I’ve always thought it was a horrific decision, but not at all because of the immediate effects or massive death and destruction they caused in Japan….they fucked around and found out and deserved everything they got (and I was unaware the Russian Manchurian offensive timing, but it’s even more reason to not drop a second bomb or even a first if we knew it was coming).

I think it was horrific because we had no idea what the long term effects of even minimal fallout might be, and in fall/winter the jet stream runs from Japan directly to the highly populated West coast (which we knew well thanks to balloon bombs), so some portion of the fallout was guaranteed to fall on millions of US citizens. We lucked out that it wasn’t deadly a year later, and didn’t cause horrible birth defects with near zero exposure…we had no concrete idea at the time though just guesses, and still don’t have a clear idea of how much it contributed to higher cancer rates in the US.

Keep in mind, we had no idea what discussions the Japanese were having amongst themselves , so no idea how effective our bombs nor the Manchurian offensive were at persuading them to surrender. Hindsight is 2020, but at the time we were flying blind.

The uncertain risk there of possibly killing millions of ourselves or gimping or sterilizing or even Cronenberging entire future generations for the comparatively minimal convenience of not using conventional bombs, to me, is no where near worth it. There were just too many unanswered questions about too many factors. I’m sure the soldiers fighting at the time would feel differently.

*promote the history lesson, learned some new stuff!

The music is a little more dramatic than what's going on I think. Kinda like wearing shoes that are too big for the feet.

Do your hands always need to be on the controls at all times? How easy is it to recover from let's say an unexpected seagull attack or a bee swarm? How would you handle an itchy nose? Can you wave to a babe on the beach to get her attention?

Too many unanswered questions for me to buy one.

Being a fan of the movie I like the series, but it's like they've started too many narratives at once. I feel like there are going to be a lot of unanswered questions like in LOST.

I'd love to get in on this conversation because this subject really interests me. This video touched on a lot of interesting theories.

@robdot - I don't understand people who think they "know" the answers to the universe. There are unanswered questions in every model. Do you know the answer to what dark matter and energy is? Nobody has yet detected it. Yet, our "universe" is supposedly filled with the stuff.

Let's also define what a universe is. My definition is; it's a place governed by the same set of physical laws.

So we have "our" universe, that we hypothesize about through our observations and measurements. We have theories that say "other" universes exist in some form or another. If their physical laws are different then ours, there would probably be no way to observe them, and therefore no way to prove their existence. Lack of proof is not proof that it doesn't exist.

I could write a book on what i "think" about what our universe is. For simplicity, let me just say that I moved from telecom engineering to software architect. In software, we create programs to run simulations. We create vast game worlds with whatever "physical" attributes we want to program into them. Lets assume we created artificial intelligence. In what context would "it" live? Most everyone assumes it would just be one conscience interacting with us in the form of a robot (Que cheesy Hollywood films).

Let's give it the power of quantum computing. It then decides to understand us (it's creator), it needs to program a simulation that mimics all it knows about our physical world. It wouldn't make one simulation, run it and be done. It would make many simulations, probably simultaneously, tweaking each new one based on the results of the previous ones.

Just imagine where this could lead. This intelligence could figure out how to create a multitude of different, very elegant universes. Its time scale would be different then our time. It's simulation could take seconds on its viewing scale, but appear to be billions of years when observing from within it. We have the power to pause, rewind, replay, tweak our simple creations. Imagine what this super intelligence could do with theirs?

10 years on and still so many unanswered questions. I believe, whatever the truth is, we can handle it. Until a clear, concise, explanation is given to us, the trust in our leaders - which we so want to regain- will be absent. Maybe that's too much to hope for.

Autism Speaks, Official Statement. February 2009:

We will continue to support authoritative research that addresses unanswered questions about whether certain subgroups of individuals with particular underlying medical or genetic conditions may be more vulnerable to adverse effects of vaccines. While large scale studies have not shown a link between vaccines and autism, there are lingering legitimate questions about the safety of vaccines that must be addressed.

"Lot's of unanswered questions."

I think there were key numbers showing discrimination on the basis of race on page 2 of the article:

"[Researchers] found what looks like different standards for different racial groups. They calculated that Asian-Americans needed nearly perfect SAT scores of 1550 to have the same chance of being accepted at a top private university as whites who scored 1410 and African-Americans who got 1100. Whites were three times, Hispanics six times, and blacks more than 15 times as likely to be accepted at a US university as Asian-Americans."

"Unanswered questions" refered to the one case of the asian student. At any rate, I don't believe that SAT should be a strong factor for admission. It's too correlated to family income.


