This thing is not meant to produce only electricity.
No, no, I never said 'only'. But it would be parallel to China conducting an attack on Boeing or Lockheed. A lot of employees (rather than soldiers) would die for a military cause.
Besides, the United States is allowed to use uranium in their tank shells and conventional explosives. Why not Iran as well?
What about the environmental damage of causing containment to fail? That's going to take generations to clean up...
We're attempting to kill a lot of innocents to stop something that might someday happen. The harm vastly outweighs the risk, particularly if Israel is ready to be have as a legitimate government, and actively seek peace.
I genuinely believe that a cold war between Israel and Iran could well lead to peace in the Middle East for the first time since, well, ever. As it is now, Israel can freely assassinate democratically elected leadership on foreign soil. That will never result in peace.
Ehhh, that's an interesting view point, but I'm talking about open global war. Not figuratively speaking, but open armed conflict involving many nations aligning along recognizable factions.
Friends, we need an immediate Amendment to the Constitution that allows a popular vote of the people to put any work into the public domain. Save Star Wars from it's abusive father. Don't let it linger in such agony. Set it free!!!
The conversion process needs rotoscoping. Lots and lots of highly labour-intensive rotoscoping. That costs money. And it needs skilled compositers to put the chopped-up images together in a 3D environment projected onto animated geometry. That's also highly labour-intensive.
You know what might work better? What if they kept/reused the original audio, but animated the whole thing instead? It is supposed to be a kid's movie, right? And they could clean up some of their messy work in the process. They could even hire Adiwan to oversee the cut.
This might be a decent way to see the franchise survive beyond our generation's love for it, because kids today just aren't chomping it down like we did back then.
Plus the originals could be kept around, as they were, for the die-hards.
but really was just a gimmick to draw in crowds and immerse them in a spectacular alien world without much substance
Not to detract from your overall point, which was really solid, but I thought I'd refer you to Cameron's TED talk where he basically cops to what you're saying. The only difference is, the world isn't a gimmick. He wanted to make a movie demonstrating the value of his digital production company and felt that an immersive alien experience was the best way to do it. He so deeply enjoys the feeling of being in our real alien worlds, like deep diving in the ocean, but can't get anyone to watch a movie about that.
Cameron's a selfish guy, but not nearly the money-slut everyone paints him to be.
Not salient to the point, but I thought you might enjoy the TED talk.:)
How does it make you feel, wanting so deeply to disrespect me, and yet lacking the ability to come up with anything better than the above? Surely you know that I've seen far worse, and your comments would do nearly nothing in the way of harm to anyone who has spent more than five minutes on the internet.
Too bad, so sad. Beats a nuclear war between Israel and Iran.
You're frighteningly insane. If you think this would PREVENT a nuclear war, you need to think it through again.
1) Domestic reactors go Chernobyl due to well known virus
2) Source of virus is established, either credibly or not
3) Iran petitions the UN for military retribution/economic restitution/etc, and it get vetoed
4) Everyone chooses sides and WWIII begins
This isn't even close to being far-fetched. And before we assume '4' results in 'Iran vs Everyone', do understand that going against Iran means going against the freedom to live in something other than a third world nation. Power is relatively essential, and all things considered this virus is of a TERRORISTIC nature because it seeks to attack the civilian infrastructure to achieve political goals. Do you really to side with the terrorists?
1) Your tone is horrendous. There are certainly a large number of people who will assume that the link you're offering is the same kind of angry, insulting tripe with which it is surrounded.
2) Your link could well be one of the most enlightening things on youtube. I'm going try to verify that it is true independently before deciding, but this could be bigger than Pat Tillman.
My advice to you is to tone down the bullshit, and stick to the salient, intelligent points being made. This could be difficult, due to the obvious emotion you're displaying, and so I wish you luck either way.
At any rate, it isn't my fault that the Red Team generally has it right. The 'American dream' genuinely does involve running your own business. The Blue Team feels that anyone not on welfare is in danger of shifting over to the Red Team, and yet seems to never pass a single law in their favor. It's all Robin Hood for them, take it from the evil rich and give it to the deserving poor. The long view of that plan has us all in the 'poor' category, with only the ruling elite able to afford to be 'rich'. At least on the Red Team, there can be such a thing as a 'wealthy small business owner'. This is a target reasonably achievable by people I actually know.
I believe in merit through action, and not through mere birth.
