There’s not a strict definition I’m aware of in common English…but “in sunlight”, in my mind, implies DIRECT sunlight….since that’s not what they mean I find it easily confusing if not deceptive.
“In visible sunlight” is more aptly descriptive, but granted, loses some of the punch.

Also…I see the moon in full daylight, sometimes at noon on sunny days (then I might see an eclipse), and sometimes planets rise just after sunrise or just before sunset…in full sunlight. Come again?

Almost all energy consumed by households is avoidable waste:
* think about the way you fry eggs. 99% of the heat from the burner is going into the air, not into the eggs. This should be solved by using small device that is well insulated on all sides and has an internal heating coil.
* Ovens have a high heat capacity and shitty insulation. More energy is wasted on heating up the oven itself than actually goes into the food. This could be solved by lining the inside of the oven with silica aerogel instead of metal. If an oven is properly insulated it will not feel very warm to the touch on the outside, even after being on for an hour.
* Most of your heating and cooling energy leaks out the windows -- if their inside surface feels significantly above or below ambient during extreme weather, your heating and cooling energy is being wasted and hemorrhaging out the windows. It would literally save energy to have a webcam on the roof and display that image on an LCD inside instead of having windows, if you live in a climate with extreme temperatures (especially in cold climates, as the energy used for the LCD would contribute to heating the house). All ventilation needs can be accomplished through a small portal with a fan (and a heat exchanger, of course).
* Hot water is produced very wastefully by just dumping energy into it instead of using a thermodynamic cycle to transfer heat and produce something cold as a byproduct. Hot water could be co-produced with cold water for AC / Refrigeration much more efficiently than doing them all separately.
* Hot water goes down the drain. This should at least go through a heat exchanger, which would dramatically lessen the amount of work that has to be done to heat up new hot water. A 7 Liter per minute showerhead putting water 30 degrees F above ambient down the drain is wasting over 8135 watts as long as it is running. However, I don't know of any houses yet designed with a heat exchanger between the shower drain water and the intake of the water heater.
* Fluorescent lights. Duh. Incandescent bulbs should be banned.
* Freezers built with the door on the top will waste much less energy to the convection of air when opened, for obvious reasons.

Here ends the lifestyle-neutral list of suggestions. The following would involve sacrificing something:

* Reduce excessive lighting -- if people wouldn't fuck up their retinas by driving just after sunrise or just before sunset, or seeing specular reflections of the sun on shiny cars and buildings outdoors, they wouldn't need such bright lights indoors. A 1 watt LED is plenty for reading. Sunlight could be used in the daytime instead of artificial lights.

This is pretty good, though not as awesome as this one from McSweeny's: http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2005/3/4gavaler.html

Man at a video store is trying to rent The Day After Tomorrow, Before Sunset, Seven, After Hours, 48 Hours, Ten, and Before Sunrise

Hilarity ensues.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I found the dialog riveting, well performed and necessary for establishing the characters. The first scene in the farm house which you mentioned was especially good. It introduces you to the character of the Jew Hunter - who is ominous but fascinating.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
Meh, one of my favorite films of all time is "Before Sunset" where there is literally nothing but dialogue. If I wanted to see that amount of chit chat though I would have preferred to get some philosophical perspective out of it. No one wants to watch a movie where the characters are all simply talking about doing something.

Now there are some exceptions, see: Reservoir Dogs and Suicide Kings, but films tied so closely to that kind of writing need to involve the audience (both I mentioned bring the audience in by presenting a sort of mystery or puzzle that needs to be solved). In the case of Inglorious Basterds I felt like I already knew what was going to happen. This probably came from listening to interviews that Tarantino did where he described 'burning down the theater with film,' and 'changing the course of history.' Tense moments were tense but it was mostly a waiting game for me.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Also, for people who didn't like the copious amounts of dialog - I suggest you take a break from first person shooters to help you enjoy the true pleasures of a good movie. It's not about explosions and CGI.

[/grumpy old man]

Meh, one of my favorite films of all time is "Before Sunset" where there is literally nothing but dialogue. If I wanted to see that amount of chit chat though I would have preferred to get some philosophical perspective out of it. No one wants to watch a movie where the characters are all simply talking about doing something.

Now there are some exceptions, see: Reservoir Dogs and Suicide Kings, but films tied so closely to that kind of writing need to involve the audience (both I mentioned bring the audience in by presenting a sort of mystery or puzzle that needs to be solved). In the case of Inglorious Basterds I felt like I already knew what was going to happen. This probably came from listening to interviews that Tarantino did where he described 'burning down the theater with film,' and 'changing the course of history.' Tense moments were tense but it was mostly a waiting game for me.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Also, for people who didn't like the copious amounts of dialog - I suggest you take a break from first person shooters to help you enjoy the true pleasures of a good movie. It's not about explosions and CGI.

[/grumpy old man]

>> ^fissionchips:
>>
Oh, how you titillate. Please do offer us your pearls of wisdom on human relationships.


This scene portrays what appears to me to be a generally selfish approach to "love" and relationships. Delpy's character is entirely self-involved and seems to be more in love with an idea than with the actual human sitting next to her. Hawke's character, too, seems to get off on the adulation and offers very little in terms of an actual relationship with this woman. Both are reprising roles that were played out halfway through the first time they made this movie (before sunrise) and demonstrate how little their characters (and i assume, the actors themselves) evolved or developed in the intervening time. This film appears to be based on platitudes and ideals more than realistic notions of human relationship, and what it means to share a life with another person. Of course, this not soemthing I have ever come close to mastering -- I am saddened, more than anything, when films project platitudes to which to aspire, which seems to me to generate more false-notions (and, consequently, more misery) than it has redeeming value.

my $0.02

>> ^Trancecoach:
trite, cliche, boring, sad, pathetic.

Oh, how you titillate. Please do offer us your pearls of wisdom on human relationships.

I love Julie Delpy. She was awesome in both "Before Sunrise" and "Before Sunset". She even helped write the screen play for the latter with Richard Linklater. A smart, talented, sexy French woman. Oh la la!

"Before Sunset" and "Before Sunrise" were both really good.

And the word "Delpy" has always sounded like an adjective to me.

This movie was fun. If you like it you'll want to check out Before Sunset as well. Whadayaknow, I happen to have a clip on hand.
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-most-intense-scene-from-Before-Sunset