Unesco Probing Star Wars Filming In Ireland

Today I Learnt that... by balajeerc · 2014-07-31 02:14 · Score: 2, Funny

"... puffins, manx shearwaters, storm petrels, guillemots and kittiwakes" are NOT from a Harry Potter novel but real world animals. I am going to have a lot of fun looking them up.

Re:Today I Learnt that... by just_another_sean · 2014-07-31 02:18 · Score: 4, Funny

Seems to me that they have a nice cache of Star Wars alien/animal names all provided free of charge by the nice folks in Ireland...
A herd of guillemots sure sounds scarier to me than a herd of nerfs. And I'm sure it's a total pain when your inside an asteroid and a bunch of filthy kittiwakes start chewing on your power system. And of course storm troopers riding around on storm petrels is too obvious to pass up!

--
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Re:Today I Learnt that... by gunner_von_diamond · 2014-07-31 02:42 · Score: 1

Totally just did the same thing! You learn something new every day! Thanks wikipedia!
Re:Today I Learnt that... by NotDrWho · 2014-07-31 03:06 · Score: -1, Troll

I just thank god that UNESCO is looking out for our precious guillemots and kittiwakes, and in no way just seeking publicity for themselves.

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Re:Today I Learnt that... by itsdapead · 2014-07-31 03:28 · Score: 4, Funny

Many puffins died to bring us this information...

--
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Re: Today I Learnt that... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 03:41 · Score: 1

heaven forbid that the world's designated protector of cultural heritage sites actually tries to protect world heritage sites
Re:Today I Learnt that... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 03:48 · Score: 0

Seriously? You guys didn't know these well-known animals (not specifically Irish names by the way).
Re:Today I Learnt that... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 04:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

They're not *that* common (as evidenced by the fact their habitat needs protecting). I'm sure I would have heard of them if I were a bird-watcher or maybe if I lived near the ocean. But chiding someone far outside of their habitat for not being familiar with them is kind of like chiding someone far outside of cattle country for not knowing the difference between a Milking Devon and a Dutch Belted.
Re:Today I Learnt that... by Minwee · 2014-07-31 04:42 · Score: 1

Don't make me link this here.
Re:Today I Learnt that... by oldmac31310 · 2014-07-31 06:15 · Score: 1

Shame on xkcd. Those are not fractions, they are percentages.

--
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Re:Today I Learnt that... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 06:39 · Score: 2, Informative

It's more likely to be that general knowledge education is simply better in UK

And yet you didn't even know the difference between a Milking Devon and a Dutch Belted. Even a 8-year-old knows that where I'm from.
But if you want to keep congratulating yourself with your own smug sense of intellectual superiority, might I suggest you buy a Macbook?

It wouldn't be so bad if the reaction was "Ooh! Tell me more!" but more often than not I'm met with anger that I've shown someone up for their ignorance, or worse still, pride in ignorance.
The reason they were angry wasn't because they love ignorance. It was likely because you came off as an smug little prick condescendingly talking down to your inferiors. You're the douchebag who feels the need to brag to everyone at the party that he doesn't even *OWN* a TV, and then wonders why people don't like you.
Re:Today I Learnt that... by Darinbob · 2014-07-31 07:28 · Score: 1

Well, most people in US should at least know "puffin" as it's a name of a the largest English language children's book publishing group.
On the other hand, ignorance is relative. If Europeans learn about regions 200 miles from them then that covers a lot of territory, but many Americans are very familiar with parts of their that far away and may drive on trips that far regularly. It would not be at all surprising to find London residents who know very little about anything outside of London except what they see on television.
Re:Today I Learnt that... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 09:15 · Score: 0

Percentages are fractions.....

I am going to assume, for your sake, that this was a horribly bad joke.
Re: Today I Learnt that... by mindwhip · 2014-07-31 10:51 · Score: 1

Thing is they are fairly toothless given all they really have is their branding. The most they can do is either:
1) Withdraw heritage status from a location
2) Write a strongly worded letter to Government/Local Council/Developer/Other threatening to withdraw heritage status from a location
Since most places that have heritage status only use it for tourism promotions and this island only has 13 tourist trips a year, threatening to destroy the tourism is pointless...

--
[The Universe] has gone offline.
Re:Today I Learnt that... by sound+vision · 2014-07-31 10:58 · Score: 1

I think this guy nailed it.
Re:Today I Learnt that... by Snufu · 2014-07-31 14:15 · Score: 1

(Score:6, Funny)
Re:Today I Learnt that... by Minwee · 2014-08-01 03:32 · Score: 1

Be kind. He may have been on of the lucky 10,000 who just figured out where the phrase "per cent" came from.
Re: Today I Learnt that... by etrigan63 · 2014-08-01 05:34 · Score: 1

Weirdly enough, the scientific name of the Manx Shearwater is Pufinus Pufinus.

--
Got an Opteron or Athlon64? Check out http://www.planetamd64.com
Re:Today I Learnt that... by RockDoctor · 2014-08-03 06:54 · Score: 1

You're the douchebag who feels the need to brag to everyone at the party that he doesn't even *OWN* a TV, and then wonders why people don't like you.
Sounds like one of those stupid cunts of ACs who go to the wrong parties.
What's wrong with treating the crap that people put on TV to part us from our money as if it's crap whose only reason for existence is to part us from our money?

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Re:Today I Learnt that... by DickMardy · 2014-08-03 18:25 · Score: 1

London is kind of a special case but you are correct. I know people from London who break into a sweat when they have to go to the countryside.
Re: Today I Learnt that... by St.Creed · 2014-08-09 02:42 · Score: 1

It's still bad PR, and that can be used by political opponents if handled right. Which means that any politician currently in power will rather not have such letters in their inbox. Before you know it the opposition will be holding a press conference, saying things like: "As we all know, the current government can't be considered green, despite their name. Why, the UNESCO even had to send a letter about this priceless part of our environment because they were damaging it! What hypocrites! You better vote for us. Because we care..."
Not just that, but when negotiating over returning cultural heritage items, a government that this happened to would find itself in an unpleasant position: "oh, we can't give you back your {priceless statues/Elgin marbles/fossilized remains} because as you have just shown, you can't be trusted with UNESCO heritage sites. Have a nice day!".
So, not entirely toothless unless you don't give a fuck about world opinion or negotiations anyway.

--
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)

Good... by chinton · 2014-07-31 02:16 · Score: 5, Funny

Keep an eye on them so they don't do something stupid... Like Jar Jar. Or Hayden Christensen.