Interesting factiod. But it still works towards the premise. He said he would be different, and we inferred that this would be desirable. Neither materialized.
No, my point is that claiming Obama is going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back, especially when you consider what previous leaders have done, is ludicrous.
This seems insightful, but depending on the actual demographics of their time, it might not be. Obama rode a wave of 'change' into the whitehouse, propelled by the fewest number of voters to label themselves as 'liberal' ever. He vaguely promised that he'd be different, and everyone bought it. He even won a Nobel Peace Prize for his promises.
Here we are, working on our third year together and ALL of the changes we're seeing are for the worse. While few would have thought that Bush would have become a war President, he clearly adapted when the towers were struck. He got on that new pony and rode it into oblivion. Fast forward to Obama, and not only did he not foresee the oncoming financial disaster, he also did basically nothing to counteract it. Nothing, anyway, that he wasn't already planning to do. In fact he continued to press his agendas despite our clear unwillingness and inability to pay for them, and is continuing to do so to this very day.
Obama demonstrated to the voter that 'change' means what Obama wants it to mean. It doesn't mean what the people clearly wanted - as in a leadership that listens to the voters, is honest, and behaves responsibly. Obama and Bush are genuine equals when it comes to alienating the majority of the nation with their blindly-followed agendas. His 'change' was only that from 'war and profits' to 'war and socialism'.
If you can find a President with that exact same circumstance, THEN I'd be impressed. Otherwise, the outcome of this round of shenanigans could well be unique.
Bullshit. Any source beyond the original (which I did link to as well) is secondary. They're all adding 'color commentary', and opinions are plentiful.
Soapbox somewhere else.
Again, partisanship is a mental disease, and your presumption to dictate what other people are allowed to read is a symptom of your need for mental assistance.
You're missing the point. The truth of the situation is that the information was only a Google search away. But rather than perform that search, a fashionable Fox-bash was hammered out instead.
Oh wait, yes I can. MOST OF THE SPECULATION ALL COMES FROM ONE SOURCE. For FUCKS sake, double-check your links before trying to make a point.
Don't pretend that this impacts my point in the slightest. The post to which I was replying was:
This is what I get for not reading the article first. Faux News. Where's my salt lick?
Explain to me the depth of research in that comment, if you please. Elaborate on how the quote coming from a single source, namely the person who actually said it, is somehow invalidated once Fox posts it as a news story?
The terrorists will develop their own encryption schemes so using wiretaps would be completely worthless anyway.
Except as a means to identify individuals as terrorists, even if only temporarily. If they're using 'wild' encryption, they're breaking the law, and can be detained for questioning... Unfortunately the only open interrogation room is in Cuba...
The fact that your two-hundred-fifty-year-old completely out-of-context sound bite get modded +5 is more a reflection of the ignorance of the moderators than anything else.
To put that into context, dear Coward, are you purporting that Franklin would disagree with the use of his quote in this manner?
Are you in fact saying that he held the right to bear arms, ONLY, as essential? Because I'm just not seeing him turning over in his grave over this one. In fact, I'm not even willing to get on board and say that this is out of context, because the concept applies equally well.
You're essentially saying that "don't hit your brother" is WAY DIFFERENT than "don't hit your cousin", and I, for one, disagree.
If you outlaw guns.... I mean secure keyless encryption, then only the criminals will have encrypted messages. (And the rest of us will be defenseless sheep.)
Further, if we can no longer use encryption, how long before we're simply denied the right to keep secrets? They're already torturing civilian detainees for their information, when do they vote themselves the power to do it to us?
Because once we grant them the power to look, we're giving them permission to do so. In fact, SCOTUS recently held that a man not having security over his driveway meant he received no '4th' protections over his car. Vis-a-vi your files. You know they can be cracked, therefore no warrant would be required, right? And since no warrant is required, only a terrorist would try and evade the watchers like that.
You don't want smaller government, you want to fragment the USA.
Well, dear Coward, you seem to have overlooked a simple fact: the USA is fragmented.
In fact, it was designed that way. Brilliantly so, I might add. We're the land of the free, with freedom of speech and freedom of religion. How on earth would it be possible to bring together people from all cultures and allow them to coexist without fragmentation? Are we really to decide on a single religion/race/etc, to avoid fragmentation of culture? That's fascism. And yet if we don't how are we to dictate that the minor variations in culture that occur must all adhere to the same rigid standards? Impossible, without simply playing to the majority, and allowing two wolves and a sheep to vote on dinner.
