Compare the population one with the energy use one, and the per capita one. The US is EASILY the biggest per capita AND net user of energy.
If you prefer a measure of straight pollution to energy use, try: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.ns f/cont ent/emissionsindividual.html http://yosemite.epa. gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/cont ent/EmissionsInternational.html
USA totally dominates others in pretty much all respects. Try basing your posts on actual math next time.
Yes, we all know the security council is broken, as evidenced by the US's constant protection of Israel from any kind of valid criticism or intervention.
"yet ANOTHER Euro genocide" - Indians. Mexicans. Blacks.
You are truly, spectacularly foolish if you think France was protecting Saddam. I will accept that they were trying to use the Council to check US power (thank god, so is everyone else except yes man #1 the UK), but it is stupid and offensive to suggest that the French actually thought Saddam was a good thing. Maybe they foresaw the orgy of American corporate contract distribution that has occurred since the 'end of major combat'...
Anyway, I was actually referring to recent events in Iraq, and to Israel attacking Iraq.
Yeah, that's what it would do, it would cripple the US. I guess that's the kind of thing that the Clinton administration would have negotiated, the bastards. You remember, back when the US economy wasn't in a tailspin? When people had jobs? Yep, no idea about the economy, that slick Willie. He probably signed you on to pay an annual tribute to China or something.
So your argument, I take it, is that no action should be taken to stop possible (some might even say likely) environmental disaster unless it has no cost?
And by the way, most of the rest of the world does actually think that the US should stop treating the world and its resources like a personal buffet. I've even heard some Americans express such sentiments (commies!).
And I don't recall mentioning 'extreme environmentalism.' I also doubt that most of Europe, Canada, most of South America and most of Asia would sign onto anything based on 'extreme environmentalism.' You know, its really just you guys and Russia who haven't signed on.
Come on, you're almost there. Just a few more snide remarks and you will achieve total uninformed condescending wanker status and earn the respect of your friends and enemies alike.
The sad thing is a person who criticises and never offers any solid reasoning of their own.
The sad thing is a person too chickenshit to post with an actual identity of some kind.
The sad thing is a person so wrapped up in being a reactionary hero that they can't tell when someone is joking (come on, it's Slashdot so anti-MS/government jokes are de riguer, are they not?).
And yes, I'm a filthy enviro-commie with no real understanding of the real hard issues that hardcore realist realpolitik ninjas like yourself can grasp with one percent of your mighty brain.
I totally agree, and by the way I didn't say that they were totally unbiased, just that they don't really have a huge motive to be biased IMO when compared with other 'interested parties' to this discussion.
You are right that all humans are biased. So what are we to do in controlling our destiny, and the destiny of our planet? We can't have the earth be 40% polluted, 17% uncommitted, and 43% unpolluted. I think it is necessary to recognise that the potential destruction or severe degradation of the environment is not the type of issue that can be governed by 'freedom of choice' or 'freedom of belief' in the ordinary sense. It takes everyone to row the boat, so if half the people disagree then we are not going to move at all.
Incidentally, I have never heard a convincing response to the insanely high rate of extinction currently occurring from those who claim the environment is doing fine (not that I think you would make this claim).
You're mighty brave in cyberspace, anonymous boy (or girl). Of course if I dare criticise the mighty Republican Empire I must be a Frenchy loving eurotrash kneejerk liberal. Why don't you include the fact that French people smell like garlic and are cowards in wartime, too? Well, I guess we'll call it even then, you sure showed me with your well reasoned arguments.
By the way, good to see you are still able to justify unilateral warmongering to stop evil regimes who might commit such heinous acts as... unilateral warmongering. If only my mind was as elastic as yours, I might be a conservative too. Unfortunately I suffer from this weird mental inflexibility... I like to call it consistency. It teaches me that only governments who have not backed and in some cases installed fascist dictators and military regimes, and also launched repeated unilateral wars against sovereign states get to go around preaching about peace, democracy, and non-aggression.
Later in the same press conference, newly appointed Communications Secretary William Gates III announced that sale of all software in the United States will cease Monday, to be replaced by a Federally subsidised regime of nationally distributed software based on a uniform technology. In response to questions Mr. Gates indicated that the vendor supplying the software had not yet been selected, before laughing maniacally.
