Menu Bar
bryander's Comments
Unanswered Questions Re: How Do They Do It: Recycling Trash
Interesting, and pertinent for me as someone who lives in SF Bay area. Didn't answer my questions about recycling though...
Seems they skipped over plastic--where does it go? What % of it actually ends up going to landfill? How much of what is "recyclable" gets shipped overseas to places with low or no environmental regulation? (Not to mention damage to ocean ecosystem from the millions of bits that somehow go overboard along the way.) Much of the plastic whipping by those guys on the conveyor didn't look like the types that can even be downcycled into other low-grade plastic products.
Was nice to see that Bay Area's capturing a portion of the methane that's given off. But I've gotta wonder what % of landfills across the country are also trying to do this. And how long it'll be before we're harvesting significant amounts for energy production--? (and in the meanwhile how tremendous is the total tonnage emitted of this heat-trapping gas?)
Seems they skipped over plastic--where does it go? What % of it actually ends up going to landfill? How much of what is "recyclable" gets shipped overseas to places with low or no environmental regulation? (Not to mention damage to ocean ecosystem from the millions of bits that somehow go overboard along the way.) Much of the plastic whipping by those guys on the conveyor didn't look like the types that can even be downcycled into other low-grade plastic products.
Was nice to see that Bay Area's capturing a portion of the methane that's given off. But I've gotta wonder what % of landfills across the country are also trying to do this. And how long it'll be before we're harvesting significant amounts for energy production--? (and in the meanwhile how tremendous is the total tonnage emitted of this heat-trapping gas?)
By: bryander
Re: Fifty People, One Question
Hmmm, 47 out of 50 people are disgustingly selfish--this doesn't bode well. Then, maybe the film student chose these folks (among those willing to go on camera) in a shopping district, which could've skewed the result away from being a representative sample.
By: bryander
Re: Touch
Was all ready to give this one star, which I rarely do. Despite the sexiness of rain drops and lighting, the dialog was awful--true but delivery here is everything. Which it turns out was the point0--the ending made it all work. Five stars!
By: bryander
Re: Fox Attacks Obama Like They Did Kerry
I wish I even knew 5 people (to send this to) who are representative of the 51+% of America who lack a single ounce of critical thinking training.
By: bryander
Re: TED Talks: J. Drori, What We Think We Know
I'm utterly amazed that educated people in his audiences couldn't answer these 4 eeeasy questions. I'd not be surprised at all if most people in general are clueless about stuff they don't deal with everyday (or think they need to think about). But science teachers and tv producers? Yikes!
By: bryander
Re: FOX News: Mr. Rogers is an Evil Man
At first I thought this must be satire. But this fox guy doing all the talking--without saying anything new--seems to actually believe he's being serious. Very annoying--I can't fathom why anyone would choose to listen to this blathering doofus.
Discrediting a man who earned several degrees rigorously studying early childhood dev't, and who cared deeply about humanity's future... it's disgusting. I personally wasn't a big fan of Fred's show. But his message--Everyone is Special--is true. And fundamental.
The researcher claiming this message impairs an individual's capacity to work hard to accomplish things in life--either he is making some absurd connections, or the fox guy has failed to grasp what he was saying in the research snippet he saw.
These supposed kids who're arguing for A's without doing their homework--? How many kids is this? If teachers are giving into this nonsense, there's your problem. Being able to appreciate everyone's intrinsic value as a person, and their dignity, are essential for achieving a society of mostly happy people, imho. Working toward goals and finding success in life build from it--it's not like anyone (you'd think) would see it as though it's either one or the other!
Discrediting a man who earned several degrees rigorously studying early childhood dev't, and who cared deeply about humanity's future... it's disgusting. I personally wasn't a big fan of Fred's show. But his message--Everyone is Special--is true. And fundamental.
The researcher claiming this message impairs an individual's capacity to work hard to accomplish things in life--either he is making some absurd connections, or the fox guy has failed to grasp what he was saying in the research snippet he saw.
These supposed kids who're arguing for A's without doing their homework--? How many kids is this? If teachers are giving into this nonsense, there's your problem. Being able to appreciate everyone's intrinsic value as a person, and their dignity, are essential for achieving a society of mostly happy people, imho. Working toward goals and finding success in life build from it--it's not like anyone (you'd think) would see it as though it's either one or the other!
By: bryander
Re: Still Life
This character is a menace. When you find yourself tripping in a town of mannequins, you've still gotta know it's a bad idea to demolish a whole family of em with a baseball bat.
By: bryander
Re: How Do They Do It: Aluminium
interesting that the narrator noted that after land is denuded of its bauxite that it's replanted to encourage return of plants and animals (that survived). I wonder how often this happens--are there laws requiring it? I find it hard to believe that companies struggling to compete with lower-cost, perhaps less-regulated countries like China, would voluntarily spend any add'l % of their revenues.
By: bryander
Re: Fat Albert Cartoon Opening Theme
wow! never noticed the change of paint color on the paintbrush btwn live Bill and cartoon Fat Albert. and I certainly saw this show enough times as a kid.