No, the very tenets of freedom are around 'live and let live'. The notion of one all-powerful authority at the whims of a two-headed-dog is rather the opposite of what we were founded to be. The Second Amendment is supposed to safeguard against this kind of a monopoly occurring, as it provides us with the right of rebellion. Or at the very least, the threat of it.
And while I do realize that the 'war to free the slaves' has trampled on that part of the Constitution, bear in mind that there aren't any slaves today. The price for that conflict has long-since been paid, and I think it's high time the local people got their power back, thanks.
The order of the boxes is thus: soap, ballot, ammo.
The European union has banned by law trading of incandescent light bulbs due to their bad efficiency/ecology reasons (most of the energy is transformed into heat).
If these items are generally better, in terms of energy consumption, and are likewise sold at a reasonable price, they OUGHT to make sense to buy. (Or make cents, as it were.) If they don't then people should be free to wait until they do.
On the inverse, if there's a law requiring they be the only kind of bulb, then they can be built without concern for energy savings, and sold at any price. After all, the law says you have to have them, so why not profit from the artificial demand.
Oh, and by the way, all that artificial demand is damaging the economy, which will likely lead to war, which is about the least 'green' thing imaginable. Why is it that we love to talk long term about climate change and human behavior, but can't seem to do so about economics? I'm astounded mostly because while the former is a natural phenomenon that could be influenced by humanity, the latter is entirely human and will cease to exist when we do.
Slashdot Mirror
This thing is not meant to produce only electricity.
No, no, I never said 'only'. But it would be parallel to China conducting an attack on Boeing or Lockheed. A lot of employees (rather than soldiers) would die for a military cause.
Besides, the United States is allowed to use uranium in their tank shells and conventional explosives. Why not Iran as well?
What about the environmental damage of causing containment to fail? That's going to take generations to clean up...
We're attempting to kill a lot of innocents to stop something that might someday happen. The harm vastly outweighs the risk, particularly if Israel is ready to be have as a legitimate government, and actively seek peace.
I genuinely believe that a cold war between Israel and Iran could well lead to peace in the Middle East for the first time since, well, ever. As it is now, Israel can freely assassinate democratically elected leadership on foreign soil. That will never result in peace.
Ehhh, that's an interesting view point, but I'm talking about open global war. Not figuratively speaking, but open armed conflict involving many nations aligning along recognizable factions.
My Karma speaks for itself, and I fully understand the weight and value of your opinion.
Friends, we need an immediate Amendment to the Constitution that allows a popular vote of the people to put any work into the public domain. Save Star Wars from it's abusive father. Don't let it linger in such agony. Set it free!!!
Six films at $40* each comes to $240.
(At ~$15 per ticket, bringing a guest, plus concessions.)
The conversion process needs rotoscoping. Lots and lots of highly labour-intensive rotoscoping. That costs money. And it needs skilled compositers to put the chopped-up images together in a 3D environment projected onto animated geometry. That's also highly labour-intensive.
You know what might work better? What if they kept/reused the original audio, but animated the whole thing instead? It is supposed to be a kid's movie, right? And they could clean up some of their messy work in the process. They could even hire Adiwan to oversee the cut.
This might be a decent way to see the franchise survive beyond our generation's love for it, because kids today just aren't chomping it down like we did back then.
Plus the originals could be kept around, as they were, for the die-hards.
but really was just a gimmick to draw in crowds and immerse them in a spectacular alien world without much substance
Not to detract from your overall point, which was really solid, but I thought I'd refer you to Cameron's TED talk where he basically cops to what you're saying. The only difference is, the world isn't a gimmick. He wanted to make a movie demonstrating the value of his digital production company and felt that an immersive alien experience was the best way to do it. He so deeply enjoys the feeling of being in our real alien worlds, like deep diving in the ocean, but can't get anyone to watch a movie about that.
Cameron's a selfish guy, but not nearly the money-slut everyone paints him to be.
Not salient to the point, but I thought you might enjoy the TED talk. :)
AC's are always so eloquent, aren't they?
How does it make you feel, wanting so deeply to disrespect me, and yet lacking the ability to come up with anything better than the above? Surely you know that I've seen far worse, and your comments would do nearly nothing in the way of harm to anyone who has spent more than five minutes on the internet.