This is every bit as greedy has having that "belief" be that my bank account should be the biggest or that Globex-MegaCorp's belief that their balance sheet is the most important thing in the world.
Without meaning to be too offensive, this is a total load. Whilst I am fully aware that at a basic philosophical level this is an arguable point, I will believe that moral relativists actually exist when I see them living accordingly. I don't believe you are one, either, unless you truly and honestly believe that there are no absolute truths at all.
A situation where the "cure" can be worse than the perceived disease?
And how exactly would living off renewable energy be 'worse' than the whole planet dying?
the actions being taken are truely massive in scale and affect the lives of millions.
Yeah, hopefully for the better. I don't wish it on anyone, but if the whole populations of China and India live like Americans do today in 50 years, we are more than screwed. I think the point is that the lives of millions need to be affected, especially one group of about 250 million that I can think of.
As for the business stuff, I am talking more generally about the arguments strongly put foward against greenhouse reduction etc., especially in a political context, having a constant and disturbing connection to the influence of certain major oil companies.
I would say that anyone completely believing in EITHER side is just as bad as anyone completely believing in the OTHER side.
At least we agree on one thing:). Although, as is often misquoted, all that is needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing...
Um, I think the point being that this makes renewable energy a tradeable resource, even though you can't physically trade it due to power transmission limitations. Instead, you can replace your 'bad' energy with clean power, then sell the equivalent bad energy to the US (ahem, or someone else I guess) for money. Result: there is a real economic (as opposed to moral, ethical, logical and all those other types that don't matter) reason to invest heavily in renewable energy.
The thing that is really sad is that we have the tech RIGHT NOW to use renewable energy. We could move to it in a couple of decades and never look back - and up there in the sky, and in the oceans, and in the wind, is an energy source that will never run out in a billion* years or so.
The way I see it, it's a race between the carbon-based energy stocks and the planet's ability to survive - hopefully we will run out of coal and oil before we have actually managed to kill ourselves.
No, you're right, there's been so much evidence that they *are* evil incarnate that it would have to be something pretty spectacular.
Bush himself I don't consider that evil, just dumb and weak willed. Its the others around him that trouble me. Of course its entirely possible that an administration made up of a group of people closely connected with the oil industry, many of whom have had significant positions in major energy companies, could be unbiased and working for the betterment of mankind. However, it doesn't really seem all that likely, does it? I tell you what, if, after Dubbya is hopefully (please Jesus Buddha Allah I love you all) tossed out of office next year, these guys own as many shares in renewable energy companies as they do in oil companies, I'll admit they're not evil.
Still doesn't explain why they would be motivated to do so. In case you haven't noticed most environmentalists aren't exactly the wealthy type. I don't see them building any big churches and papal palaces. Frankly, I find it pretty offensive on behalf of a group of dedicated and genuine people that you are ignorant enough to compare them to the medieval church, you filthy anonymous bastard.
Anyway, if you want to talk about scare stories and getting money from people to protect them, let's talk about the Bush administration some more, shall we? Did you know the entire annual budget of the UN is 1.5 days worth of Pentagon budget? One dedicated to peace and security, the other dedicated to 'defence'.
Well, you seem to have left out your logical criticism of the way this is being presented, such as (from the Post article):
"removes the foundation for claims of 20th-century uniqueness"
"groundbreaking studies continue to be published that pull the rug out from under Kyoto's shaky edifice."
"environmentalists had every reason to believe that few climate experts would dare continue to publicly oppose Kyoto's science"
"Supporters of the GHG-induced warming hypothesis desperately needed a "smoking gun" to prop up the need for Kyoto."...and on it goes, in a totally unbalanced manner, doing the very thing it claims those evil environmentalists have been doing all this time.
I believe we're still waiting for the documents relating to the oil companies' 'consultations' with Archduke Cheney over energy policy, aren't we?
Why do people think environmentalists would be biased, anyway? What are they biased towards? Not dying? Is there some secret Globex-EnviroCorporation Inc in which all tree hugging hippies have undisclosed shares? Or is it possible that they simply understand the value of erring on the side of caution when the stakes are so high?
I love it that people think that they are able to be so 'skeptical' about the environment. Can't you see that the logical way to be skeptical about it is to assume that the warning signs mean something significant until you can be sure they don't? Otherwise you're acting like someone with half the symptoms of cancer who wants to wait until they have them all before getting it checked out. After all, you can never be sure so better to do nothing, eh?
