I'd better add - remember the guy got into film with "Roger and Me" to tell his personal story and how the car industry decline fit into it. He's an activist that makes films and not a traditional documentary maker. It's a polemic not something going into depth about a topic. Despite that he's still far more trustworthy than many in politics, but do not forget that he is also in politics, so holding him to the same standard as a journalist is a bit strange.
To think this does not merit a full "back of the bus" racial Godwin? If that's what clueless is these days you angry little virgins can keep whatever pathetic little clue you think you've found. It's a summer camp not racial segregation FFS!
Its all fine and dandy to call me names, but do you have any proof of the contrary?
It blatantly fails the reality test to compare entire economies to PR money and pretend the entire economy is funding the science. Only someone incredibly stupid would take such bait and believe it, so I'm willing to bet you are fishing instead of being an idiot who got caught. Are you really that stupid? I don't believe it. You are probably here to groom the kiddies for The Party or here for an argument. Which one is it? Should I call you Comrade of The Party or a useful idiot? Pretty fucking disgusting either way.
For a brief period, being a geek was not just acceptable but actually welcome.
You are just kidding yourself and seeing local swirls of activity as a pattern that is not really there. Yes, some people liked geeks, but society as a whole never really thought much of us.
More specifically, the "cold dead hands" quote from Heston was not made at the speech after Columbine
With respect, Heston was famous/infamous for that quote before the movie so anyone that did not know that before watching it on first release was living under a rock - I think it he was even quoted on the Simpsons long before Columbine. It's obvious that he's got footage from several appearances of Heston from previous years, he's noticably younger, and there is really nothing to suggest that the viewer is supposed to think that it was all current with the production of the movie. Turning up at Heston's place to taunt him was a bit of a dick move on Moore's part and discredited the film a bit, but putting multiple appearances of Heston in the film was not. Heston did say what he said. Only people looking at it with no idea about the subject will get fooled the way you are suggesting Moore is "tricking" people.
If we aren't killing people, what the hell is the point of war?
Keeping other people away from the stuff we want them to leave alone or we want to grab. War for the sake of killing people alone is almost always "ethnic cleansing".
It taught us that 1920s electricity infrastructure shouldn't be in use in one of the richest cities on the planet - wet wood in contact with high voltage is a bad idea and the inevitable fires happened. Funny thing is I know a transmission guy who said "I told you so" based on what he said in the 1960s. Fifty years later that shit was still in service and it burned.
Wow! The only reason this is happening is because we've managed to fuck things up badly enough over the last two decades that we effectively have boys only computer camps currently. Do you go full "Dan's Brown's Body" for girls schools as well or do you reserve such an extreme reaction for computer camps?
Do you know what you are doing here or have you been fooled into parroting such bullshit as your goalpost shift to a time where very little data is available? Either way Pogo, you are spreading blatant lies to corrupt the kiddies for short term political ends. Are you one of those catamites in a political office getting paid to "work in social media" or do you spread misinformation as a hobby?
They stopped all new approvals of new construction a couple of years ago and that is worrying nations that are trying to sell coal to them. The methane stuff is happening far slower than in the US.
Neither are the people poking holes, but they can do things like put together Sudoko puzzles. I'm astonished that a denier pulled the "they are not experts" card. Isn't the game played that everyone can pretend that they know more than a climate expert? Four years as an Economist and no published papers apparently trumps hundreds of thousands of years of experts experience from an entire field.
It's not a political problem that will go away if a different "tribe" takes charge. The problem here is PART of one "tribe" decided to use it to define a point of difference and attract donor money. Denial is the toxic waste of using money from Enron, Saudis etc to get into the White House - not just big oil but the fucking insane and amoral extreme of big oil.
By framing it as a political issue you are looking at it from a rather stupid angle, but a lot of money and a lot of effort was consumed to get the Party faithful to ignore reality and look at it in such artificial terms.
I suggest use your own reasoning skills instead of looking at it in such terms - you are going to be more use all around, even to the "tribe" that currently thinks ignoring reality is a nice little vote winning game, if you are prepared to look at issues of physical reality in physical terms instead of fantasy. Not even Nixon would have fallen for this shit. Thatcher, as conservative as Reagan, took the side of reality over the stupid denial game. She showed that you can be conservative without stupid tilting at windmills. I suggest you take that example and be something other than a person posting suggestions that we should just vote our way out of the problem and it will vanish by magic, such suggestions inspire only anger, pity, hilarity and despair that the education system has failed to provide a sufficient bullshit detector.
To head off the most stupid type of response, that of shooting the messenger - I'm no Democrat and don't give a shit about Al Gore - but as I wrote above thinking of this as a political issue is stupid.
