, paying researchers to dummy up research with a pre-determined anti-climate change conclusion is chump change to them. The cost to them are negligible if they disguise the source of funding sufficiently (e.g. funnel it through a business lobby).

Meanwhile any impropriety on the part of some climate scientists has not shaken the 97% consensus on climate change.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Yes, and that's why I display such contempt and distrust of them.

As I understood it, yes, 3 pairs of cuffs, all 3 attached to his wrists, not a chain of 3 pairs to make him comfortable. I mean, why is he cuffed at all? WTF?!? He's not 500lbs, the only time they use more than one pair in a chain is when the perps hands can't fit behind their back, NEVER for comfort....that's simply not what cuffs are about...EVER.

Yes, this level of 'incompetence' (if that's what it was, and I don't concede that) MUST be intentional. It falls so far below the bar we have set as reasonable, or the standards that police MUST meet through testing, that the only way it could actually be his incompetence rather than intentional negligence is if his supervisor intentionally falsified his test results to keep him on the force....so it's either HIS intentional negligence or his supervisors, but either way, it's intentional. No question in my mind that SOMEONE along the chain of responsibility intentionally allowed this behavior...or this level of incompetence that it's clear would lead to this behavior. There was intentional negligence, no way around it.

It actually seems to indicate a lack of a reason for shooting in the first place to me.

I've seen a dozen videos about this. Numerous times they mentioned an over 15 minute wait before he was seen by medics, during which time they had him handcuffed, bleeding in the street, but not charged with any crime or even suspected of one....why the cuffs?

I think that there is a point where negligence is SO intentional, and the results of that negligence SO foreseeable that it's indirect intent. Cops shoot to kill...period. If they shoot inappropriately, like at someone not posing a threat, that's attempted murder IMO. Period. They intend to kill, it's not accidental. Wounding him was accidental and clearly incompetence, which should be another charge IMO, unsafe discharge of a weapon...at least twice for those times he missed completely....and attempted murder 3 times.

(Side note...how in the hell do you miss from that close with a rifle?!? That, as much as anything else, should have people up in arms, that an officer is so non-proficient with his weapon, but still allowed to carry and use it. WTF?!? I want every officer with a firearm to be reasonably proficient with it...really any person with one, but that's another discussion. Police have to train, and prove proficiency with their weapon....how can this possibly happen without intentional skirting of the standards/rules/law?)

The biggest problem IMO is there's rarely any justice at all, even in those cases where there's incontrovertible evidence of guilt. Instant justice would be nice, but delayed justice would be FAR preferable to no justice, which is the current situation. How many recent killings of unarmed men have gone completely unaddressed? Far too many to count.
The system is set up in such a way that those charged with prosecuting police have personal and professional relationships with them that deny impartiality in almost every case. That is why there's rarely any prosecution, and even when there is (usually because they are pressured into it by public outcry) they blatantly throw the case in the toilet with no consequence....and there's still no justice.

Well, the level of incompetence required for this to be 'accidental' is SOOO incredibly high that it's not reasonable to assume the police are that incompetent....but if they are, that's intentional on the part of their supervisors, no? So still the responsibility of the police as a whole.

There IS doubt that they could have killed him and made it look unintentional. He shot 3 times, and only hit once. Clearly, he's not a good enough shot to kill on the first shot, because cops ALWAYS shoot to kill, and he failed, no matter which target he was aiming at.

We can assume that because he said "I don't know" when asked why he shot the caregiver....not "I missed", or "I wasn't aiming at you" or any other mitigation. If, as you suggest, he was firing at the sitting, unarmed, severely mentally challenged man (also completely inexcusable, btw) then the negligence in discharging his firearm with an innocent victim between him and the target is not just gross negligence, it's intentional negligence. Shooting someone because you don't care that they are between you and your target makes you an attempted murderer. Period.

Um....if a cop was shot in the foot, medical care would be instant, there would be no handcuffing, much less TRIPPLE handcuffing. What was reported was they didn't call for medical attention for >15 minutes while the victim lay handcuffed bleeding in the street (probably with officers standing on top of him). Medical care was provided while the shootings were still happening in Dallas, so "the scene wasn't secured yet, we couldn't allow medics in safely" falls completely flat as an excuse anymore and won't even be considered by me.