Don't worry, go ahead and doubt environmentalists. I'm sure businessmen whose entire job is making profits for their own companies are *much* more reliable at telling you what the state of the environment is.
that in Australia it is against the law supply equipment with which can modify your *own property* to bypass encryption/copy protection. It's basically unenforceable and only gets used against guys who make mod chips and the like, but the legal framework is actually geared towards limiting your rights to use your own property in certain ways. Copyright standards are increasingly global, so I imagine you have similar laws in the US (?).
Of course, you must also realise that you don't actually have the right to "do whatever the hell you want to your property" because you can't use your property in ways that affect others in an adverse manner, for instance. So, just as you can buy a gun but you can't use it to hurt people, it is arguable that you can buy a digital TV but you can't use it to illegally copy TV programs and movies which you haven't paid for.
Not my opinion, but one of the moral/legal points that needs to be worked out before this issue can really be tackled.
Yes! You are so, so right, I have said this for ages.
At the moment, when there's an environmental issue, we have Young Corporate Representative in a Nice Suit vs. Filthy Matted-Haired Hippy with Dope Leaf Symbol T-Shirt...
When there's a trade/WTO issue we have Sensible and Mature Trade Negotiator vs. Angry and Psychotic Looking Teenager Wearing Anarchy T-Shirt and Ski Mask...
When there's a civil liberties issue we have Reassuring Government Spokesperson Who Just Wants to Protect Us vs. Nutcase Professor of Liberal Arts from Wacky College Campus...
Whenever there's a human rights issue we have Police/Army Representative Doing their Best in a Difficult Job vs. Washed Up Dumpy Looking People Complaining Hysterically.
People who care about such things (which is hopefully most people here) really, REALLY need to learn the difference between adopting an appearance that is appealing to ordinary people and 'selling out.' Imagine how much more impact an environmental/trade/human rights protests would have if they were attended by people with good haircuts, wearing nice clothes and even *gasp* suits, shirts, and ties. And imagine how much more impact it would have on the average TV viewer to see a smartly dressed person in their late 20s/early 30s talking clearly and compellingly about these issues instead of a nervous looking doped up hippy/drooling nerd/fringe dwelling libertarian.
We live in a democracy. As such, we need to appeal to the majority or at least a solid minority of people to get anything to change. This will not happen while people are too principled to realise that one of the basic rules of PR is to come across as (a) the same as your audience or (b) a charismatic authority figure who can be trusted.
Every time there is an issue I care about on TV they do an interview with some braindead first year university student or junior high school student with bright red dyed hair and a nose ring who says something to the effect of "big companies fucking suck" or "I hate how stupid ordinary people are," and I just shudder to think of Mr. and Mrs. John Q Voter at home listening to it and deciding to vote for the Nazi party because at least they have neat uniforms and are well spoken.
I was just making the point that sometimes things get a tad esoteric here. I am a technical person, but sometimes headlines don't even make sense to me.
Of course personally I would like to see a bit less 'news for nerds' and a bit more 'stuff that matters.'
and wonder if you could be doing something more with your life?
"NetBSD's COMPAT_DARWIN Adds XDarwin Support" What the fuck is that? It's not even vaguely english. Probably the majority of people who know what it means are reading this site right now.
Reminds me of (what else) The Simpsons:
Comic Book Guy [reading comic]: "No aquaman... you cannot marry a woman without gills! You're from two different worlds!"
[looks up to see a nuclear warhead streaking towards him]
1 Super genius with no social skills and some sort of severe mental condition 1 Arrogant intellectual rival who starts of being jerk but eventually comes around 1 Beautiful woman who can see through the lack of social skills to the man inside 1 Imaginary friend to give inspiration a la Tyler Durden (optional)
1. Place all of the ingredients in a stuffy establishment where noone recognises the genius's inherent genius - this will help the plot ferment.
2. Stir gently until the arrogant rival stops being a jerk and becomes the genius's friend.
3. Slowly add the beautiful woman until her patience is expired. At this point the genius should undergo a serious mental breakdown and inner crisis - this is the sign that your dish has been in its 'down' cooking phase for long enough.