Kinda sad, really.
Too bad, so sad. Beats a nuclear war between Israel and Iran.
You're frighteningly insane. If you think this would PREVENT a nuclear war, you need to think it through again.
1) Domestic reactors go Chernobyl due to well known virus
2) Source of virus is established, either credibly or not
3) Iran petitions the UN for military retribution/economic restitution/etc, and it get vetoed
4) Everyone chooses sides and WWIII begins
This isn't even close to being far-fetched. And before we assume '4' results in 'Iran vs Everyone', do understand that going against Iran means going against the freedom to live in something other than a third world nation. Power is relatively essential, and all things considered this virus is of a TERRORISTIC nature because it seeks to attack the civilian infrastructure to achieve political goals. Do you really to side with the terrorists?
Dear Coward, take note:
1) Your tone is horrendous. There are certainly a large number of people who will assume that the link you're offering is the same kind of angry, insulting tripe with which it is surrounded.
2) Your link could well be one of the most enlightening things on youtube. I'm going try to verify that it is true independently before deciding, but this could be bigger than Pat Tillman.
My advice to you is to tone down the bullshit, and stick to the salient, intelligent points being made. This could be difficult, due to the obvious emotion you're displaying, and so I wish you luck either way.
Dennis Kucinich seems like a good guy.
At any rate, it isn't my fault that the Red Team generally has it right. The 'American dream' genuinely does involve running your own business. The Blue Team feels that anyone not on welfare is in danger of shifting over to the Red Team, and yet seems to never pass a single law in their favor. It's all Robin Hood for them, take it from the evil rich and give it to the deserving poor. The long view of that plan has us all in the 'poor' category, with only the ruling elite able to afford to be 'rich'. At least on the Red Team, there can be such a thing as a 'wealthy small business owner'. This is a target reasonably achievable by people I actually know.
I believe in merit through action, and not through mere birth.
Interesting factiod. But it still works towards the premise. He said he would be different, and we inferred that this would be desirable. Neither materialized.
Why would you exclude Bush from "war and socialism"?
I wouldn't necessarily do so, but I think the whole Haliburton angle is probably more defining.
No, my point is that claiming Obama is going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back, especially when you consider what previous leaders have done, is ludicrous.
This seems insightful, but depending on the actual demographics of their time, it might not be. Obama rode a wave of 'change' into the whitehouse, propelled by the fewest number of voters to label themselves as 'liberal' ever. He vaguely promised that he'd be different, and everyone bought it. He even won a Nobel Peace Prize for his promises.
Here we are, working on our third year together and ALL of the changes we're seeing are for the worse. While few would have thought that Bush would have become a war President, he clearly adapted when the towers were struck. He got on that new pony and rode it into oblivion. Fast forward to Obama, and not only did he not foresee the oncoming financial disaster, he also did basically nothing to counteract it. Nothing, anyway, that he wasn't already planning to do. In fact he continued to press his agendas despite our clear unwillingness and inability to pay for them, and is continuing to do so to this very day.
Obama demonstrated to the voter that 'change' means what Obama wants it to mean. It doesn't mean what the people clearly wanted - as in a leadership that listens to the voters, is honest, and behaves responsibly. Obama and Bush are genuine equals when it comes to alienating the majority of the nation with their blindly-followed agendas. His 'change' was only that from 'war and profits' to 'war and socialism'.
If you can find a President with that exact same circumstance, THEN I'd be impressed. Otherwise, the outcome of this round of shenanigans could well be unique.
Bullshit. Any source beyond the original (which I did link to as well) is secondary. They're all adding 'color commentary', and opinions are plentiful.
Soapbox somewhere else.
Again, partisanship is a mental disease, and your presumption to dictate what other people are allowed to read is a symptom of your need for mental assistance.
You're missing the point. The truth of the situation is that the information was only a Google search away. But rather than perform that search, a fashionable Fox-bash was hammered out instead.
That sort of non-thought is inexcusable.
Oh wait, yes I can. MOST OF THE SPECULATION ALL COMES FROM ONE SOURCE. For FUCKS sake, double-check your links before trying to make a point.
Don't pretend that this impacts my point in the slightest. The post to which I was replying was:
This is what I get for not reading the article first. Faux News. Where's my salt lick?