"Who gets to set the standard for "skill.""

Admissions departments base much of their acceptance decisions on SAT scores because their own records and the scientific community consider the scores to be highly predictive of students' grades and graduation rates once they enroll.



Not even the College Board, who administers the SAT, makes this claim. At best they say that it can be a moderate to strong predictor of first year GPA, depending on the section.

And not to be pedantic, but these studies are statistical, not scientific. There is no "scientific consensus" on SAT scores and performance. In fact, this is a controversial topic. So much so, that some Universities/colleges have even dropped the SAT as a factor in admission entirely.

@longde: "Lot's of unanswered questions."

I think there were key numbers showing discrimination on the basis of race on page 2 of the article:

"[Researchers] found what looks like different standards for different racial groups. They calculated that Asian-Americans needed nearly perfect SAT scores of 1550 to have the same chance of being accepted at a top private university as whites who scored 1410 and African-Americans who got 1100. Whites were three times, Hispanics six times, and blacks more than 15 times as likely to be accepted at a US university as Asian-Americans."

@longde: "Who gets to set the standard for "skill.""

Admissions departments base much of their acceptance decisions on SAT scores because their own records and the scientific community consider the scores to be highly predictive of students' grades and graduation rates once they enroll.

It's a complicated issue that can't be summed up in one statement "bad to discriminate".

The linked article doesn't build a convincing case at any rate. California's asian population is huge relative to other states. I lived in a town that was 50% chinese. So, you would expect asian-americans to make up a sizable percentage of admission candidates to california's colleges and universities. Elite people from all walks of life apply to Harvard and the other Ivies. What percentage of asian americans are applying to those schools relative to the other groups?

Re: The kid that had the GPA, test scores, and 7 or so AP credits, and didn't get in, I would say that there is not enough information to understand if he deserved to go or not. Community service? Extra-curricular activities? What about his essay and story? Is this guy some egghead loner? Who wants to go to college with someone who is not well rounded? In addition, did his high school inflate grades? Did he hail from a rich family who could afford tutors to raise his test scores? Lot's of unanswered questions.

As someone who has sat on an admission committee for an Ivy League graduate business school, a perfect GPA and GMAT would not cut it. Not the same as undergrad, but I imagine that there is less fixation on scores as well.

GPA and standardized test scores should obviously be huge factors in admissions, but certainly not the only factors. Also, any smart student would apply to several colleges. Noone should feel entitled to get into any college; admission is not a right.

To echo a sentiment above, I have often felt that colleges should matriculate anyone who wants to go who can do the work. Graduation should be the gate, not admission.

You, like Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and other conservatives, make the mistake of thinking your concept of liberty is objective. It isn't. And, until you understand this, you will always be at its mercy.

Can't you see the problem with defining narrow and partisan political beliefs as the perfect embodiment of liberty? Perfection is beyond the need for criticism. By believing free markets are the perfect embodiment of liberty, it prevents you from being able to judge them critically, much like the religious are not able to judge the Bible critically because of the perceived perfection of God. This, I believe, is why you get shut down so often in our conversations. This is why you have to resort to insults, jokes, silence or changing the subject when I go beyond your framework of understanding. This is why you have that long list of unanswered questions, because you can't comprehend how anyone could criticize liberty or freedom. If I disagree, I must hate liberty - where have I heard that before?

Free markets aren't liberty, brother. They provide a certain amount of freedom to those with means, but it comes at a cost of freedom to those without. I've made this point (the subjectivity of your concept of liberty) so many times and you never address it. Care to give it a go? It would probably be easier to just call me stupid again.

http://videosift.com/talk/Gov-t-stopped-funding-charity-private-donations-surge-500?loadcomm=1#comment-1186057

>> ^blankfist:

I'd like to think you're not an idiot. But then you say things like this and how do you expect me to look at you?
Obviously you've read zero of anything I've written on here gauging by the way you try to describe me or my politics. You're head is so filled with your party's nonsense that your understanding of liberty is not an understanding at all. It's a rehearsed diatribe.
Oh and for the record it's agorist not argoist.

You, like Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and other conservatives, make the mistake of thinking your concept of liberty is objective. It isn't. And, until you understand this, you will always be at its mercy.

Can't you see the problem with defining narrow and partisan political beliefs as the perfect embodiment of liberty? Perfection is beyond the need for criticism. By believing free markets are the perfect embodiment of liberty, it prevents you from being able to judge them critically, much like the religious are not able to judge the Bible critically because of the perceived perfection of God. This, I believe, is why you get shut down so often in our conversations. This is why you have to resort to insults, jokes, silence or changing the subject when I go beyond your framework of understanding. This is why you have that long list of unanswered questions, because you can't comprehend how anyone could criticize liberty or freedom. If I disagree, I must hate liberty - where have I heard that before?