Try to get past the simple-minded "science goooood, religion baaaad" tribal signalling here
You are perpetuating that not the other posters. To use a very simple mathematical analogy science and religion are different axes in the way to describe existence. Action versus motivation. Evolution does not disprove God, it maybe just suggests that God didn't die or bugger off after a week of creation.
However if a religion is weak enough to be harmed by scientific knowlege it probably is very bad, but for reasons that have nothing at all to do with science. A Pope that wouldn't take any lip from an old classmate that was calling him stupid was where the heliocentric model annoyed the Church, not the actual science itself. There's some very authoritarian pentacostals and similar around that wish to be the final authority on everything - hence their problem with science and people like Dawkins, Suzuki etc having problems with them.
If some screaming twenty year old was preaching hate against your entire profession how would you take it? That was the lot of the evolutionary biologists, the geologists and now most of the sciences.
Doesn't hold water. Ever heard of "render unto Caeser" and all that other stuff about religion not being everything? Then there's all the ancient Greek stuff - they were not so stupid as to dump everything in with religion, it takes modern idiots to make that mistake. So why are you pretending to be an idiot? Surely you know enough about religion or enough about science to not make the mistake for real?
Eyes on the job just costs more. Plus, the originals were "bespoke" by your yardstick as well.
It would be very cruel to compare a one-off item like a space probe to your Toyota crack - do I really have to go there or do you get the idea that you can have quality without full automation?
So you are calling for data but shifting the goalposts to a time where not much data is available? Do you do children's parties or are you only a clown online?
China is stopping it itself for the same reason we did - people are choking on high levels of pollution. They have a long way to go but have made a start.
You want to find the culprit you follow the money, and the money is huge, it is vast, it is not being monitored and it's being spent like they can print it for free on paper. Which is just what they are doing. It's a shell game, played by liars, to rob the suckers - which is you, folks.
That is what this is about - taking legal action to slow down the vast amount of money beign used to push the science denial line. Extremely funny that you got it backwards. Were you brainwashed by the PR or are you a good Party comrade?
I had all the stuff I needed to do that at the University I went to in the 1980s. Other places do as well. Plus, these are not the modern turbine blades and are more similar to the ones used in the sort of gas turbines used to generate electricity. There are a lot of places that are making those.
I would argue that is is next to impossible for a small, bespoke operation to deliver components with the same level of quality as a large scale production process
You are getting quality and price mixed up. Less automation does not imply a reduction in quality, only lower standards of acceptance imply a reduction of quality. There were only ever twenty Concordes, built at more than one site, so the originals were "a small, bespoke operation" in the first place anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't answer my question yet you are going on about reading comprehension?
I'd better add - remember the guy got into film with "Roger and Me" to tell his personal story and how the car industry decline fit into it. He's an activist that makes films and not a traditional documentary maker. It's a polemic not something going into depth about a topic. Despite that he's still far more trustworthy than many in politics, but do not forget that he is also in politics, so holding him to the same standard as a journalist is a bit strange.
To think this does not merit a full "back of the bus" racial Godwin? If that's what clueless is these days you angry little virgins can keep whatever pathetic little clue you think you've found.
It's a summer camp not racial segregation FFS!
It blatantly fails the reality test to compare entire economies to PR money and pretend the entire economy is funding the science. Only someone incredibly stupid would take such bait and believe it, so I'm willing to bet you are fishing instead of being an idiot who got caught. Are you really that stupid? I don't believe it. You are probably here to groom the kiddies for The Party or here for an argument. Which one is it? Should I call you Comrade of The Party or a useful idiot?
Pretty fucking disgusting either way.
You are just kidding yourself and seeing local swirls of activity as a pattern that is not really there. Yes, some people liked geeks, but society as a whole never really thought much of us.
He makes movies in the USA - but I'm just repeating you.
With respect, Heston was famous/infamous for that quote before the movie so anyone that did not know that before watching it on first release was living under a rock - I think it he was even quoted on the Simpsons long before Columbine. It's obvious that he's got footage from several appearances of Heston from previous years, he's noticably younger, and there is really nothing to suggest that the viewer is supposed to think that it was all current with the production of the movie. Turning up at Heston's place to taunt him was a bit of a dick move on Moore's part and discredited the film a bit, but putting multiple appearances of Heston in the film was not. Heston did say what he said. Only people looking at it with no idea about the subject will get fooled the way you are suggesting Moore is "tricking" people.
Keeping other people away from the stuff we want them to leave alone or we want to grab. War for the sake of killing people alone is almost always "ethnic cleansing".
It taught us that 1920s electricity infrastructure shouldn't be in use in one of the richest cities on the planet - wet wood in contact with high voltage is a bad idea and the inevitable fires happened.
Funny thing is I know a transmission guy who said "I told you so" based on what he said in the 1960s. Fifty years later that shit was still in service and it burned.