Re:Good... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 02:17 · Score: 1

Too late: They were bought by Disney.
Re:Good... by i+kan+reed · 2014-07-31 02:25 · Score: 2

Disney's past their peak awfulness of the late 1990s and early 2000s, where milking every IP they had for maximum profit at the expense of any and all artistic credibility was a primary goal, and it's been multiple years since they last invented a pop-star by manipulatively marketing them at kids.
Re:Good... by halivar · 2014-07-31 02:28 · Score: 1

The sad thing is that Hayden Christensen was actually an upgrade. :/
Re:Good... by ArcadeMan · 2014-07-31 02:29 · Score: 1

I wonder if South Park was of any importance in that decision.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Re:Good... by gstoddart · 2014-07-31 02:36 · Score: 1

Disney's past their peak awfulness of the late 1990s and early 2000s, where milking every IP they had for maximum profit at the expense of any and all artistic credibility was a primary goal, and it's been multiple years since they last invented a pop-star by manipulatively marketing them at kids.
That has yet to be seen. They still have time to drive the Marvel stuff into the ground.
And, really, the 1970s and 1980s had an awful lot of dreck in the form of bad live-action wildlife movies with a narrator.
Yay, a racoon rummaging through the garbage, how riveting.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Good... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 02:50 · Score: 0

They don't care about pop-stars, they market TV kid stars now. They have a whole lineup of TV kid stars on the Disney Channel.
Re:Good... by NotDrWho · 2014-07-31 03:08 · Score: 3, Funny

Disney's past their peak awfulness of the late 1990s and early 2000s
Weak-minded fool! They've used the Jedi mind trick on you!

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Re:Good... by __aaclcg7560 · 2014-07-31 03:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's the perfect place to bury Jar Jar and Hayden Christensen in a peat bog.
Re:Good... by NotDrWho · 2014-07-31 03:12 · Score: 1

So true. As much as people rag on Christensen, it sure beat the shit out of casting an 8-year-old in the role. The second film in that trilogy was no masterpiece compared to the originals, but it was compared to the abomination that was The Phantom Menace.

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Re:Good... by wiggles · 2014-07-31 03:32 · Score: 1

People bag on Christensen without remembering how terrible Mark Hamill was.
We used to play a Star Wars drinking game in college - one of the items was to take a shot every time Luke whines.
Re:Good... by chinton · 2014-07-31 03:33 · Score: 1

I will say, in Christensen's defense, by the end of the prequel trilogy he had mastered the chin-down-eyes-up menacing glower.
Re:Good... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 03:46 · Score: 0

God I hate that little kid.
Re:Good... by jeffmflanagan · 2014-07-31 03:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

When I re-watched Star Wars for the first time as an adult, I was shocked at how whiney Luke was. As a child I didn't notice how unlikable the character is.
Re:Good... by NotDrWho · 2014-07-31 03:59 · Score: 1

I heard a story that at one of the recent conventions, Jake Lloyd showed up to sign autographs. And the autograph line for one of the guys who did some minor FX stuff for the original trilogy was reportedly much longer than the line to get his autograph (which was almost non-existent).
I almost feel sorry for him. He probably had typical stage parents who pushed him into acting, and had no idea as a little kid what he was getting himself in for. He was basically exploited by all the adults in his life and is still paying the price for it. Of course, he's 25 years old now and still choosing to whore himself at conventions instead of going back to college or getting a real job. So my sympathy fades a little more every day.

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Re:Good... by oh_my_080980980 · 2014-07-31 04:00 · Score: 1

Wait Mark Hamill was worse than Christensen? How much dope were you smoking.
Re:Good... by oh_my_080980980 · 2014-07-31 04:02 · Score: 1

Yeah cuz the part where Christensen says "I hate you" wasn't whiny or pure crap.
Re:Good... by NotDrWho · 2014-07-31 04:43 · Score: 2

They clone them in a lab in Orlando. Using DNA from seedless grapes, they've supposedly even created some recent experimental lines who are pushy-stage-parent free.

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Re: Good... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 04:48 · Score: 0

Today's Disney child pop-star is tomorrow's soft core porn star.
There is no reason to speak against the natural order of things.
Re:Good... by Nimey · 2014-07-31 05:15 · Score: 4, Funny

Leia is a Disney princess now.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Re:Good... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 06:20 · Score: 0

Also, it is hard to act well when you are beholden to an incompetent micromanager of a director.
Re:Good... by oldmac31310 · 2014-07-31 06:26 · Score: 1

I don't think you will find any bogs on Sceilig Mhichíl.

--
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Re:Good... by omnichad · 2014-07-31 06:34 · Score: 1

Only a matter of time before she ends up shoehorned into Once Upon A Time.
Re:Good... by idontgno · 2014-07-31 07:16 · Score: 1

And a guest appearance on Sophia the First.
<shudder>

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Re:Good... by micahraleigh · 2014-07-31 07:20 · Score: 2

Dissatisfaction with the world and the choices it hands to you can often be interpreted as whiney.

I saw Anakin in II and III as whiney and Luke as an individual.
Re:Good... by GTRacer · 2014-07-31 08:01 · Score: 1

*opens mouth* *closes mouth* *ponders*

I'm usually off to work before Sofia the First comes on, so I haven't seen many episodes. But are they really guesting Princesses into Sofia's timeline? Does Cedric have something to do with it?

--
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
Re:Good... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 08:02 · Score: 0

I heard a story that at one of the recent conventions, Jake Lloyd showed up to sign autographs. And the autograph line for one of the guys who did some minor FX stuff for the original trilogy was reportedly much longer than the line to get his autograph (which was almost non-existent).
I almost feel sorry for him. He probably had typical stage parents who pushed him into acting, and had no idea as a little kid what he was getting himself in for. He was basically exploited by all the adults in his life and is still paying the price for it. Of course, he's 25 years old now and still choosing to whore himself at conventions instead of going back to college or getting a real job. So my sympathy fades a little more every day.
Jake Lloyd was the kid Anakin in the first prequel. I googled that, so now you don't have to.
Re: Good... by mbkennel · 2014-07-31 08:10 · Score: 1

up into the garbage chute, flyboy!
Re:Good... by jratcliffe · 2014-07-31 08:22 · Score: 1

Powwwer converrrters!
Re:Good... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 09:15 · Score: 0

It was made clear to the viewer that he really, really needed an older man, preferably a jedi master, to bring him back to the human race.
Re:Good... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 09:22 · Score: 0

You mean Skellig Michael, you potato eating douchebag.
Re:Good... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 09:22 · Score: 0

What is she princess of again?
Re:Good... by pscottdv · 2014-07-31 11:19 · Score: 1

I have a t-shirt that says "Skywalker, when you want your heroes with a little whine."

--
this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice
Re:Good... by Snufu · 2014-07-31 14:19 · Score: 1

Finally, a single malt no one would touch.
Re:Good... by NotDrWho · 2014-08-01 00:52 · Score: 1

Yeah, thaaaaat's whaaaaat youuuu saaaaaid wheeeeen Biiiiiggs and Taaaaank leeeeeft

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Re:Good... by NotDrWho · 2014-08-01 01:00 · Score: 2

I think he was meant to be a little unlikeable in the first two movies (certainly in the Dagobah scenes in Empire, without a doubt). He's the hot-headed kid with a lot of enthusiasm and idealism, but with little experience or sense. Han Solo is meant to be his literary foil, the cynical scoundrel with no idealism or enthusiasm, but a lot of experience and sense. Both are meant to have both unlikeable qualities, and admirable ones.