4. Finally, cook for half an hour with plenty of saccharine until the super genius recognises that the only thing that is important is the people we love. If the movie is done right through then everyone should learn some important lessons about living and loving at this stage.
5. Serve with lame moralising and an overwhelming sense of peace late in life for best effect.
6. ???
7. Profit!!!
Handy Hint - For a touch of spice, why not make it seem kind of cool to have a serious mental illness? This will help loser misfits the world over relate better to the dish and give depressed teenagers something to strive for. One way of doing this is to make the imaginary friend(s) all have snappy personalities resulting in excellent dialogue. This will be more entertaining for your guests than run of the mill brain tumours or epilepsy.
Still the concept art in the featurette is pretty cool looking.
He also directed Event Horizon, which I thought was pretty terrifying but seemed to get pretty poor reviews. I really hope this movie is more like Event Horizon than MK, anyway.
I live in Australia, where we have a lot of vehicle activated lights, i.e. when you pull up at an intersection the lights will figure out you are there and change to let you through. In many places the lights will never change at all unless a vehicle is detected.
Does anyone know how this type of system works? There are no cameras, so I always assumed there was some sort of coil under the road with an active current so that it could detect a large metal object moving over it. There seems to be no problems with detecting motorcycles, either. I have noticed that the detection only occurs when you are right up close to the lights - if you're even a few metres back then the lights won't change.
Of course, this is a totally useless system. By the time you trigger the lights you have come to a complete stop and would actually be better off with timed lights as there would at least be some chance of getting a green light. I have often dreamt of creating some sort of EM pulse cannon to trigger the coil, but I lack the requisite engineering knowhow. Any ideas?
Slashdot Mirror
"Except that China and India are the big polluters of the day."
0 1/Gree nhouse/Fig1P19.gif
s f/cont ent/emissionsindividual.html. gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/cont ent/EmissionsInternational.html
Check out:
http://www.ioe.ucla.edu/publications/report
Compare the population one with the energy use one, and the per capita one. The US is EASILY the biggest per capita AND net user of energy.
If you prefer a measure of straight pollution to energy use, try:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.n
http://yosemite.epa
USA totally dominates others in pretty much all respects. Try basing your posts on actual math next time.
Yes, we all know the security council is broken, as evidenced by the US's constant protection of Israel from any kind of valid criticism or intervention.
"yet ANOTHER Euro genocide" - Indians. Mexicans. Blacks.
You are truly, spectacularly foolish if you think France was protecting Saddam. I will accept that they were trying to use the Council to check US power (thank god, so is everyone else except yes man #1 the UK), but it is stupid and offensive to suggest that the French actually thought Saddam was a good thing. Maybe they foresaw the orgy of American corporate contract distribution that has occurred since the 'end of major combat'...
Anyway, I was actually referring to recent events in Iraq, and to Israel attacking Iraq.
Yeah, that's what it would do, it would cripple the US. I guess that's the kind of thing that the Clinton administration would have negotiated, the bastards. You remember, back when the US economy wasn't in a tailspin? When people had jobs? Yep, no idea about the economy, that slick Willie. He probably signed you on to pay an annual tribute to China or something.
So your argument, I take it, is that no action should be taken to stop possible (some might even say likely) environmental disaster unless it has no cost?
And by the way, most of the rest of the world does actually think that the US should stop treating the world and its resources like a personal buffet. I've even heard some Americans express such sentiments (commies!).
And I don't recall mentioning 'extreme environmentalism.' I also doubt that most of Europe, Canada, most of South America and most of Asia would sign onto anything based on 'extreme environmentalism.' You know, its really just you guys and Russia who haven't signed on.
Come on, you're almost there. Just a few more snide remarks and you will achieve total uninformed condescending wanker status and earn the respect of your friends and enemies alike.
The sad thing is a person who criticises and never offers any solid reasoning of their own.
The sad thing is a person too chickenshit to post with an actual identity of some kind.
The sad thing is a person so wrapped up in being a reactionary hero that they can't tell when someone is joking (come on, it's Slashdot so anti-MS/government jokes are de riguer, are they not?).
And yes, I'm a filthy enviro-commie with no real understanding of the real hard issues that hardcore realist realpolitik ninjas like yourself can grasp with one percent of your mighty brain.