Explain to me the depth of research in that comment, if you please. Elaborate on how the quote coming from a single source, namely the person who actually said it, is somehow invalidated once Fox posts it as a news story?
Because short of that, my point stands, as-is.
The terrorists will develop their own encryption schemes so using wiretaps would be completely worthless anyway.
Except as a means to identify individuals as terrorists, even if only temporarily. If they're using 'wild' encryption, they're breaking the law, and can be detained for questioning... Unfortunately the only open interrogation room is in Cuba...
The fact that your two-hundred-fifty-year-old completely out-of-context sound bite get modded +5 is more a reflection of the ignorance of the moderators than anything else.
To put that into context, dear Coward, are you purporting that Franklin would disagree with the use of his quote in this manner?
Are you in fact saying that he held the right to bear arms, ONLY, as essential? Because I'm just not seeing him turning over in his grave over this one. In fact, I'm not even willing to get on board and say that this is out of context, because the concept applies equally well.
You're essentially saying that "don't hit your brother" is WAY DIFFERENT than "don't hit your cousin", and I, for one, disagree.
Put another way:
If you outlaw guns.... I mean secure keyless encryption, then only the criminals will have encrypted messages. (And the rest of us will be defenseless sheep.)
Further, if we can no longer use encryption, how long before we're simply denied the right to keep secrets? They're already torturing civilian detainees for their information, when do they vote themselves the power to do it to us?
Because once we grant them the power to look, we're giving them permission to do so. In fact, SCOTUS recently held that a man not having security over his driveway meant he received no '4th' protections over his car. Vis-a-vi your files. You know they can be cracked, therefore no warrant would be required, right? And since no warrant is required, only a terrorist would try and evade the watchers like that.
This should be stopped.
You don't want smaller government, you want to fragment the USA.
Well, dear Coward, you seem to have overlooked a simple fact: the USA is fragmented.
In fact, it was designed that way. Brilliantly so, I might add. We're the land of the free, with freedom of speech and freedom of religion. How on earth would it be possible to bring together people from all cultures and allow them to coexist without fragmentation? Are we really to decide on a single religion/race/etc, to avoid fragmentation of culture? That's fascism. And yet if we don't how are we to dictate that the minor variations in culture that occur must all adhere to the same rigid standards? Impossible, without simply playing to the majority, and allowing two wolves and a sheep to vote on dinner.
No, the very tenets of freedom are around 'live and let live'. The notion of one all-powerful authority at the whims of a two-headed-dog is rather the opposite of what we were founded to be. The Second Amendment is supposed to safeguard against this kind of a monopoly occurring, as it provides us with the right of rebellion. Or at the very least, the threat of it.
And while I do realize that the 'war to free the slaves' has trampled on that part of the Constitution, bear in mind that there aren't any slaves today. The price for that conflict has long-since been paid, and I think it's high time the local people got their power back, thanks.
The order of the boxes is thus: soap, ballot, ammo.
Welcome to America.
This is what I get for not reading the article first. Faux News. Where's my salt lick?
This will cause me mod damage, but I'm going to dive in here one more time: numbski, don't be a jerkwad.
There are several other sources for this same story. And yet, you are going to deny that it is true because the single link above is from 'Faux News'.
Forget Google, logic, or even a mild interest in the actual article itself, it's FOX BASHING TIME. WHOOOAAAAHHHHH!
Partisanship is a disease of the mind, and it just made you do something stupid. Reflect on that.
The European union has banned by law trading of incandescent light bulbs due to their bad efficiency/ecology reasons (most of the energy is transformed into heat).
If these items are generally better, in terms of energy consumption, and are likewise sold at a reasonable price, they OUGHT to make sense to buy. (Or make cents, as it were.) If they don't then people should be free to wait until they do.
On the inverse, if there's a law requiring they be the only kind of bulb, then they can be built without concern for energy savings, and sold at any price. After all, the law says you have to have them, so why not profit from the artificial demand.
Oh, and by the way, all that artificial demand is damaging the economy, which will likely lead to war, which is about the least 'green' thing imaginable. Why is it that we love to talk long term about climate change and human behavior, but can't seem to do so about economics? I'm astounded mostly because while the former is a natural phenomenon that could be influenced by humanity, the latter is entirely human and will cease to exist when we do.
Just astounding.
And I always will be, but at least I'm not you.
Hey dude, I heard you like trolling, so I put a troll in your troll so you can troll while you're trolling!