Wow! The only reason this is happening is because we've managed to fuck things up badly enough over the last two decades that we effectively have boys only computer camps currently.
Do you go full "Dan's Brown's Body" for girls schools as well or do you reserve such an extreme reaction for computer camps?
Do you know what you are doing here or have you been fooled into parroting such bullshit as your goalpost shift to a time where very little data is available?
Either way Pogo, you are spreading blatant lies to corrupt the kiddies for short term political ends. Are you one of those catamites in a political office getting paid to "work in social media" or do you spread misinformation as a hobby?
They stopped all new approvals of new construction a couple of years ago and that is worrying nations that are trying to sell coal to them. The methane stuff is happening far slower than in the US.
Come off it - you are nowhere near that stupid.
Neither are the people poking holes, but they can do things like put together Sudoko puzzles.
I'm astonished that a denier pulled the "they are not experts" card. Isn't the game played that everyone can pretend that they know more than a climate expert? Four years as an Economist and no published papers apparently trumps hundreds of thousands of years of experts experience from an entire field.
It's not a political problem that will go away if a different "tribe" takes charge.
The problem here is PART of one "tribe" decided to use it to define a point of difference and attract donor money. Denial is the toxic waste of using money from Enron, Saudis etc to get into the White House - not just big oil but the fucking insane and amoral extreme of big oil.
By framing it as a political issue you are looking at it from a rather stupid angle, but a lot of money and a lot of effort was consumed to get the Party faithful to ignore reality and look at it in such artificial terms.
I suggest use your own reasoning skills instead of looking at it in such terms - you are going to be more use all around, even to the "tribe" that currently thinks ignoring reality is a nice little vote winning game, if you are prepared to look at issues of physical reality in physical terms instead of fantasy. Not even Nixon would have fallen for this shit. Thatcher, as conservative as Reagan, took the side of reality over the stupid denial game. She showed that you can be conservative without stupid tilting at windmills. I suggest you take that example and be something other than a person posting suggestions that we should just vote our way out of the problem and it will vanish by magic, such suggestions inspire only anger, pity, hilarity and despair that the education system has failed to provide a sufficient bullshit detector.
To head off the most stupid type of response, that of shooting the messenger - I'm no Democrat and don't give a shit about Al Gore - but as I wrote above thinking of this as a political issue is stupid.
You are perpetuating that not the other posters. To use a very simple mathematical analogy science and religion are different axes in the way to describe existence. Action versus motivation. Evolution does not disprove God, it maybe just suggests that God didn't die or bugger off after a week of creation.
However if a religion is weak enough to be harmed by scientific knowlege it probably is very bad, but for reasons that have nothing at all to do with science. A Pope that wouldn't take any lip from an old classmate that was calling him stupid was where the heliocentric model annoyed the Church, not the actual science itself. There's some very authoritarian pentacostals and similar around that wish to be the final authority on everything - hence their problem with science and people like Dawkins, Suzuki etc having problems with them.
If some screaming twenty year old was preaching hate against your entire profession how would you take it? That was the lot of the evolutionary biologists, the geologists and now most of the sciences.
Doesn't hold water. Ever heard of "render unto Caeser" and all that other stuff about religion not being everything? Then there's all the ancient Greek stuff - they were not so stupid as to dump everything in with religion, it takes modern idiots to make that mistake. So why are you pretending to be an idiot? Surely you know enough about religion or enough about science to not make the mistake for real?
I could if that was happening, but it is not is it?
The issue here is "paid for" speech instead of free speech.
Eyes on the job just costs more.
Plus, the originals were "bespoke" by your yardstick as well.
It would be very cruel to compare a one-off item like a space probe to your Toyota crack - do I really have to go there or do you get the idea that you can have quality without full automation?
So you are calling for data but shifting the goalposts to a time where not much data is available?
Do you do children's parties or are you only a clown online?
China is stopping it itself for the same reason we did - people are choking on high levels of pollution. They have a long way to go but have made a start.
That is what this is about - taking legal action to slow down the vast amount of money beign used to push the science denial line.
Extremely funny that you got it backwards. Were you brainwashed by the PR or are you a good Party comrade?
I had all the stuff I needed to do that at the University I went to in the 1980s. Other places do as well. Plus, these are not the modern turbine blades and are more similar to the ones used in the sort of gas turbines used to generate electricity. There are a lot of places that are making those.
You are getting quality and price mixed up. Less automation does not imply a reduction in quality, only lower standards of acceptance imply a reduction of quality.
There were only ever twenty Concordes, built at more than one site, so the originals were "a small, bespoke operation" in the first place anyway.
The ones in the Concorde do not operate at as high a temperature and were easier to make.
The monocrystalline ones came in later.