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Re:Good... by pscottdv · 2014-08-01 01:09 · Score: 1

That is a very insightful analysis. What are you doing on Slashdot?

--
this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice
Re:Good... by idontgno · 2014-08-01 02:53 · Score: 2

But are they really guesting Princesses into Sofia's timeline?
Yes.
Does Cedric have something to do with it?
No, as far as I can tell. I guess it's assumed all the Disney Princesses have some kind of illogical shared continuity (regardless of time, history, or distance... because preschoolers). Think of it as the Power of Marketing.

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Re:Good... by godefroi · 2014-08-01 03:32 · Score: 1

Awfulness like Cinderella III?

--
Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
Re:Good... by wiggles · 2014-08-01 04:17 · Score: 1

Worse? No.
Just as bad? Arguably yes.
Re:Good... by aix+tom · 2014-08-01 07:26 · Score: 1

An asteroid field. Granted, an asteroid field that attracts a lot of nostalgic sight seers.
Re: Good... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-01 14:22 · Score: 0

By certain logic, so is Thor:
Disney owns Marvel and so Marvel characters are a subset of Disney characters now.
Thor is the child of King Odin and now female.
Therefore Thor is now a Princess and so a Disney Princess.

Translation: by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 02:17 · Score: 0

Someone was mistakenly left out of the last round of bribes?

Who owns the island? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 02:18 · Score: -1

That person should tell the UN to mind its own business!

Re:Who owns the island? by PvtVoid · 2014-07-31 02:31 · Score: 4, Informative

That person should tell the UN to mind its own business!
The island is owned by the Commissioners of Irish Lights, i.e. the Irish government.

From the UNESCO web page on Sceilg Mhichíl:

When in 1578 Queen Elizabeth I of England dissolved Ballinskelligs following the rebellion of the Earl of Desmond, under whose protection it had been, the island passed from the Augustinian Order to John Butler. However, although the monastery no longer existed, it continued to be a place of pilgrimage. Around 1826 the owner sold the island to the Corporation for Preserving and Improving the Port of Dublin (later to become the Commissioners of Irish Lights), who built two lighthouses on the Atlantic side.
Sorry to burst your little libertarian bubble there, dude. Better luck next time.
Re:Who owns the island? by operagost · 2014-07-31 03:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sorry to crush your cocky statist attitude, but he'd simply assumed the island was privately owned and was incorrect. It has nothing to do with whether he's a libertarian or not, although I'm greatly concerned if the concept of private property is now only the province of libertarians.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:Who owns the island? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 03:53 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Should we care what you think when you're so far gone that you call people who are part of civilization "statists?" That seems pretty wingnutty. Do you also derp about "socialism?"
Re:Who owns the island? by bill_mcgonigle · 2014-07-31 03:59 · Score: 2

if the concept of private property is now only the province of libertarians
The way it's going, if you "still" believe in private property you're either a libertarian or you've given up on compulsory political systems entirely. All the other factions believe in some degree of community ownership of everything.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Who owns the island? by Richy_T · 2014-07-31 04:06 · Score: 0, Troll

Statists are uncivilized barbarians who feel their ideas are so good, they must be applied by force.
Re:Who owns the island? by geekoid · 2014-07-31 05:04 · Score: 1

Yes, becasue banks behave so well without regulation.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Who owns the island? by Prune · 2014-07-31 05:14 · Score: 1

All the other factions believe in some degree of community ownership of everything.

Since, by definition, everything can be substituted into the position of "everything", try the term "my wife" in there and let's see how you like it.

--
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Re:Who owns the island? by odigity · 2014-07-31 05:16 · Score: 1

Seriously, bro? What a ridiculous retort, considering banks (in their modern form) are state creations. Good luck trying to build an empire on a fiat currency printing press without government.
Re:Who owns the island? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 06:04 · Score: 0

"Community ownership of your wife?" wait, I thought we were talking about hypothetical situations here, isn't she already community property?
Re:Who owns the island? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 06:09 · Score: 0

try the term "my wife" in there and let's see how you like it.
I'd ask her what she thinks but she's currently hooked up to a bunch of machines while congresspeople scream about how they were a doctor once so they can dictate how long she is to be kept alive.
You don't even own your own body anymore, Republicans gave that to the government to make sure people couldn't give their sky daddy a sad.
Re:Who owns the island? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 06:29 · Score: 0

Shouldn't this be 'your mother' or 'yo mama'?
Re:Who owns the island? by Darinbob · 2014-07-31 07:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

There's a difference in believing in private property, which most people in liberal democratic countries do, versus belieiving that private property makes you lord and master over every square inch of it (puffins be damned!). There is always some community responsibility involved everywhere, unless and until someone manages to live somewhere with no community and has no effects on anyone else. So even if this island was private property there are still large community effects involved (this is usually countered by the notion that economic benefits are far more important than environmental harm, maybe by saying something silly like "people are more important than birds!").
Re:Who owns the island? by jodido · 2014-07-31 07:46 · Score: 1

Not exactly an original "thought." Marx takes up this very question in the Communist Manifesto.
Re:Who owns the island? by godefroi · 2014-08-01 03:38 · Score: 1

Depending on his/your/one's particular flavor of libertarianism, private property rights might not even exist as a thing. Certainly one's private property rights extend only as far as one is capable of defending them, as in, with a gun.

--
Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
Re:Who owns the island? by St.Creed · 2014-08-09 02:49 · Score: 1

Aw come on.... they were having *such* a good time until you showed up injecting "facts" into the debate!

--
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)

It is more visited than 13 times per year... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 02:22 · Score: 5, Informative

There are 13 tour companies one can take to visit the island. The tours run each day during the summer but only once per day. So there are 13 boats of visitors per day for 5 months out of the year, not 13 visits per year total.

Re:It is more visited than 13 times per year... by bluefoxlucid · 2014-07-31 03:46 · Score: 1, Funny

Get out of here with your opinions.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:It is more visited than 13 times per year... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 03:50 · Score: 1

There are 13 tour companies one can take to visit the island. The tours run each day during the summer but only once per day. So there are 13 boats of visitors per day for 5 months out of the year, not 13 visits per year total.
Tourists can be a right and proper plague and tour operators are even worse because they have absoloutely no shame. A guy I know was unfortunate enough to have a certain natural phenomenon on his property find it's way into a tourist guide.It was fine at first, then the tourists numbers multiplied as more tour guides picked this factbit up. Eventually he had several buses coming daily, dozens of private vehicles, the facilities he had set up (and that were meant mostly for the odd band of sightseers and occasional weekly busload he'd been getting before) were completely overrun, buses and private vehicles tore up the road despite clear signs indicating weight restrictions on the road. Generally the buses in particular turned the site into a comlete pigsty which he and his kids had to clen up in their spare time. He's not got the means to build an expensive road, parking lot, and visitors-center\fast-food joint (plus he's scoming up on 70 years old) and local law precludes him from charging access to the site which would be just about the only way to finance the facilites needed, so he put up a 'No entry' sign to keep the site from being further damaged. This was promptly driven over and crushed by a bus. Now he's fenced the area off and is being sued by the tour operators for blocking access (publich right of way blah blah blah) to a unique natural phenomenon and revenue generating tourist attraction and they have political backing.
Re:It is more visited than 13 times per year... by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-31 04:14 · Score: 1

Then he should offer to sell that bit of property to them for market value (taking into consideration a lifetime of lost revenue, mwa ha ha), and if they refuse, well, they gave up their only bargaining chip.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:It is more visited than 13 times per year... by Prune · 2014-07-31 05:20 · Score: 1

[citation needed] or I call BS. There's no legal right in a civilized country to see X by going into someone's property, regardless of X.

