Re:The Chemistry of ‘Yes Minister’ (2017)
by secondcoming on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @12:47PM
(#34711780)
This [0] clip about Opinion Polls and National Service was an Ah-ha moment for me
Re:The Chemistry of ‘Yes Minister’ (2017)
by marcosdumay on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @12:49PM
(#34711801)
It doesn't say they are pointless. It says one would never use them (there is no worst case scenario that wouldn't became worse by using them), but for them not to be used, one has to have them.
Or, basically, it explained MAD.
Re:The Chemistry of ‘Yes Minister’ (2017)
by pixl97 on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @01:59PM
(#34712959)
Also the salami tactics episode was great.
Re:The Chemistry of ‘Yes Minister’ (2017)
by dingosity on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @02:16PM
(#34713269)
Don't you mean the "british offal tube" episode?
Re:The Chemistry of ‘Yes Minister’ (2017)
by labster on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @03:56PM
(#34714981)
Brexit means Brexit.
Re:The Chemistry of ‘Yes Minister’ (2017)
by smcin on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @07:40PM
(#34718036)
Yes, you have to have them because your rivals do. In order to make sure each other never actually uses theirs. It's all perfectly logical you see.
Re:The Chemistry of ‘Yes Minister’ (2017)
by alexwasserman on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @01:31PM
(#34712511)
Yes, Minister was the original series.
Yes, Prime Minister was a follow-up after Jim Hacker is elected Prime Minister. The series is just a continuation and just as funny, or more so.
Re:The Chemistry of ‘Yes Minister’ (2017)
by derefr on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @02:46PM
(#34713784)
I don't think the GP comment was asking a question in a parenthetical; rather, they were expressing the names of both shows together using regular-expression syntax.
Re:The Chemistry of ‘Yes Minister’ (2017)
by valarauko on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @03:33PM
(#34714578)
Makes sense. In my case, I probably would have phrased it as a question myself, since I did watch them as a kid but honestly couldn't tell you which one of those I used to watch.
Re:The Chemistry of ‘Yes Minister’ (2017)
by Mordisquitos on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @04:07PM
(#34715187)
True, though GP made a subtle mistake in not moving one space into the optional capture group. It should have been for example /Yes,( Prime)? Minister/, lest it were to match
Yes, Prime Minister
Yes, Minister
Re:The Chemistry of ‘Yes Minister’ (2017)
by frupert52 on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @04:58PM
(#34715955)
Thank you Bernard. That will be all
Re:The Chemistry of ‘Yes Minister’ (2017)
by neruthes on Thursday February 09, 2023 @12:40AM
(#34720173)
No, Bernard. That question was purely rhetorical.
Re:The Chemistry of ‘Yes Minister’ (2017)
by InCityDreams on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @04:16PM
(#34715302)
Source?
Re:The Chemistry of ‘Yes Minister’ (2017)
by waterhouse on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @06:52PM
(#34717528)
Re:The Chemistry of ‘Yes Minister’ (2017)
by cletus on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @10:15PM
(#34719328)
It's true, it was regex-ish. I did actually think about the space and decided it didn't look nice. It should also be clear from context clues (ie having declared watching the show and quoting it, familiarity with the two show names could be inferred). Plus you don't need parentheses to insert a question mark:
Yes, Prime? Minister
Although if you're inclined to believe that's still regex the e is optional.Perhaps it would've been clearer as:
Yes,{ Prime|} Minister
rather than: Yes,( Prime)? Minister
Re:The Chemistry of ‘Yes Minister’ (2017)
by dingosity on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @02:15PM
(#34713240)
Yup. Kind of amazing what you can do with decent stories. Blake's 7 and 70s Doctor Who were notorious for cheezy effects, sets, props and costumes. But the stories really were pretty decent. Blake's 7 eventually annoyed me by how slow it progressed, but if you relax and accept that it's slower than your typical trek episode, it's perfectly fine.
The same era saw Survivors, The Tripods and Children of the Stones. Cheezy effects but very decent stories and still worth watching.
Re:The Chemistry of ‘Yes Minister’ (2017)
by raffraffraff on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @04:10PM
(#34715221)
After Stephen Greif left Blake's 7 and they replaced him with that awful guy, every episode with Space Commander Travis in it was excruciating. Apparently Mr Greif died last December.
Re:The Chemistry of ‘Yes Minister’ (2017)
by karencarits on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @05:05PM
(#34716044)
> Nuclear Deterrant
Also on Nuclear Deterrant: https://youtu.be/N6Et35vPYLg?t=184
> Jim: Sometimes wonder why we need the weapons
> Sir Humphrey: Minister, you are not a unilateralist?
> Jim: Sometimes wonder, you know
> Sir Humphrey: Well then you must resign from the government!
> Jim: Nonono, I am not that unilateralist. The Americans will always protect us from the Russians, wouldn't they?
> Sir Humphrey: Russians? Who's talking about the Russians?
> Jim: Well, independent deterrent...
> Sir Humphrey: It's to protect us against the French!
> Jim: The French? But.. But.. They are our allies! And partners!
> Sir Humphrey: Well, that are now, but they've been our enemies for most of the past 900 years. If they have got the bomb, we must have the bomb
Re:The Chemistry of ‘Yes Minister’ (2017)
by helmholtz on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @06:00PM
(#34716858)
> Sir Humphrey: I gather there's an airborne battalion in the air.
> Jim Hacker: Sounds like the right place for it.
With the best shit-eating grin ever. I love Yes Prime Minister with all my heart. And the event leading up to it: > James Hacker : Hello? Yes, Ronnie. I want the president of St George's Island to extend an invitation to Britain to send an airborne battalion on a goodwill visit. No, just a friendly gesture. Goodwill. Yes, at once, please. Thank you.
> [hangs up]
> James Hacker : He seemed to think that 800 fully armed paratroopers was an awful lot to send on a goodwill visit.
> Israeli Ambassador : No, it's just an awful lot of goodwill.
> James Hacker : [phone rings] Oh, yes, Paul. You know you have an airborne battalion on standby in Germany? Never mind how I know. Well, since it's not being used, I want them to fly straight off to St George's Island. [Pause] Sort of between Africa and India. A goodwill visit. Just showing the flag. They have been invited. Yes. Leave in... six hours. Yes, an *instant* goodwill visit. Tell your press office to announce it at once. No, no, leave me out of it. A *routine* visit. All right - a routine *surprise* visit. Well, say they were invited earlier, but the NATO exercise got in the way. Now they're not needed, they're going anyway. All right. Nobody knows it's not true. Press statements aren't delivered under oath.
Re:The Chemistry of ‘Yes Minister’ (2017)
by chadcmulligan on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @07:43PM
(#34718065)
Some great shows, if you're talking nuclear deterrent, 'Whoops Apocalypse' was a great mini series from the same era, that I still revisit now and then.
One particularly prescient piece was the Nuclear Deterrant [1]. Even 40+ years ago this episode argued that nuclear weapons were mostly pointless because you'd never use them and instead you should invest in smart weapons. The linked segment even has a line that the Soviets can't take Western Europe, they can't even hold Afghanistan. Consider that in light of Ukraine. Think about where munitions have gone and "smart" weapons are particularly prevelent.
And of course the writing and performance for Sir Humphrey in particular was absolutely top notch.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4