I totally agree, and by the way I didn't say that they were totally unbiased, just that they don't really have a huge motive to be biased IMO when compared with other 'interested parties' to this discussion.
You are right that all humans are biased. So what are we to do in controlling our destiny, and the destiny of our planet? We can't have the earth be 40% polluted, 17% uncommitted, and 43% unpolluted. I think it is necessary to recognise that the potential destruction or severe degradation of the environment is not the type of issue that can be governed by 'freedom of choice' or 'freedom of belief' in the ordinary sense. It takes everyone to row the boat, so if half the people disagree then we are not going to move at all.
Incidentally, I have never heard a convincing response to the insanely high rate of extinction currently occurring from those who claim the environment is doing fine (not that I think you would make this claim).
You're mighty brave in cyberspace, anonymous boy (or girl). Of course if I dare criticise the mighty Republican Empire I must be a Frenchy loving eurotrash kneejerk liberal. Why don't you include the fact that French people smell like garlic and are cowards in wartime, too? Well, I guess we'll call it even then, you sure showed me with your well reasoned arguments.
By the way, good to see you are still able to justify unilateral warmongering to stop evil regimes who might commit such heinous acts as... unilateral warmongering. If only my mind was as elastic as yours, I might be a conservative too. Unfortunately I suffer from this weird mental inflexibility... I like to call it consistency. It teaches me that only governments who have not backed and in some cases installed fascist dictators and military regimes, and also launched repeated unilateral wars against sovereign states get to go around preaching about peace, democracy, and non-aggression.
Ok, good points.
:) will be getting their opinions from 'sources' like this article.
I guess it just bothers me that a lot of people (including me apparently
...closer together.
Later in the same press conference, newly appointed Communications Secretary William Gates III announced that sale of all software in the United States will cease Monday, to be replaced by a Federally subsidised regime of nationally distributed software based on a uniform technology. In response to questions Mr. Gates indicated that the vendor supplying the software had not yet been selected, before laughing maniacally.
This is every bit as greedy has having that "belief" be that my bank account should be the biggest or that Globex-MegaCorp's belief that their balance sheet is the most important thing in the world.
Without meaning to be too offensive, this is a total load. Whilst I am fully aware that at a basic philosophical level this is an arguable point, I will believe that moral relativists actually exist when I see them living accordingly. I don't believe you are one, either, unless you truly and honestly believe that there are no absolute truths at all.
A situation where the "cure" can be worse than the perceived disease?
And how exactly would living off renewable energy be 'worse' than the whole planet dying?
the actions being taken are truely massive in scale and affect the lives of millions.
Yeah, hopefully for the better. I don't wish it on anyone, but if the whole populations of China and India live like Americans do today in 50 years, we are more than screwed. I think the point is that the lives of millions need to be affected, especially one group of about 250 million that I can think of.
As for the business stuff, I am talking more generally about the arguments strongly put foward against greenhouse reduction etc., especially in a political context, having a constant and disturbing connection to the influence of certain major oil companies.
I would say that anyone completely believing in EITHER side is just as bad as anyone completely believing in the OTHER side.
At least we agree on one thing :). Although, as is often misquoted, all that is needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing...
"but the stupid thing is you can TRADE them"
Um, I think the point being that this makes renewable energy a tradeable resource, even though you can't physically trade it due to power transmission limitations. Instead, you can replace your 'bad' energy with clean power, then sell the equivalent bad energy to the US (ahem, or someone else I guess) for money. Result: there is a real economic (as opposed to moral, ethical, logical and all those other types that don't matter) reason to invest heavily in renewable energy.
The thing that is really sad is that we have the tech RIGHT NOW to use renewable energy. We could move to it in a couple of decades and never look back - and up there in the sky, and in the oceans, and in the wind, is an energy source that will never run out in a billion* years or so.
The way I see it, it's a race between the carbon-based energy stocks and the planet's ability to survive - hopefully we will run out of coal and oil before we have actually managed to kill ourselves.
*actual years may vary according to use
?
So they're filthy commies? I knew it! That means we can witch-hunt them! Call Joe McCarthy, we's gonna have us a lynchin'!
No, you're right, there's been so much evidence that they *are* evil incarnate that it would have to be something pretty spectacular.
