Pangloss

Is that the best you all can do? Poke fun of a misguided poster instead of straightening him out with courtesy and science? Try again, please. Insane Alien started in the right direction in the first paragraph of post #7. Please continue in that vein.

Interesting. Why don't we limit this to structural achievements, just for the sake of discussion? They hold the most direct visual alignment with the historic "wonders of the world" phrase. I would say those islands off the coast of Dubai would probably count.

Speaking of persistent straw men, there's the progressive version right there. Problems exist in spite of huge advancements, therefore that must automatically mean that we haven't "progressed" far enough to the left. Everyone who disagress is "15 years behind the times". Because, don't you know, every sane and intelligent person on the planet has agreed on the issue of gun control for 15 years now....

Well ok then, how do you feel that relates to vegan objections to meat consumption?

I wonder if he has a limbic system.....

PBS Frontline has produced what looks to be another classic documentary. This one, entitled "News War", is a four-part series by former 60 Minutes legend Lowell ("Al Pacino Played Me in 'The Insider'") Bergman, which looks at the current crisis in the news industry and focuses on where it may be going. Understand -- I find it unlikely that I will entirely agree with his conclusions. It's pretty obvious that he'll blame political extremism and partisanship and probably land most of the blame on the right wing, but even more to the point, he won't show us the side of the news industry that has been contributing to its own demise, focused as it is on politically correct and demogogic memes that bear so little semblance to reality that it's no wonder corporations are demanding that they show a profit. But he is the absolute master of his craft, and he does have a point, which is that the media is very much under fire, and that harms us all. So the series will be very much worth watching. The first episode, which focused mainly on the Bush administration's relationship with the press and other recent media-driven political issues, aired this week, and is available for viewing online here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/view/ Episodes 2-4 will air over the next three weeks, and will also be placed online at the same site. Each episode focuses on a different aspect of the "news war".

Still hoping for some math on this.

I don't know the answer, but you might point out to your friend that we're also losing mass due to atmospheric attrition into space.

True, but we won't be seeing that particular breed for a few billion years!

This is getting a little ridiculous. What, animals use "animal math" and "animal physics" now? Well hell, how do we know they don't WANT to be eaten? Maybe in "animal medicine" that actually heals them rather than killing them! Rationalizing an anti-meat ideology by saying that other animals are just a different kind of 'intelligent' is like rationalizing creationism by saying God may well have created the universe and just put all that "science stuff" in place for us to discover just to test us. Falsifiability sucks when it cuts into a beleif that's politically correct, don't it.

Surfing on a river using dynamite? Is this real or fake? I was hoping someone here could give me the actual math. http://video.tinypic.com/player.php?v=2nip17r

I support your right to petition and enact legislation and attempt to control your neighborhood. I just don't think it means anything about society on a larger plane. If that kind of growth is so obscene, why wasn't it obscene when it produced the need for the fields and dairy farming that supported the neighborhood you moved into?

Yup, it is certainly possible to supercharge and turbocharge, and there have been a number of examples. It's all about getting the most power from the engine without making it larger. The main reason why you don't see either approach more often is that both have an adverse impact on fuel efficiency, and require additional maintenance and engineering. They add cost to a vehicle that may simply not be necessary. Your typical buyer is looking for a specific performance envelope (whether they know it or not), and the car may be able to meet that envelope without the additional complications of super/turbo-charging. New engine technology is constantly improving power output per given displacement without the need for these "outside the block" approaches (such as variable valve timing, gasoline-direct injection, etc). And remember, most new cars come with long-term warranties these days. But they're certainly still part of the modern automotive engineering repetoire. And both continue to be developed. The newest Corvettes have supercharged V8 engines, if memory serves. And the general just put out a new turbocharged 4-cylinder motor that uses an interesting twin-scroll design that reduces the notorious "turbo lag" to almost nothing (they're getting a whopping 130hp/liter out of that engine!). This is interesting given that BMW just introduced a new twin-turbo engine (in the 335i) that uses the traditional approach of having a lower stage for low-end (stoplight) boost and an upper stage for high-end (highway) boost. That same engine also uses gasoline-direct injection and advanced computer control, yet they went with a more traditional turbo design. I haven't read enough yet to know if that was a matter of marketing or engineering.