By: bryander
Re: McCain Graduated Fifth from the Bottom of his Class
I agree completely. Either libertarianism or anarchy would work great, if only everyone could behave with respect and love for others and the planet. And be organized enough to do so without inadvertently causing physical harm.
Govt ultimately has to be what drives the solution--whether it's through raising standards and controls over those it employs, or pulling back and focusing on the fundamentals: public schools, healthcare, clean air & water, and supporting ecosystems so they may continue to support biologic diversity for needs of future generations.
Govt ultimately has to be what drives the solution--whether it's through raising standards and controls over those it employs, or pulling back and focusing on the fundamentals: public schools, healthcare, clean air & water, and supporting ecosystems so they may continue to support biologic diversity for needs of future generations.
By: bryander
Re: Off The Grid with Les Stroud
Yeah, interesting. Was this an abridged version? Some parts seemed out of place and questions left unanswered--like why did they need suddenly to build a second cabin? what happened to the rain-collection system they'd settled on earlier? we learn they'd need to truck in water come winter, but then how'd they been getting water through the prior mos? and how were they suddenly able to drill a well when just prior it was unaffordable and they planned to do (another?) rain collection system?
By: bryander
Re: Daily Show: There Will Be Flood
"This is what happens when you win the White House by wishing on a cursed monkey paw."
By: bryander
Re: Important Info On Low Energy Light Bulbs
you're kidding, right? If no, then the answer is Yes, I'm still for removing what you call a life-giving gas now that I'm "partially educated" reading your post.
1st, carbon isn't a gas. Carbon dioxide, aka CO2, is. I refer to carbon itself because it's the origin of the carbon that's significant to my argument, more than the obvious fact that CO2 is the chief green-house warming gas we're concerned with when we talk about carbon.
If the carbon we're talking about is in the form of cellulose in a tree, that's then chopped down and into logs, that we then burn in a fireplace for heat; that's much different than carbon that's in oil or coal that built up from tens of thousands of years of decaying organic matter. I'm not sure I can do the explanation justice in this quick reply, but here's the gist:
CO2 that's emitted from living creatures and natural processes, along with that emanating from the burning of current plants that store it doesn't change the balance much as far as global warming, b/c the capacity of current biota to respirate these gasses tends to balance with the rest of the ecosystem it supports. For example, if we over-utilized a current carbon source, we'd have insufficient food to eat. (We do over-utilize current carbon sources too--by feeding so much of our crops to animals we then eat for appox = qty of protein with none of the fiber and less of the nutrients--but that's another story.) So CO2 and atmospheric temperature affects tend to stay more in check with one-another.
But when we burn ancient carbon, pulled from deep under ground--at least in the large qties as we do now--the amount of CO2 emitted quickly (in geologic terms) supersedes the biosphere/geosphere's capacity to clear it.
The answer is to change our relationship with the stuff in our lives that waste lots of energy. No, not going back to living in caves. But a more decentralized energy grid mostly oriented around photovoltaics (solar) along with other "freebie" energy generation sources that don't muck up the air, diminish human health, nor shift the climate at a rate that kills off the majority of creatures “in the wild” we appreciate as American Frontiersmen.
You are right about something though--the constitution written before the light-bulb existed, doesn’t say congress can decide what kind we ought buy.
1st, carbon isn't a gas. Carbon dioxide, aka CO2, is. I refer to carbon itself because it's the origin of the carbon that's significant to my argument, more than the obvious fact that CO2 is the chief green-house warming gas we're concerned with when we talk about carbon.
If the carbon we're talking about is in the form of cellulose in a tree, that's then chopped down and into logs, that we then burn in a fireplace for heat; that's much different than carbon that's in oil or coal that built up from tens of thousands of years of decaying organic matter. I'm not sure I can do the explanation justice in this quick reply, but here's the gist:
CO2 that's emitted from living creatures and natural processes, along with that emanating from the burning of current plants that store it doesn't change the balance much as far as global warming, b/c the capacity of current biota to respirate these gasses tends to balance with the rest of the ecosystem it supports. For example, if we over-utilized a current carbon source, we'd have insufficient food to eat. (We do over-utilize current carbon sources too--by feeding so much of our crops to animals we then eat for appox = qty of protein with none of the fiber and less of the nutrients--but that's another story.) So CO2 and atmospheric temperature affects tend to stay more in check with one-another.
But when we burn ancient carbon, pulled from deep under ground--at least in the large qties as we do now--the amount of CO2 emitted quickly (in geologic terms) supersedes the biosphere/geosphere's capacity to clear it.
The answer is to change our relationship with the stuff in our lives that waste lots of energy. No, not going back to living in caves. But a more decentralized energy grid mostly oriented around photovoltaics (solar) along with other "freebie" energy generation sources that don't muck up the air, diminish human health, nor shift the climate at a rate that kills off the majority of creatures “in the wild” we appreciate as American Frontiersmen.
You are right about something though--the constitution written before the light-bulb existed, doesn’t say congress can decide what kind we ought buy.
By: bryander
American Heritage Dictionary
mav·er·ick (m?v'?r-?k, m?v'r?k)
n.
1. An unbranded range animal...
2. One that refuses to abide by the dictates of or resists adherence to a group; a dissenter.