Bush himself I don't consider that evil, just dumb and weak willed. Its the others around him that trouble me. Of course its entirely possible that an administration made up of a group of people closely connected with the oil industry, many of whom have had significant positions in major energy companies, could be unbiased and working for the betterment of mankind. However, it doesn't really seem all that likely, does it? I tell you what, if, after Dubbya is hopefully (please Jesus Buddha Allah I love you all) tossed out of office next year, these guys own as many shares in renewable energy companies as they do in oil companies, I'll admit they're not evil.
Meanwhile, here's a picture for you.
Still doesn't explain why they would be motivated to do so. In case you haven't noticed most environmentalists aren't exactly the wealthy type. I don't see them building any big churches and papal palaces. Frankly, I find it pretty offensive on behalf of a group of dedicated and genuine people that you are ignorant enough to compare them to the medieval church, you filthy anonymous bastard.
Anyway, if you want to talk about scare stories and getting money from people to protect them, let's talk about the Bush administration some more, shall we? Did you know the entire annual budget of the UN is 1.5 days worth of Pentagon budget? One dedicated to peace and security, the other dedicated to 'defence'.
Well, you seem to have left out your logical criticism of the way this is being presented, such as (from the Post article):
...and on it goes, in a totally unbalanced manner, doing the very thing it claims those evil environmentalists have been doing all this time.
"removes the foundation for claims of 20th-century uniqueness"
"groundbreaking studies continue to be published that pull the rug out from under Kyoto's shaky edifice."
"environmentalists had every reason to believe that few climate experts would dare continue to publicly oppose Kyoto's science"
"Supporters of the GHG-induced warming hypothesis desperately needed a "smoking gun" to prop up the need for Kyoto."
Nooooooooo....
I believe we're still waiting for the documents relating to the oil companies' 'consultations' with Archduke Cheney over energy policy, aren't we?
Why do people think environmentalists would be biased, anyway? What are they biased towards? Not dying? Is there some secret Globex-EnviroCorporation Inc in which all tree hugging hippies have undisclosed shares? Or is it possible that they simply understand the value of erring on the side of caution when the stakes are so high?
I love it that people think that they are able to be so 'skeptical' about the environment. Can't you see that the logical way to be skeptical about it is to assume that the warning signs mean something significant until you can be sure they don't? Otherwise you're acting like someone with half the symptoms of cancer who wants to wait until they have them all before getting it checked out. After all, you can never be sure so better to do nothing, eh?
Don't worry, go ahead and doubt environmentalists. I'm sure businessmen whose entire job is making profits for their own companies are *much* more reliable at telling you what the state of the environment is.
that in Australia it is against the law supply equipment with which can modify your *own property* to bypass encryption/copy protection. It's basically unenforceable and only gets used against guys who make mod chips and the like, but the legal framework is actually geared towards limiting your rights to use your own property in certain ways. Copyright standards are increasingly global, so I imagine you have similar laws in the US (?).
Of course, you must also realise that you don't actually have the right to "do whatever the hell you want to your property" because you can't use your property in ways that affect others in an adverse manner, for instance. So, just as you can buy a gun but you can't use it to hurt people, it is arguable that you can buy a digital TV but you can't use it to illegally copy TV programs and movies which you haven't paid for.
Not my opinion, but one of the moral/legal points that needs to be worked out before this issue can really be tackled.
Yes! You are so, so right, I have said this for ages.
At the moment, when there's an environmental issue, we have Young Corporate Representative in a Nice Suit vs. Filthy Matted-Haired Hippy with Dope Leaf Symbol T-Shirt...
When there's a trade/WTO issue we have Sensible and Mature Trade Negotiator vs. Angry and Psychotic Looking Teenager Wearing Anarchy T-Shirt and Ski Mask...
When there's a civil liberties issue we have Reassuring Government Spokesperson Who Just Wants to Protect Us vs. Nutcase Professor of Liberal Arts from Wacky College Campus...
Whenever there's a human rights issue we have Police/Army Representative Doing their Best in a Difficult Job vs. Washed Up Dumpy Looking People Complaining Hysterically.