--
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Re:It is more visited than 13 times per year... by bre_dnd · 2014-07-31 06:52 · Score: 1

Irish / English law are often alike: https://www.gov.uk/right-of-wa...
Re:It is more visited than 13 times per year... by Muros · 2014-07-31 07:04 · Score: 3, Funny

There are 13 tour companies one can take to visit the island. The tours run each day during the summer but only once per day. So there are 13 boats of visitors per day for 5 months out of the year, not 13 visits per year total.
In a really good year here, we get about 10 days of summer.
Re:It is more visited than 13 times per year... by Muros · 2014-07-31 07:20 · Score: 1

[citation needed] or I call BS. There's no legal right in a civilized country to see X by going into someone's property, regardless of X.
Actually, yes there is. From times when road systems were not as good as they are today, and it was literally impossible to leave your own land without traversing someone else's, there developed laws of "rights of way". These are mostly an anachronism today, but do sometimes have to be respected. When I was a young lad, there was an old woman living at the back end of our farm, in a 3 room cottage with an open hearth, no electricity and no running water, half a mile in off the road. She had the legal right to cross our land to get to to the road, and also an old well on our land. As well as the obvious reaction of not really caring if some old woman walks across a field, there were other implications to her right of access. We used to keep sheep as well as cattle; as anyone who ever worked with sheep will know, rams will charge anyone who is not looking at them, and then stand there pretending it wasn't them when you pick yourself up off the ground. Happened me loads, no big deal, but for a fragile 80 year old woman there could be all sorts of legal implications. Anyway, like I said, it's mostly anachronistic, and dwindles in importance as land consolidation continues. My father now owns all the land that could be used as any reasonable excuse to demand a right of way across that big field.
Re:It is more visited than 13 times per year... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 08:05 · Score: 0

If they are trespassing, he should make a short private road, put a sign saying private road (tire test track only!) on it, then burying spike strips in it and make a deal with a local tow truck company to charge them for it, all nice and legal.

Quote from the article by timrod · 2014-07-31 02:24 · Score: 4, Funny

"We can't tell what the filming of Star Wars on the site will do to the wildlife."

I can see a whole lot of lawsuits from all of the puffins, manx shearwaters, storm petrels, guillemots, and kittiwakes who don't want to appear in a modern Star Wars film. Can't say I blame them, not after Episodes 1 through 3.

Re: Quote from the article by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 02:59 · Score: 0

Probably very little as long as film crews PCI up their own trash and stuff. Film crews like isolation from extra people popping in... And they have way more work to do than mess with wildlife.
Re: Quote from the article by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 03:19 · Score: 0

And they have way more work to do than mess with wildlife.
because we're concerned that's what they're doing showing up specifically to fuck up the wildlife. We're not at all thinking it may be a bi-product of their work, that would be absurd
Re:Quote from the article by Dutch+Gun · 2014-07-31 04:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

"We can't tell what the filming of Star Wars on the site will do to the wildlife."
I'm pretty sure I can tell you. Not a fucking thing. Nature is not so fragile that a film crew will destroy an ecosystem just by walking around and filming a few scenes. They're under restrictions on what they can do (i.e. they're not going to be blowing up the island), and they've got an ecologist on the set at all times. This is all about a local jackass getting his nose in a snit.

Stephen Newton, a seabirds expert with Birdwatch Ireland, said he could not get onto the island to check the important colony.
Mr Newton said he was asked by the film producers only days before shooting was to begin if he would help them with an impact assessment to secure permits for filming.
He refused, arguing it would take several weeks to assess, as many of the species breed underground or in rocky crevices where it would be difficult to see what damage is being done.
Are you kidding me? Several weeks for an impact assessment? Does that strike anyone else as a bit over the top?
Likely translation: He tried to shake the movie company down for a few weeks worth of work rather than a day or two, and they told him to piss off, then contacted someone more reasonably inclined. They obviously got the permits, meaning that someone was able to do the work in just a few days. And why the hell should he be allowed on the island after what he tried to pull? The fact that he's blabbing to the press and causing trouble for them now shows they were probably right to snub him.

--
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Re:Quote from the article by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 04:24 · Score: 0

So, maybe there's a different interpretation, and maybe it does take weeks to figure out HOW A FUCKING ECOSYSTEM WILL BE IMPACTED.
Re:Quote from the article by lbmouse · 2014-07-31 04:53 · Score: 1

They will all get cushy jobs at Disney World.
Re:Quote from the article by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 04:58 · Score: -1

You seem to lack any skepticism. Film crews are notorious for damaging private homes and buildings in on-location shoots, it wouldn't surprise me if they did some major damage to outdoors locations without thinking twice. Just because they almost certainly won't exterminate a species doesn't mean that they should just be running around free. If there is an ecologist on set, I'm guessing he's on the crew payroll which kind of makes him like a doctor for R.J. Reynolds.
Re:Quote from the article by geekoid · 2014-07-31 05:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

Film crews can be pretty destructive.
This is about people wanting what is happening on the island to be transparent, like it should be.
"Are you kidding me?"
No.
" Several weeks for an impact assessment?"
Yes.
" Does that strike anyone else as a bit over the top?"
Not really. OTOH, I know what is involved in an impact assessment, where you clearly do not.
I will note that I've never been to this island. So maybe there is some geological reason you are aware of when you where surveying the island...?
He is an expert in the species, and wants to be sure their disturbance is a minimal one.
ob. Star Wars joke:
Bleep, booop beedadbee blooeeeuuup.
That really cracked them up in the droid factory.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Quote from the article by Dutch+Gun · 2014-07-31 05:34 · Score: 2

So, maybe there's a different interpretation, and maybe it does take weeks to figure out HOW A FUCKING ECOSYSTEM WILL BE IMPACTED.
If you read the article instead of ranting angrily at me, you'd find that it really doesn't sound like the film crew or local authorities are ignoring the island's ecological safety.