That level of incompetence from a police officer MUST, by definition, be intentional. They are well trained and equipped to avoid exactly this kind of fiasco. Ignoring that training is intentional, and that must be prosecutable if there is to be any effect. I don't have to ascribe intent to murder to claim culpability. That is not the metric by which the law is applied. If your actions are grossly negligent and end in near death of another, which is the absolute least criminal possible interpretation of the actions of this officer, that's criminal attempted murder/manslaughter1. Because (inappropriately) using a firearm is not unintentional, and officers ONLY use them to kill, this was not attempted manslaughter, which only applies when the intent is NOT to kill, it was an attempted murder.
Either way, that's a question for a jury to answer, not his superior, not the DA that he works with daily.

This is where our views part: I am not ready to ascribe malice to what can be explained by incompetence. I am not willing to do so without something more to go on. I think this sort of sensationalism can be dangerous and polarizing.

There's no doubt that these two cops could have killed the caregiver had they the intent. Even just the cop that fired, had he really wanted to, could have killed the victim, easily. The fact that they did not do so doesn't exonerate them from all wrong doing, but it does stand in the face of your charges of attempted murder.

If three shots were fired, and only one of them hit the victim, why do we assume that he was firing at the caregiver, and not the other fellow? Either way, most shots missed, and we can see the prone man was between the sitting man and the shooting man. Horrible idea to be firing, but to ascribe motive at this point is to get ahead of yourself. Negligence seems more likely.

As for the delay in medical care, there are a lot of assumptions being made it seems. Where was he shot? Was he bleeding profusely? How many of those 15 minutes passed before medics were even on the scene? The cufffing is clearly a bad idea in this case, but also sounds like protocol, which can hardly be maintained constitutes attempted murder.

That is why it is damaging to jump to conclusions early. We can say that the shooting was clearly unjust and unjustified. We can say that the officer clearly acted incompetent in his job, causing significant harm to an innocent. Beyond that you're straying into the mind reading business.

I think the anger and disgust I feel at this abhorrent systemic breakdown can be partly summarized in the quote by the news anchor at ~12:07:

"I saw documentation of [various examples of gross negligence]. Why should you care? Well, every day Corizon dispenses health care you pay $339,000 whether it does it's job or not."

WTF. Seriously, the news anchor just said that Corizon was involved in destroying fellow humans and then said that the reason you should care about it is that it costs you money.

There's something deeply wrong here. There's something deeply wrong with for-profit prisons. There's something deeply wrong with for-profit healthcare. And if the only reason a society would care about someone's intense suffering and death is that it might cost them some money then there is something deeply wrong with that society.

Yes i was aware. I don't think accumulating points from quality sift talks is a reasonably viable way to move up in star rank. Technically i should have said mostly instead of solely, but i think the points are so negligible to not even consider them as a way to move up rank.

So sad.
It's really hard to upvote this, even though it is news with a social message.

From what I've seen about this, there's plenty of blame to go around. Apparently there was only one fence between people and the enclosure, apparently with a hole big enough for a 4 year old or short enough for one to climb over....then there was the 4 year old that was unwatched long enough to get through/over that fence. Once he was in the enclosure in the hands of the Gorilla, they had little choice, sadly. If they tranquilized it and it hurt or killed the boy before going out, the zoo would be sued and close and the keepers likely be charged with some kind of manslaughter by negligence.

A matter of scale, distance & speed. (assuming we are talking about electrically driven engines like ion drives or the proposed EM engine.)

If nothing else, the sun gets weaker the further away you get. Out at the edges of the solar system it's almost negligible.

Given that mass directly effects net thrust & fuel range, smaller craft working in the inner solar system may well be better off sticking with solar over a bulky reactor.

Larger and or longer ranged ships should start to favour fusion reactors and such.

Unless of course they manage to miniaturise the fusion apparatus, or perhaps harness quantum effects like matter/anti-matter. etc. etc.

Surface area to volume ratio also starts to shaft solar power the bigger the ship gets too. The panels would have to get exponentially bigger along with the ship/engines.

I couldn't tell you exactly where, but there will be natural tipping points between the practicality of one over the other.

Edit: The calculation would mostly be the ratio of energy produced to mass of the generating apparatus. The point where a fusion reactor (inc it's fuel) can produce more required power per unit of mass than solar cells (and associated gubbins), is the point where it becomes more efficient for most spacecraft.

Though solar still has a clear advantage where indefinite operational duration is a factor. (fusion requires fuel, albeit in small quantities)

It's still working it's way through the courts, Remington claims that they're protected under the Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act. But some say there are exceptions for things like negligent entrustment, as the families are claiming that military style weapons should never have been sold to the public in the first place and therefore qualifies as negligence.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/22/467688334/ar-15-gun-maker-seeks-to-dismiss-lawsuit-filed-by-sandy-hook-parents

Wilkens was awarded more than $180,000 in total damages.