Free markets aren't liberty, brother. They provide a certain amount of freedom to those with means, but it comes at a cost of freedom to those without. I've made this point (the subjectivity of your concept of liberty) so many times and you never address it. Care to give it a go? It would probably be easier to just call me stupid again.


>> ^blankfist:

I'd like to think you're not an idiot. But then you say things like this and how do you expect me to look at you?
Obviously you've read zero of anything I've written on here gauging by the way you try to describe me or my politics. You're head is so filled with your party's nonsense that your understanding of liberty is not an understanding at all. It's a rehearsed diatribe.
Oh and for the record it's agorist not argoist.

^I bumped into some pretty angry Lost fans at my gig today. The writers should open up a Q&A forum online and answer all the unanswered questions. They owe it to the die-hard fans. Maybe they could even make some kind of video addendum to tack on to the series. I'm sure people would tune in.

I agree with @NetRunner. The movieline "answers" are a snarky list of "So what?"

I now get the flash sideways thing, and I actually like that when they die they all meet in this place that exists indifferent to space/time. But a cool melodramatic tearjerking ending where everyone is rejoined in the afterlife (Except for the black people. What's up with that?) does not excuse the show creators from paying off the nearly countless mysteries they set up.

And I disagree with @dystopianfuturetoday, the BSG ending was not great but it was at least satisfying. They didn't leave any unanswered questions, as far as I remember. Sure their answers were arguably lazy, but at least they were answers!

My take on the ending was the same as Sarzy's. What happened on the island really happened, and what happened in the alternate reality was not purgatory or punishment, it was more of a Coda. The love fest in the sanctuary at the end was way too happy and non-denominational to be mistaken for grim Catholic mythology.

In general, I found the show to be more of a wild, unpredictable ride than a tight believable narrative. At many points in the show, the writers were clearly making it up as they went, but because of the creativity of the writers and the strength of the characters, it worked just fine. Most of the unanswered questions probably had no real answers to begin with. The writers just thought it would be cool to put a four toed statue and a couple of polar bears* on the island. Fair enough, coolness is cool.

BSG, on the other hand, took it's story and characters much more seriously. The narrative was much tighter, making a satisfying ending that much more important to me and tougher for the writers - and boy did they fail badly.

Lost avoided those expectations. Lost managed to stretch my suspended disbelief so far (without alienating me), that they could have pretty much done whatever they wanted with the ending, as long as it was cool, exiting, suspenseful, weird or otherwise entertaining. So the ending didn't carry the same importance for me as it did for BSG.

Anyway, those hours watching Lost were well spent, and the finale was a nice way to say goodbye to the lovable and lovably hateable characters that brought this thing to life.

KP, you'd probably dig this show if you gave it a chance. I felt the same way that you did, but quickly changed my mind last august when it came to Netflix streaming. It's a very unique show that can't really be understood without jumping in feet first.

*Yes, I know they explained the polar bears**.
**They were used for experiments carried out by the Dharma initiative.

@NetRunner - Okay, clearly, there are many unanswered questions about the hatch. I stand corrected. I will say that most of those questions are awfully specific, and I don't think that their unanswerededness (yeah, that's a word -- don't look it up though, just take my word for it) really impacts the show all that much. I mean, it would have been nice to know that stuff, but I think most of it falls in the category of minutia. I mean, we know that pressing the button somehow keeps all that electromagnetic energy contained -- as for HOW it actually does that... do we really need to know that? We know that the failsafe somehow dissipates all that energy without destroying the entire island, but scientifically how...? I don't know. Why does that matter?

Like I said, I don't think Lost is perfect. There are things that bug me, such as the contradictory way the others acted in season 1, and the whole pregnancy thing, which was clearly set up to be significant and then dropped for whatever reason. But even if the writers of Lost had been much more forthcoming with answers than they were, I don't think there would have been any way for them to answer every single question down to the smallest detail. Some things are going to have to be left somewhat vague.

@blankfist - I disagree with the theory that they all died in the explosion. I think they all died at various times in their lifetimes (ie. Sayid in the sub, Jack at the end of the last episode, Hurley and several others much later into the future) and then found themselves in the flash sideways world together. We, the viewers, first see that world when the bomb goes off, but really, it's not taking place at any specific time in the real world (I believe Christian said something like "there is no now."). It's taking place at some time in the future, after the last of them has died, whenever that may be.