The Irish Film Board, which helps international film producers locate in the Republic of Ireland, said consent was granted for a limited shoot on Skellig Michael after extensive scientific analysis by the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS).
Ok, the National Parks and Wildlife Services seems to think things will be fine. They may have contacted Mr. Newton only days in advance, but you can bet they were in contact with the NPWS for a hell of a lot longer than that. I suppose the NPWS could be lying about their extensive scientific analysis, but I'm more inclined to take them at their word, with it being their butts on the line if anything bad happens to the island. Let's read on:

The film agency said experts are on the island during the shoot and have the authority to intervene if they suspect any impact on the habitat and wildlife.
"The production company also has a senior ecological advisor on set at all times," the spokeswoman added.
"Activity is confined to visitor areas and pathways."
Ok, that sounds reasonable, right? The ecological advisor has veto authority on the set, which is good. Now, let's note that last part. The film crew will only be filming where people already visit on a regular basis. So... you really think that, while staying on existing pathways and areas that visitors regularly use, the film crews are somehow going to damage this ecosystem? That, unless this particular expert, one Mr. Newton, studies the problem for weeks, that there may be some ecological damage?
Sorry, I don't buy it. And here's the biggest reason why. He was supposedly an expert on this particular ecosystem, right? Given the plans of what the film crew was to do, shouldn't he be able to tell immediately if their shooting would bother the local wildlife? What would weeks of study tell him that his previous years of expertise wouldn't? How would he be able to tell if the wildlife were being disturbed unless he were monitoring them as they were filming? It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Apparently, it didn't make much sense to the film company or the NPWS either, since they simply proceeded without him.
I don't think I've ever wasted this much time responding to an AC troll before, but you know what, I'm fucking tired of wacko environmentalist loonies strumming their heartstrings without engaging their brains. Guess what - I happen to love the environment too, and don't want to see any protected ecosystems get screwed up. But damn, you have to be reasonable or people just tune you out, and that ends up hurting a worthwhile cause in the long run.

--
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Re: Quote from the article by Talderas · 2014-07-31 06:30 · Score: 3, Funny

We have discovered an abnormally high number of dead wildlife surrounding the sites where the filming occurred. The bodies were discovered with wounds across their abdomens and a few animals were beheaded. After questioning the film crew we realized they were entirely unaware of the scenes that surround their scene. Upon reinvestigation of the sites where dead animals were found we further discovered branches that had been gnaws and scraped into crude sharp edge upon which traces of blood were discovered.
Based upon this evidence we have reached the concluse that the wildlife had committed ritual suicide after witnessing the horrible creation brought about by Disney. Since the culpability of Disney is unquestionable, we will be fining them $50,000.

--
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Re:Quote from the article by Darinbob · 2014-07-31 07:40 · Score: 1

No, this is about a jackass deciding to break the law because his films are more important than anything else. The movie company has no right to be on the island and all, they are the foreign invaders. The question is which corrupt politician signed the papers allowing them to break the law?
Re:Quote from the article by Muros · 2014-07-31 07:54 · Score: 3, Funny

Nature is not so fragile that a film crew will destroy an ecosystem just by walking around and filming a few scenes. They're under restrictions on what they can do (i.e. they're not going to be blowing up the island)
No point in watching this in the cinema then.
Re:Quote from the article by Muros · 2014-07-31 08:02 · Score: 1

From what I read, the main driver for the filming happening during the birds' breeding season was filming being re-scheduled around Harrison Ford's broken leg. It was originally supposed to happen later in the year. I don't think there were any excessively greased palms, more a culture of accommodation to corporate demands framed in a seemingly reasonable way. I'm not saying I agree with it, but the best laid plans are subject to change, and politicians and bureaucrats are nearly always going to think with economic benefit at the top of the agenda, no matter how good their intentions.
Re:Quote from the article by micahraleigh · 2014-07-31 08:32 · Score: 1

In Hawaii pretty much 100% of the environmental assessments are nonsense.

The burden of proof should be on the person who claims this is not shenanigans.

Otherwise ... let natural selection take its course.
Re:Quote from the article by ultranova · 2014-07-31 13:48 · Score: 1

Likely translation: He tried to shake the movie company down for a few weeks worth of work rather than a day or two, and they told him to piss off, then contacted someone more reasonably inclined. They obviously got the permits, meaning that someone was able to do the work in just a few days.

Or someone pulled the assessment from their ass for quick cash.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:Quote from the article by PensivePeter · 2014-08-01 04:50 · Score: 1

"Stormy petrel" not "storm petrel"
Or are you all too young to remember Monty Python's "Stormy Petrel on a Stick"?

The young Empire is flexing tentatively by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2014-07-31 02:26 · Score: -1, Troll

> "Unesco is now concerned"

Who cares what those gigantic cow-sheep-tick thingies think?

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

Parts of Star Wars Episode VII are being filmed on by lippydude · 2014-07-31 02:27 · Score: 1

I say - go for it !

Nice the know the UN has its priorities straight by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 02:39 · Score: -1

Hamas uses UN facilities to store weapons, and when discovered the UN just gives the weapons back to Hamas.

Hell, ignore the Rwandan genocide.

But I guess another Star Wars film is even worse for humanity.

Not filming in America anymore? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 02:40 · Score: -1

Thanks Obama!!!

Re:Not filming in America anymore? by PvtVoid · 2014-07-31 02:42 · Score: 5, Funny

Thanks Obama!!!
Obama is also responsible for why you can't get a date.
Re:Not filming in America anymore? by 91degrees · 2014-07-31 02:58 · Score: 3, Informative

Aside from special effects, they really didn't do much shooting in the US. The studio work was mostly in the UK, and planets were represented by Tunisia , Italy, Spain, and a few others.
Re:Not filming in America anymore? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 03:38 · Score: 1

Reminds me of that joke that made the rounds when the Snowden scandal surfaced.
A little girl tells Barack Obama, "My Daddy says you are spying on us."
And Obama replies, "He's not your Daddy!"

These are not the filmmakers you are looking for. by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2014-07-31 02:47 · Score: 4, Funny

They can go about their business. Move along...

--
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.

worlds largest greenscreen by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 02:49 · Score: 5, Funny

Of course they're filming in Ireland, its the worlds largest green screen.

explanation by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 02:50 · Score: 0

has asked the Irish government for an explanation.

duh money... And the movie company that is filming it is now setup there. So they can play games with taxes and make sure the movie never makes a dime.

Re: explanation by andywebs · 2014-07-31 03:37 · Score: 2

These are not the bribes you were looking for.
Re:explanation by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 05:59 · Score: 0

You think that money and jobs will stay there? Haha.... They imported everyone and it is a short term gig. Will re-use some lawyer and a couple of accountants they already have there to take care of it...

Only UNESCO can stop this! by azav · 2014-07-31 02:57 · Score: 1

They must prevent the return of Jar Jar and his people. Unless he dies by being consumed alive by a horde of ravenous genetically designed piranha puffins.

--
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...

Surprised they are shooting on location at all... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 03:00 · Score: 0

Instead of a sound stage somewhere, based on the amount of computer generated awfulness that went into the last three movies.