That's an interesting example, and IMO another example of what I'm talking about above. BBM promulgated the exact same "male fear of homosexuality" stereotype as this commercial, but I sure didn't hear any complaints from GLAAD then. (Interesting movie, btw.) This just underscores my point about ideological and partisan agendas of special interest groups. Their problem wasn't with the commercial, it was with the commercial's source. Like white people using the N word versus black people using it.

Why?

Hydrogen is a finite resource too, you know. There's only so much of it in the universe, and then what're you gonna do, beg for more?! ;-) You know, my wife and I are sea kayakin', bike-ridin' nuts. We're out in the mangroves all the time, and right now we're training for an annual 2-day 150 mile bike ride to the Keys for Muscular Distrophy. I was also an Eagle Scout, and I think I know a thing or two about being "in harmony with nature". But sue me -- I also like driving. A lot! I drive a little two-seat convertible with about 300 horsepower, which weighs about 3,000 lbs, and does 0-60mph in about five seconds. What's interesting about that is that 40 years ago the exact same power-to-weight ratio got you to sixty almost two seconds slower. What's REALLY interesting is that I get almost thirty miles per gallon of gas. AND all of that on vastly decreased emissions. The point is the system of awareness and feedback is working. And along the way we learn more science and engineering, not to mention having a hell of a lot of fun behind the wheel. What's not to like? Not only are we having our cake and eating it too, but the system actually feeds back upon itself and drives further cake-eating down the line. Throwing that away would be like asking for Tang without the Apollo program. Driving's not everyone's cup of tea? That's cool -- don't drive. I'll pay your bus fare on April 15th (the same time when I get to pay for North Korea to shut off its nukyular reactor), AND I'll do my part to keep the innovation machine innovating by continuing to drive. Hey, it's a fair deal for me too -- one less car in front of me at the next light! (PS, if you run over a baseball cap in one of those potholes, it's probably mine. Darn things keep flying off!)

Oh no question light pollution is awful. I thought it was awful 20 years ago when I was serious about amateur astronomy, but it seems to be even worse today. I haven't seen any recent numbers, but it's really sad given that it's much easier to control than air pollution. I've noticed that we seem to have moved from the dreaded mercury vapor street lighting to sodium-based systems, but they're woefully short on hoods. But anyway, Sisyphus I really do agree with much of what you're saying above, and I appreciate the clarification -- if you say you're not trying to exchange one form of uniformity (urban) for another (suburban) then I believe you. Certainly diversity is possible even in close quarters. But I don't think I can buy the following premise: I think that's an assumption that may not turn out to match the facts if we simply buckle down and give it our best. It's also predicated on another assumption that the current level of energy consumption must be reduced in order to protect the land. I'm not sure I buy that one either. Maybe I'm just an optimist, but to respond to Norman's post above, MY idea of an "harmonious future" involves mankind paying attention to its impact on the land, but doing so in a smart and realistic manner, not being afraid to do a little damage along the way if it can learn something in the process, but not abusing that priviledge by doing damage and then not learning anything.

Of course not, I simply say that there has been an impact. Even if it's only a few percentage points here and there, every little bit helps. I live in "exurbia", but I can't remember the last time I went to a shopping mall or a video rental place, and I only drive to work three days out of seven. Granted my story isn't typical, and traffic is still growing rather than shrinking, but how much more would it have grown by if not for the rise of telecommuting and internet shopping? There has been some impact. Sure. But I get the impression from your last couple of posts that if we all drove vehicles that somehow miraculously didn't use energy at all, you would still hate "Exurbia" because of the land usage. Never mind the fact that the cities you want us all to live in (whether we want to or not) are often decrepit eyesores and the most eggregious abusers of nature/land. And to be blunt, I get the impression that you'd hate "exurbia" even if it didn't use land in a way you deem undesirable. This seems to be more about social issues, about everyone frequenting the same coffee shops and sipping the same lattes and criticizing the same politicians, not about land or energy usage. But hey, maybe I'm reading you wrong. And produces tremendous amounts of light and heat. And utterly destroys any natural value that land those cities are sitting on may have once had. Wheras the same population spread out in an intelligent and conservation-oriented manner might be less destructive and lower in energy consumption. My "exurbia" neighborhood has wetlands retention, water filtration, wildlife preservation, and a lower albedo and surface coverage (pave-over) than any urban area in the country. The natural value of the land I live on is not only preserved, it's accessible to everyone who lives here (not to mention all the urbanites who flock out here every weekend to play in it). I wouldn't see any of that if I lived downtown. But hey, I could walk from my generic apartment box down hot, paved streets to the local socially-approved coffee shop to sip that latte and speculate as to why anybody would be crazy enough to live in "exurbia". I guess cities have that going for 'em. Yup.