People who care about such things (which is hopefully most people here) really, REALLY need to learn the difference between adopting an appearance that is appealing to ordinary people and 'selling out.' Imagine how much more impact an environmental/trade/human rights protests would have if they were attended by people with good haircuts, wearing nice clothes and even *gasp* suits, shirts, and ties. And imagine how much more impact it would have on the average TV viewer to see a smartly dressed person in their late 20s/early 30s talking clearly and compellingly about these issues instead of a nervous looking doped up hippy/drooling nerd/fringe dwelling libertarian.
We live in a democracy. As such, we need to appeal to the majority or at least a solid minority of people to get anything to change. This will not happen while people are too principled to realise that one of the basic rules of PR is to come across as (a) the same as your audience or (b) a charismatic authority figure who can be trusted.
Every time there is an issue I care about on TV they do an interview with some braindead first year university student or junior high school student with bright red dyed hair and a nose ring who says something to the effect of "big companies fucking suck" or "I hate how stupid ordinary people are," and I just shudder to think of Mr. and Mrs. John Q Voter at home listening to it and deciding to vote for the Nazi party because at least they have neat uniforms and are well spoken.
Oh, get a sense of humour.
I was just making the point that sometimes things get a tad esoteric here. I am a technical person, but sometimes headlines don't even make sense to me.
Of course personally I would like to see a bit less 'news for nerds' and a bit more 'stuff that matters.'
and wonder if you could be doing something more with your life?
"NetBSD's COMPAT_DARWIN Adds XDarwin Support" What the fuck is that? It's not even vaguely english. Probably the majority of people who know what it means are reading this site right now.
Reminds me of (what else) The Simpsons:
Comic Book Guy [reading comic]: "No aquaman... you cannot marry a woman without gills! You're from two different worlds!"
[looks up to see a nuclear warhead streaking towards him]
"Oh, I've wasted my life."
[kabooooom!]
"That's our explanation for why some ancient civilisations disappeared without a trace."
O....k.
This guy seems like a complete fool. "I doubt there's anyone who has seen those movies [Alien and Predator] more times than me."
Recipe for Life is Beautiful
Take:
1 Super genius with no social skills and some sort of severe mental condition
1 Arrogant intellectual rival who starts of being jerk but eventually comes around
1 Beautiful woman who can see through the lack of social skills to the man inside
1 Imaginary friend to give inspiration a la Tyler Durden (optional)
1. Place all of the ingredients in a stuffy establishment where noone recognises the genius's inherent genius - this will help the plot ferment.
2. Stir gently until the arrogant rival stops being a jerk and becomes the genius's friend.
3. Slowly add the beautiful woman until her patience is expired. At this point the genius should undergo a serious mental breakdown and inner crisis - this is the sign that your dish has been in its 'down' cooking phase for long enough.
4. Finally, cook for half an hour with plenty of saccharine until the super genius recognises that the only thing that is important is the people we love. If the movie is done right through then everyone should learn some important lessons about living and loving at this stage.
5. Serve with lame moralising and an overwhelming sense of peace late in life for best effect.
6. ???
7. Profit!!!
Handy Hint - For a touch of spice, why not make it seem kind of cool to have a serious mental illness? This will help loser misfits the world over relate better to the dish and give depressed teenagers something to strive for. One way of doing this is to make the imaginary friend(s) all have snappy personalities resulting in excellent dialogue. This will be more entertaining for your guests than run of the mill brain tumours or epilepsy.
So how could this not be terrible?
Still the concept art in the featurette is pretty cool looking.
He also directed Event Horizon, which I thought was pretty terrifying but seemed to get pretty poor reviews. I really hope this movie is more like Event Horizon than MK, anyway.
I live in Australia, where we have a lot of vehicle activated lights, i.e. when you pull up at an intersection the lights will figure out you are there and change to let you through. In many places the lights will never change at all unless a vehicle is detected.
Does anyone know how this type of system works? There are no cameras, so I always assumed there was some sort of coil under the road with an active current so that it could detect a large metal object moving over it. There seems to be no problems with detecting motorcycles, either. I have noticed that the detection only occurs when you are right up close to the lights - if you're even a few metres back then the lights won't change.
Of course, this is a totally useless system. By the time you trigger the lights you have come to a complete stop and would actually be better off with timed lights as there would at least be some chance of getting a green light. I have often dreamt of creating some sort of EM pulse cannon to trigger the coil, but I lack the requisite engineering knowhow. Any ideas?
If only I had someplace to be...