Unesco is just for encironmental stuff. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 03:02 · Score: 0

And as far as the other issues you mentioned, those are caused by people who should know better.

I have become so disgusted with humanity that I am all for protecting the defenseless creatures over human beings.

Humans have proven that they are not worthy of this planet. I for one wish these guys existed. so that they can come down and say, "I don't give a shit about your petty squabbles. Cut the shit out or you will be destroyed."

And then disintegrate all the weapons and combatants before taking off.

Re: Unesco is just for encironmental stuff. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 03:14 · Score: -1

You are free to remove yourself from existence. You are disgusted by humanity? Well, only fair because humanity is disgusted by you. While you daydream about the never coming of some alien messiah to validate your deluded view of the world, the rest of us will ignore you and, should you become too bothersome, punish you.
Re:Unesco is just for encironmental stuff. by Prune · 2014-07-31 05:22 · Score: 1

Ah, a classic. Probably the best sci fi movie until 1958's Forbidden Planet. And so much better than the 2008 remake with Keanu Reeves.

--
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Re:Unesco is just for encironmental stuff. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 08:14 · Score: 0

Ah, a classic. Probably the best sci fi movie until 1958's Forbidden Planet. And so much better than the 2008 remake with Keanu Reeves.
Keanu was actually well cast for that role. Seriously. The main problem with the remake was the little black kid. He tanked that movie every time anything interesting started building. I wondered how (and why) the hell he was in that thing. Turns out it was Will Smith's kid. Obvious WS worked a deal in his own movie to get his kid in TDTESS. Jayden Smith is terrible, like movie killing terrible on the level of Jake from DS9. At least Quark's lame nephew had character.

Episode VII by Foundling · 2014-07-31 03:09 · Score: 3, Funny

What I get from this is that Episode VII is basically going to be a documentary about puffins.

Re:Episode VII by Yunzil · 2014-07-31 03:20 · Score: 1

Well, that's an improvement. Episodes 1, 2 and 3 were documentaries on how not to make a movie.

Puffins attacked the craft services tent, allright by RevWaldo · 2014-07-31 03:25 · Score: 5, Funny

~ They ate all the lobster salad and the chocolate chip power bars. Look at the feathers and tracks. It's just I never heard of them hitting anything this big before.

~ They didn't. But we are meant to think they did. These tracks are side by side. Puffins always march single file to hide their numbers.

.

--
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!

This should be a good one by Virtucon · 2014-07-31 03:26 · Score: 1

On one side, we have UNESCO which is charted by a shadow government with designating and protecting what are considered world cultural sites. On the other we have the dark empire of Disney, another shadow that influences government in terms of Copyright and other legislation that it deems necessary to keep the Mouse protected. Any takers on which side will win this battle? I'm betting on the Mouse.

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"

explanation by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 03:28 · Score: 0

You chose to fuck your corporations. I welcome them and the jobs and taxes they bring.

The power to destroy a habitat is nothing... by RivenAleem · 2014-07-31 03:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

The power to destroy a habitat is nothing next to the power of Money.

One must really wonder what is so special about this location, that they A) feel the need to risk damage to the habitats to film, and B) could not be reproduced in a green screen environment like they do everything else.

Re:The power to destroy a habitat is nothing... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 03:47 · Score: 0

New Zealand is still recovering from Lord of the Rings ...

... after that money dried up they had to go back to being sheep.

Hopefully they kill this garbage by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 03:34 · Score: 0

We don't need a fucking talking lion or a genie in a lamp in a Star Wars movie. Since Disney has said they're aiming the movie at six year-olds, it would be better for Ireland to outlaw all Star Wars movies to protect us than it would be for them to allow this crime to continue.

UNESCO probably... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 03:45 · Score: 0

... is concerned that the film crew will discover the Hamas missiles hidden in that monastery.

Re:UNESCO probably... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 04:01 · Score: 0

No, it's Ireland. It would be guns, ammo, and explosives from the IRA.

Stone Huts by bill_mcgonigle · 2014-07-31 03:47 · Score: 1

Looking at the pictures of Skellig Michael [aside: didn't Michael Skelling used to be an NPR reporter?] it seems very likely that the stacked-stone huts will be used in the new films.

If this is a sign that there's no nexus around Tatooine, this thing might actually have legs!

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Re:Stone Huts by oldmac31310 · 2014-07-31 06:46 · Score: 1

Those 'huts' are called cells, actually.

--
http://www.acetonestudio.com

Don't worry by gelfling · 2014-07-31 04:04 · Score: 1

The UN will blame it on the Jews.

Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 05:06 · Score: 0

You realize that it's probably best for people to understand that the actions of Israel are *not* the actions of "the Jews?"

Why that particular island by WhoBeI · 2014-07-31 04:12 · Score: 1

Couldn't they find somewhere else to film? Apparently the filming is expected to only last for a few days but still. I'm sure some other island together with CGI would have worked just fine. Bloody stupid to choose a protected site.

Re:Why that particular island by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 05:03 · Score: 0

Bloody stupid... that's what comes to mind when I think of anything associated with Star Wars.
Re:Why that particular island by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2014-07-31 05:05 · Score: 1

Because all the non-protected islands have a McDonalds or Starbucks on them.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re:Why that particular island by geekoid · 2014-07-31 05:14 · Score: 1

Someone involved in the movie wanted to visit there, so why not have the movie pay for it? As a bonus, you get to stomp around on your own instead of having to do what those pesky guides tell you to do.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Exclusion zone by SparkleMotion88 · 2014-07-31 04:19 · Score: 1

Currently the Irish navy has deployed one vessel to maintain a 2 mile exclusion zone around the island.

I hope, for all our sakes, that the U.S. military does the same thing around movie theaters after the film is released.

I'm confused by mark-t · 2014-07-31 04:19 · Score: 2

If there was really such a major conservationalist issue with them filming there at this time, how did they get the permits to film there in the first place?

If it was just as a result of miscommunication, then it would seem that the permits should probably be revoked (and fees for them refunded, obviously), unless those making the movie can show that film crew's activities will not introduce things to the environment there which may damage the ecosystem.

I'm as big a Star Wars fan as anybody else that I know, but it's still just a movie, for chissakes. It's not worth harming wildlife over, even if it's only accidentally.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Re:I'm confused by tomhath · 2014-07-31 04:44 · Score: 1

how did they get the permits to film there in the first place?