I don't know what that means.

No worries. You've probably heard of some of the actors who got started there: John Belushi, Gilda Radner, Eddie Murphy, Dan Ackroyd, Al Franken, Phil Hartman, Will Farrell, Chris Farley, etc. It's been a very popular show here in a number of different years (though not so much at the moment). SNL is very much a marketing mechanism, in much the same vein as MTV. Saturday Night Live is owned and operated on a for-profit basis by two of the largest corporations in the world. And the Ambiguously Gay Duo is only one of many gay-oriented sketches that appear (at least to me) to cross exactly the same line that GLAAD says Mars crossed. And yet... no objections to SNL. Not to the Ambiguously Gay Duo. Not to "Here Comes Pat", an androgenous character that was very popular in the 1990s (and was even made into a movie). Not to a host of other similar characters over the years. Because it's a live production, SNL probably has the best-looking high-definition picture on the planet. Its sketches are specifically designed to respond to current events from the past week (specifically), and guest "hosts" and musical talent are specifically chosen for their current, immediate, record-selling and movie ticket-selling appeal. If you have a big movie in the theater or a platinum album, your agent is on the phone with representatives from General Electric and Vivendi. I know that's not stuff that you're personally familiar with, but surely GLAAD has known this all along. Also I remind you of your first post, when you said (quite consistently, for which you are to be applauded): So then we agree that GLAAD is focusing on one type of anti-gay social commentary rather than another. In your opinion that's beacuse of specific content differences. In my opinion it's because of pro-left, anti-right political agenda. That's just my two bits on it, of course, but I think I've made a prima facie case for inconsistency in their basic approach.

This is where we part company. I think that's pushing one specific social method due to ideological concerns that have little connection with energy use and land management. I think we can be spread out and be efficient, especially in the Internet age. Also I'm not convinced that urban packing is in itself more efficient in energy usage. And I don't think land has to be public in order to be preserved -- private ownership isn't evil, and it's going to happen (possibly even more so) if we're all packed together in cities. Gotta watch those PC cliches -- sometimes they bite back.

Maybe I'm just confused, but that sure seems mighty interpretive. Sure a thousand people with a million bucks is better than one persion with a billion. But a thousand people with a billion is better still. A widening gap could mean either thing. Why assume it's the bad thing?

Norman: I believe it's over 300 million now. There was a news story about that recently, but I can't recall at the moment when it was. No, I agree, it's not a liberal vs conservative issue, in terms of people having legitimate concerns.

Where do you think political correctness originates? It always starts off as "valid reaction to misinterpretation", or some other such justification. But I think it's reasonable to say that sometimes the reaction is worse than the original action. I don't know if you guys get Saturday Night Live over in the UK, but it's a long-running comedy series here in the US, which has been running for well over 30 years. Its roots lie at the very heart of the liberal media establishment in this country, counting amongst its alumni some of the most liberal entertainers in the business. And yet they air cartoons and sketches like this, and nobody complains: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ambiguously_Gay_Duo Heck they're making a *live action movie* out of that one. But if you look at that Wikipedia article you won't find one iota of criticm from GLAAD or anybody else. Why not? I think the problem here is not so much the joke, but from whence it came. If liberal entertainers say it, it's okay. If giant mega-corporations say it, it's bad. It's just like modern use of the "N" word -- presumption of guilt based on the origin of the utterance. (Note that I'm not talking about your opinion personally, I'm talking about GLAAD, etc.)