Jurors additionally determined that Edwards acted with negligence when his police car rear-ended Wilkens’ motorcycle, but ruled that the veteran state trooper did not violate Wilkens’ rights by pointing a gun at him and using force to handcuff and then pull Wilkens to his feet.

Wilkens suffered a broken left clavicle, a fractured rib and other injuries in the Aug. 3, 2012, incident.

http://registerguard.com/rg/news/local/33955359-75/federal-jury-rules-in-favor-of-speeding-motorcyclist-against-oregon-state-police-trooper.html.csp

Some other nice bits in the article, the officer was driving an unmarked chevy camaro, was unaware that it was equipped with a dash cam, and blamed the rear ending of the bike on 'brake fade' (which a brake expert testified was rare in modern brake systems).

It's a fun read, also the cop was later promoted to captain.

The transfer of rage occurred much sooner. Tailgater to Blocker (which could be argued negligence), Blocker to Tailgater, then Tailgater to High Heaven (but mostly Blocker).

There is blame enough for both.

Looks to me like the tailgater either can't drive worth shit or their vehicle brakes are out of whack. Either way, they shouldn't be that close to anyone.

Brake check to a complete stop? Ya, that would have been dangerous and negligent. Looked to me like he just lit up his brake lights and the tailgater overreacted.

Hmmm. I would wager that while H2O2 might not be necessary (maybe not even beneficial at all) in the large majority of cuts and scrapes, if you happen to get cut or scraped by something that happens to have some particularly nasty bacteria on it, it is probably better to attempt to kill that stuff off, even though it is also doing some damage to healthy cells also.

And the amount of damage to healthy cells might be so small that it is worth using the H2O2 most of the time just on the off chance that some particularly nasty and resistant bacteria got in there.

But to be fair, that balance (small chance of particularly nasty bacteria vs guaranteed but negligible "damage" to healthy cells) is probably close enough that there are rational arguments either direction.

And no offense to SciShow, but I think that if anyone was going to sway my opinion on this one way or the other, it should be an actual *doctor* that brings up clinical trials -- maybe a Healthcare Triage video or something...

Vote as you like, but I think you missed the important point being made (agreed, made excessively poorly, even disingenuously by Cenk) that this was an intentional squandering of the perfect time to remove the offending, illegal portions of the law, and leaving them in may (I'm no legal scholar, but often if one part is invalid, the entire document is invalid) invalidate the whole thing and require another re-write, taking more time, money, and effort, all of which are in short supply.

Is it a BIG deal, no...at least I hope not. There's always the possibility that they'll actually try to use it again to prosecute homosexuals, forcing them to 'prove' they aren't sodomites in court (an impossibility, btw) or go to prison or at best be forced to publicly re-address and re-litigate it over and over as they appeal up to the supreme court, destroying them professionally and financially, as has been done many times in the past.
Please do note that most 'homosexual behavior' has been illegal in the South in the past, and those laws have been repeatedly used to destroy people's lives and families, often based on false accusations, and despite their unconstitutionality and immorality. Leaving those laws on the books, even when they've been deemed unenforceable, leaves many people in a legal limbo. They can never feel safe in their own state and there's the reality that every time a new public official is elected they have to wonder if they'll have to fight this fight once again. Many times states have decided to enforce unconstitutional laws, and while in the end they were struck down, those they are applied against in the mean time are often destroyed.
Also, because they can't successfully prosecute someone for this unconstitutional law doesn't mean they can't use it to 'out' them, or investigate them until they find something they can prosecute, as has also happened in the past.
...But I don't think Cenk tried to make any of those points, he was just pointing out this blatant hypocrisy, which is representative of Republicans spending their exceedingly limited legislating time, effort, and money doing ridiculous, illegal, meaningless things, but completely fail at doing anything helpful, meaningful, or even legal like removing the offensive, unconstitutional part of the law when you're already re-writing and re-voting on a law, or maybe finding a way to get Flint non-poisoned water, or finding a way to put those responsible for poisoning an entire community (whether by negligence or out of greed) in prison, and it's representative of their complete hypocrisy about the party platform, which is conveniently completely forgotten when 'out of control government intrusion' is on their side.
I do completely admit he could have been far clearer about what really happened rather than imply they wrote this in as an amendment, bad Cenk.