Money talks.
Re:I'm confused by geekoid · 2014-07-31 05:15 · Score: 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:I'm confused by mark-t · 2014-07-31 05:30 · Score: 1

Perhaps you didn't read the entire sentence that you only quoted the question from. If money can buy permission to destroy an environment, then the environment isn't really that important in the first place.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:I'm confused by vux984 · 2014-07-31 06:38 · Score: 1

If money can buy permission to destroy an environment, then the environment isn't really that important in the first place.
That doesn't follow, you just shop "environmental impact statement companies" until you find one willing to take your money in exchange for permission.
That says nothing about the importance of anything, merely that one can usually find someone who is corrupt.
Re:I'm confused by mark-t · 2014-07-31 09:24 · Score: 1

If the organizations that grant such permission are corrupt enough to accept a fee in exchange for ignoring the environment, then again., as I said, the environment isn't actually that important to them to begin with. Certainly the groups that would be concerned about the environmental impact at that location ought to know whether or not they really have any government backing behind their concerns. If they don't actually know, then there's no reason for them to think that the Irish government would have ever had any reason to object to the filming in the first place, so the idea that they should expect some sort of answer from the government about this is almost laughable. If, however, they know that the government has an obligation to their concerns about the environment, then it stands to reason that the permits should have never really been given in the first place, which was my original point. *IF* it turns out that their concerns are legitimately backed by the government, then the government would have the authority to revoke the permits anyways, pending a review of what environmental effects the presence of the cast and film crew, any equipment or vehicles that they bring with them, and their activites would have on the area. The permit fee would, of course, have to be refunded if it was determined that they determined that they could not film there (although if there were a separate permit application fee applicable that must be paid whether or not the permit is actually granted, then that fee would not have to be refunded).

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:I'm confused by mark-t · 2014-07-31 09:47 · Score: 1

Not to sound like a mastercard commercial, but in this world there really are things that absolutely no amount of money can buy.
The only reason money would ever be able to buy ignoring legitimate environmental concerns is because somebody isn't actually realizing how important the environment (or that aspect of the environment) might be in the first place, or perhaps putting it another way, they have simply not accurately assessed the environmental risks which may be involved.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:I'm confused by vux984 · 2014-07-31 10:00 · Score: 1

If the organizations that grant such permission are corrupt enough to accept a fee in exchange for ignoring the environment, then again., as I said, the environment isn't actually that important to them to begin with.
That's like saying the IRS is corrupt if it accepts even a single tax return prepared by a corrupt tax preparing accountant.
That's not really a fair standard by which to judge the organization.
Everything else you wrote i agree with though.
Re:I'm confused by mark-t · 2014-07-31 10:11 · Score: 1

I'm not sure I follow your analogy... if somebody is willing to ignore what might be seen as legitimate environmental concerns in exchange for money, then the organization that is accepting that money is not giving due consideration to the environmental impact that might arise... this would usally be because thee environment wasn't important enough to them in the first place. It may arise simply because they have not adequately assessed the enviromental risks involved, but that still reflects an underlying lack of importance. If some corrupt organization granted the filming permits when they weren't supposed to, the government can always revoke them anyways.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:I'm confused by vux984 · 2014-07-31 10:41 · Score: 1

I'm not sure I follow your analogy
I'll clarify. Suppose a city has ordinances requiring certain building codes be followed for new construction.
In some cities the city employs all its own inspectors. If just one of those inspectors can be bribed, does that really mean the organization (city) is not serious about the codes being followed? That seems a stretch.
In other cities, in addition to city employees, there are 3rd party consulting companies that can perform inspections, prepare reports, and submit them to the city. Provided the building developer provides the city a report done by one of these companies, the city will authorize an occupancy permit or whatever. So now if one employee of one of the consulting companies is corrupt does that really mean the city is somehow corrupt or not serious about buildings being to code? That seems a huge stretch.
Similarly, in many cases things like "environmental impact assessments" are not done by the country itself, instead they are done by universitys, researchers, and dedicated consulting companies. If you can find a student research or consultancy employee willing to fudge some data to get a 'pass'... that hardly means the whole country isn't serious about the environment.
If some corrupt organization granted the filming permits when they weren't supposed to, the government can always revoke them anyways.
Of course.
Re:I'm confused by mark-t · 2014-07-31 11:41 · Score: 1

In some cities the city employs all its own inspectors. If just one of those inspectors can be bribed, does that really mean the organization (city) is not serious about the codes being followed? That seems a stretch.
It means that the inspector that can be bribed doesn't place much importance on what they are being bribed to ignore... I was assuming, perhaps erroneously, that any agency which is supposedly acting on behalf of the government in granting filming permits would also act in accordance with the governments own rules.
I personally know people who've purchased film permits from cities before and there's a whole crap-ton of paperwork that apparently goes to different departments of the government if the area you want to film in happens to be an ecologically sensitive area... and I think it would take more a whole lot more luck than money to push actually questionable activities through (it's not ever been a problem for the people that I know who do it because they are such a small film crew, and do not have any large equipment that they must bring in large trucks, so they do not generally pose any kind of environmental threat, and have never had any real problem getting filming rights to a location unless the monetary costs for the location are too high)
Anyways, assuming that everbody's playing on the up-and-up, however, I'd be genuinely surprised if anything that is deemed genuinely harmful to the area actually is likely to happen there... I'd be no less surprised, though, if the permits were awarded in the first place when they really shouldn't have been. If they were bribed into awarding the permits when they shouldn't have, the penalty is liable to be pretty damn high. Being fired from their job would be the least of their worries. Again, one would think that a person in that position would realize that their chances of getting away with this kind of thing are not that good, and wouldn't want to do it in the first place.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:I'm confused by vux984 · 2014-07-31 19:52 · Score: 1

I agree with you entirely, and in the vast majority of cases, I don't think there are outright bribes.
However, say a large business is hiring you to do environmental impact studies -- you know they will shop around. On the one hand you are motivated to do a good impact study, on the other you know that they are interested in getting a pass.
Even without full on corruption or bribery, the guys doing the impact studies paycheques are coming from people who want to get permits -- and if they can get more favorable studies from another company, they will hire the other company.
That conflict of interest results in them conducting studies, and putting the results in the best possible light.
So permits may be issued, when they really shouldn't be. But the problem is difficult to resolve because who else but the company wanting access should fund the study? The general public should hardly foot the bill.
Re:I'm confused by david_thornley · 2014-08-01 05:07 · Score: 1

No. If money can buy permission, it means that whatever it is is less important than money to whoever's giving permission. This could be a case of an agent having different incentives than a principal.
I have no good reason to think there was bribery or corruption involved, but let's explore the economics if they were. Suppose the environment currently has an economic value of $50 million, based on how much people would pay to keep it more or less pristine. Suppose that the filming would do that much damage to the environment, and the advantage to Disney of filming there rather than somewhere less fragile is $20 million. In that case, were the permission to be given by a corruptible guy who doesn't care, Disney could pay a few million to that guy and do $50 million of damage for it.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

yous fAIL it! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 04:32 · Score: -1

'Yes' to any his clash with Be any fucking everyday...Redefine maggot, vomit, shit sUdden and of playing your said. 'Screaming A productivity There's no

Visited much more often by actn · 2014-07-31 04:49 · Score: 1

According to http://bestskelligtrips.com/ there are daily trips to the island. Not 13 per year.

SOLD! SOLD! SOLD! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-07-31 05:03 · Score: 1

SOLD!

To the highest bidder!

Hey! This is just the market, finding another solution. To the problem of life itself...

