How can you be conservation oriented and not hate SUVs? In the course of their ordinary usage (sitting in traffic while dropping kids off at the mall), they're grossly inefficient. And they cause far more damage in accidents than their smaller, more efficient counterparts.
You set up a "technology vs. efficiency" dichotomy that doesn't make sense in any context, much less this one. Are you saying that SUVs represent "technology"? Funny, I would say they epitomize self-absorbed consumerism at its worst.
Well, hardcore gamer "nerds" may be a small part of the entire gamer's market. But I think that a "Video Game Awards" type of show would disproportionately appeal to the nerdy gamers. I just don't see the guys who get together with their friends for a game of Madden or Halo devoting a night to a video game awards ceremony.
Also, if Average Joe doesn't have time for an "in depth analysis" of some games, then why is he watching a 2hr show about them?
But on the flip side, I differ that with the original poster's irritation about "girls in bikinis" - like they're somehow violating the spirit of a video game awards show. Most video games - especially the ones specifically designed for hardcore gamers - cater to their audience by displaying lots of busty semi-clad females (think Final Fantasy games, Everquest).
I don't appreciate the psychic damage these shows are causing by bombarding kids with overly suggestive sexual imagery, but they're just using the same tricks video game developers are. It sounds like they're representing the industry pretty damn well to me.
I think it's a shame that the political environment is such that the scientists need to pretend there is gold at the end of the rainbow, when the rainbow is so beautiful itself.
I beg to differ. It was a clever turn of phrase, no doubt, but what does it mean to say that "the rainbow is beautiful" in this context? That while the experiments might not yield any practical benefits to the citizens who fund them, they're worthwhile because the scientists sure have a fun time doing them?
I'm fine with a political environment that forces scientists to explain the value of their proposed work in terms of possible benefits to the public (pot of gold), rather than how cool it would be (rainbow). At least lie to me, tell me my tax dollars will eventually allow me to pilot a hover-skateboard:)
Well, when you're talking about nature repairing itself, you're talking about a very delicate balance. And we're altering the balance on both ends.
We are not only adding tremendous amounts of man-made greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, we're also attacking the processes that soak up those gasses. Namely, we're cultivating large amounts of soil (greatly reducing its ability to soak up carbon) and chopping large swathes of forest (which are a huge "sink" and drain tons of carbon from the atmosphere).
So, while the earth may be able to adjust, we have been tampering with a delicate balance in a very serious way. This is why I'm not a big fan of all the solutions to global warming that involve adding more carbon "sinks" instead of pushing for higher emissions efficiency and actually asking people to lessen their glut of consumption.
Well, using your three examples, it's not all that hard to conceptualize the benefits of developing:
(1) interstate transportation of goods and persons (highways);
(2) interstate and international transportation of goods and persons (air travel); and
(3) interstate and international communication (internet).
The programs you mentioned all have an obvious and substantial impact on the citizens that fund their development. If you're accusing others of a lack of *vision*, maybe you could share yours with us. What is the benefit of attempting to send a bunch of guys to Mars, such that it warrants not only cutting existing space programs but an additional appropriation of funds?
Slashdot Mirror
How can you be conservation oriented and not hate SUVs? In the course of their ordinary usage (sitting in traffic while dropping kids off at the mall), they're grossly inefficient. And they cause far more damage in accidents than their smaller, more efficient counterparts. You set up a "technology vs. efficiency" dichotomy that doesn't make sense in any context, much less this one. Are you saying that SUVs represent "technology"? Funny, I would say they epitomize self-absorbed consumerism at its worst.
Well, hardcore gamer "nerds" may be a small part of the entire gamer's market. But I think that a "Video Game Awards" type of show would disproportionately appeal to the nerdy gamers. I just don't see the guys who get together with their friends for a game of Madden or Halo devoting a night to a video game awards ceremony.
Also, if Average Joe doesn't have time for an "in depth analysis" of some games, then why is he watching a 2hr show about them?
But on the flip side, I differ that with the original poster's irritation about "girls in bikinis" - like they're somehow violating the spirit of a video game awards show. Most video games - especially the ones specifically designed for hardcore gamers - cater to their audience by displaying lots of busty semi-clad females (think Final Fantasy games, Everquest).
I don't appreciate the psychic damage these shows are causing by bombarding kids with overly suggestive sexual imagery, but they're just using the same tricks video game developers are. It sounds like they're representing the industry pretty damn well to me.
I think it's a shame that the political environment is such that the scientists need to pretend there is gold at the end of the rainbow, when the rainbow is so beautiful itself.
:)
I beg to differ. It was a clever turn of phrase, no doubt, but what does it mean to say that "the rainbow is beautiful" in this context? That while the experiments might not yield any practical benefits to the citizens who fund them, they're worthwhile because the scientists sure have a fun time doing them?
I'm fine with a political environment that forces scientists to explain the value of their proposed work in terms of possible benefits to the public (pot of gold), rather than how cool it would be (rainbow). At least lie to me, tell me my tax dollars will eventually allow me to pilot a hover-skateboard
Well, when you're talking about nature repairing itself, you're talking about a very delicate balance. And we're altering the balance on both ends.
We are not only adding tremendous amounts of man-made greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, we're also attacking the processes that soak up those gasses. Namely, we're cultivating large amounts of soil (greatly reducing its ability to soak up carbon) and chopping large swathes of forest (which are a huge "sink" and drain tons of carbon from the atmosphere).
So, while the earth may be able to adjust, we have been tampering with a delicate balance in a very serious way. This is why I'm not a big fan of all the solutions to global warming that involve adding more carbon "sinks" instead of pushing for higher emissions efficiency and actually asking people to lessen their glut of consumption.
Well, using your three examples, it's not all that hard to conceptualize the benefits of developing: (1) interstate transportation of goods and persons (highways); (2) interstate and international transportation of goods and persons (air travel); and (3) interstate and international communication (internet). The programs you mentioned all have an obvious and substantial impact on the citizens that fund their development. If you're accusing others of a lack of *vision*, maybe you could share yours with us. What is the benefit of attempting to send a bunch of guys to Mars, such that it warrants not only cutting existing space programs but an additional appropriation of funds?