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

...compared to the power of ACTING!! by dfenstrate · 2014-07-31 05:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

The power to destroy a habitat is nothing next to the power of Money.

One must really wonder what is so special about this location, that they A) feel the need to risk damage to the habitats to film, and B) could not be reproduced in a green screen environment like they do everything else.

Excessive use of green screen likely helped Episodes 1-3 be so terrible- wooden acting being one of the many problems. An actor's performance can only be improved by actually being in the environment their character is supposed to be in.

--
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.

Re:...compared to the power of ACTING!! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 05:22 · Score: 0

Excessive use of green screen likely helped Episodes 1-3 be so terrible- wooden acting being one of the many problems. An actor's performance can only be improved by actually being in the environment their character is supposed to be in.
You know what else improves it? Being actually good at acting.
If you can't select your actors properly, and you can't direct them properly because all your efforts are "omg, special effects will be great!", then you get what you get. Don't blame it on the scenery.
CAPTCHA: stunning (as in revelation)
Re:...compared to the power of ACTING!! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 05:30 · Score: 0

An actor's performance can only be improved by actually being in the environment their character is supposed to be in.
I totally agree. That's why they should also use real lightsabers.
Bad acting is generally due to bad actors and bad directors. Not a green screen.
Re:...compared to the power of ACTING!! by RivenAleem · 2014-07-31 09:40 · Score: 1

If I had seen this comment 2 months ago I would agree completely. However, I have recently seen this clip www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_VnHAy1Vdc which highlights that if you are just good at your job, you can act without any help from being in the correct setting.
Re:...compared to the power of ACTING!! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 11:47 · Score: 0

I certainly take your point, but I would like to highlight that there's "good at your job", and then there's "Bob Hoskins". One of the truly great (and, sadly, underrated) actors of our time. RIP, Bob.

People forget the other slashdot article... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 05:10 · Score: 0

About all the crap they left in Tunisia at the end of the *FIRST* Star Wars movie.

If I remember correctly they just went and built sets and other crap and left them there.

Now imagine if they did that in a wildlife habitat rather than the middle of the desert?

Nevermind that Disney/Former LA have the technology to not need to film on-site anywhere on the fsckin planet.

Makes you wonder why they should be allowed to film in an endangered habitat to begin with.

What you should have learnt by frovingslosh · 2014-07-31 05:49 · Score: 1, Funny

What you should have learnt is that Starwars is now part of Disney, and Disney does whatever the hell Disney wants. They have already clearly stated that Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution does not apply to them, they clearly are not going to be inconvenienced by a Unesco world heritage site and the laws of a land of potato eaters.

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.

Re:What you should have learnt by oldmac31310 · 2014-07-31 06:17 · Score: 1, Funny

I take umbrage at you slur on my people, douchebag.

--
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Re:What you should have learnt by jratcliffe · 2014-07-31 08:21 · Score: 1

Wouldn't it be more accurate to define the Irish of a land of people who aspire to eat potatoes, sometimes unsuccessfully?

Sceilig Mhichíl by oldmac31310 · 2014-07-31 06:11 · Score: 1

So typical of the BBC to anglicise the name of the island. It is correctly Sceilig Mhichíl. Brit arseholes.

--
http://www.acetonestudio.com

Re:Sceilig Mhichíl by sound+vision · 2014-07-31 13:58 · Score: 1

Dafuq is that? I can't even say that. Might as well have written it in Cyrillic or Korean script.
Re:Sceilig Mhichíl by dave420 · 2014-08-01 02:36 · Score: 1

The rest of the article was in English - are they Brit arseholes because the rest of the article wasn't in Gaelic? I'm all for the Irish language, but it's the BBC. The clue's in the name.
Re:Sceilig Mhichíl by Anonymous Coward · 2014-08-02 21:46 · Score: 0

So typical of the BBC to anglicise the name of the island. It is correctly Sceilig Mhichíl. Brit arseholes.
Well, given that I've seen native Irish people repeatedly call the islands "Skellig" and that this name is used by UNESCO also, it hardly seems fair to blame the BBC for this. UNESCO seem to be under the impression that "Sceilg Mhichíl" (note missing "i" compared to your spelling) is the name of the monastery which is the site they protect while the island itself is called "Skellig Michael". See description here: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/757

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2014-07-31 06:15 · Score: 0

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The obvious solution? by tlambert · 2014-07-31 06:19 · Score: 1

The obvious solution? Just make a rule: "No Blasters."

not clear who I insulted by frovingslosh · 2014-07-31 06:53 · Score: 3, Funny

I'm not clear on who your people are. Are they the ones who boil food until it is completely bland and tasteless, or are they the ones who buy politicians every time one comes up on the market? I hope that you do understand that the reference to not being bound by the laws of a land of potato eaters was intended to reflect the view taken by the corporation that feels it can do anything it wants.

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.

Re:not clear who I insulted by oldmac31310 · 2014-07-31 08:05 · Score: 1

Really? Calling Irish people 'potato eaters' is not an insult? Again, you are a douchebag.

--
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Re: not clear who I insulted by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-31 08:19 · Score: 0

Is spud munchers better?
Re:not clear who I insulted by frovingslosh · 2014-07-31 12:07 · Score: 1

OK, you win. I'll admit that saying someone may eat a potato is a very derogatory thing. Just thinking of all the negative connotations that the concept of eating an over boiled spud brings to mind turns my stomach about any any false connotations people might have about a population of people on a certain Western European island. You are completely correct that any reference to a well know behavior pattern for such a group of people could in some way be derogatory. Lets just be thankful that this has now been corrected and that there are no other more negative stereotypes for this group of "people". You're welcome.

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Re:not clear who I insulted by dave420 · 2014-08-01 02:24 · Score: 1

Keep digging that hole. Those who read your comments and have any idea of Ireland or the Irish realise you can't tell the difference between other peoples' jokes and reality, which is reflecting terribly poorly on you. I was in Ireland a week ago, and your strange views on the Irish and their culture are remarkably far from the truth. "Well known behaviour pattern"? Well known to idiots, definitely. Normal people know it's an inaccurate stereotype trotted out by muppets.

"They altered the film permit. by Snufu · 2014-07-31 14:35 · Score: 1

Pray they do not alter it again."

We also would have accepted:
"Aren't you a little short to be a storm petrel?"
"The more UNESCO tightens their grip, the more film crews will slip through their fingers."
"That's no island."
"As if a billion puffins cried out in terror, and were silenced."

Wasn't Ireland Recent Broke by tmjva · 2014-08-01 04:43 · Score: 1

Wasn't Ireland recently bankrupt? Good for them, they could use the money.

My guess is like all shakedown gangsters, UNESCO didn't get their cut. THAT's why they're upset.

--
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT

Star Wars is filmed "on location?" by ThomasMcA · 2014-08-01 05:13 · Score: 0

Since 98% of the content is CGI, why bother with a physical location?

Slashdot Mirror

Unesco Probing Star Wars Filming In Ireland

181 comments