"The comforts and safety that you describe, are exactly the kinds of suburban trapping that give us the illusion that ours is the ideal life. Take away electricity, transport, water service and supermarket food supply and like the majority of suburban dwelling people on this planet, we're up the creek. That's not freedom-it's a thinly veiled dependence on a system that is in the throws of downfall. }

Naturally (no pun intended), I disagree with you on this assessment. A civilized society is far more resilient and able to recover from all types of disasters (man-made and natural) than a nomadic civilization has ever been at any time in history. Do you have any idea of the kind of destructive effort it would take to completely wipe out the power grid, uproot every road that has been paved, root out the entire plumbing network buried underground? The only point that I agree with you on is the far larger dependence upon food that massive (and they are truly massive compared to hunter-gatherers) civilizations have. But as I pointed out in my first post food is now a global industry, so again you are limited to world ending catastrophes when it comes finding enough firepower to bring down modern civilizations.

"As far as freedom to move goes, I think the fact that if you step outside your door and walk into your neighbor's yard without permission, you're considered trespassing, shows how hemmed-in we really are. So long as we are paid customers, we have a right to be somewhere, otherwise we'd better stick to public places, or face the consequences."

Personally, I think that literal direction freedom is a paltry definition of what true freedom really is. I will gladly take the paved road and all those "restrictions" for all the benefits that I get from having that taken space actively and productively contributing to the advancement and well-being of humanity. I will drive around a massive hospital that's blocking me from going "as the crow flies" quicker than a crow can fly.

Every inch of space that is denied to me is in some way indirectly or directly contributing. Can you say that a plain of scrubs and rocks is providing the same amount of benefits to nomads as they walk in whatever direction they want over it? What about cumulatively?

"If you want to know how free you really are, try doing something really outrageous or subversive and see how many people are ready to block you. Try walking 10,000 km across your country, camping out where there's a drinkable water supply, for starters..."

Let me ask you a question then, why did you walk 10,000km in any direction? What was your goal? Did you need food, water, because you could? What tangible benefit have you derived from the endeavor you just undertook?

If you are so "truly" free why can't you walk to the Moon?

The comforts and safety that you describe, are exactly the kinds of suburban trapping that give us the illusion that ours is the ideal life. Take away electricity, transport, water service and supermarket food supply and like the majority of suburban dwelling people on this planet, we're up the creek. That's not freedom-it's a thinly veiled dependence on a system that is in the throws of downfall.

As far as freedom to move goes, I think the fact that if you step outside your door and walk into your neighbour's yard without permission, you're considered trespassing, shows how hemmed-in we really are. So long as we are paid customers, we have a right to be somewhere, otherwise we'd better stick to public places, or face the consequences.

If you want to know how free you really are, try doing something really outrageous or subversive and see how many people are ready to block you. Try walking 10,000 km across your country, camping out where there's a drinkable water supply, for starters...

Babelfish translation of original description:

Wire Artistic director 
 
: 
 David 
 Derouet 
 
 
 
 
 

Originator 
 Writer 
: 
 Emmanuel 
 of 
 Dieuleveult 
 
 

Production COSA Realization: JANDJ Technology 
: 

Uses/Aquascript 


With l' occasion of the World Day of l' Water, BDDP Unlimited, International partner of ONG Solidarity, specialized in the cover of the vital needs (of which the water supply), created an event new general public: for better surprising the passers by, l' arranges imagined a poster d' a new kind, using l' directly; water like media. An event-driven water wall was installed in full heart of Paris and delivered during one week of the messages causing the awakening of the passers by on the damage caused by not-drinkable water in the world.

I can think of a few reasons for bottled water to exist. Primary reason I buy it is when I work outside or at different locations, you can be reasonably sure the water isn't going to make you sick.

I've been to jobs where the water coming out of the hose on their house smelled like rotten eggs, made me queasy just from the smell. And if you work anywhere commercial you can't even be reasonably sure that the water they are pumping through their building is even considered drinkable unless it comes straight from a drinking fountain. One place actually had it's own system to mix liquid fertilizer into the water supply and pumping it through the building...one day it'd be pure water, one day it'd be a blue-green color. Had to use water for the equipment and to clean up, but I never trust drinking water at any location because I'd rather not get a stomach bug from it..or worse.

As for places where the water is SUPPOSED to be drinkable, like public parks, schools, etc. Drinking from water fountains when you watch people spit on it openly, or look like they are trying to deep throat the water nozzle, or have their kids who were just playing with dog shit run up and rub their unwashed hands all over it. Then imagine what people do that drinking fountain/sink/whatever when it's dark out and people can't easily see them.

I know my reasons for drinking bottled water...they don't necessarily exclude tap water. But it's easier to buy the bottles, stick em in a cooler with ice and be good for the rest of the day. Used to do the big water cooler setup, fill it up from a known clean tap water source..wash it out every day (it got pretty nasty in just a days period from the ice, dirty hands, and just dirt/dust). Then you had to worry about cups or something else to drink out of.......and after having a few co-workers who were just nasty. IE fill up their cup without even attempting to clean or cover their dirty hands while they did it...or drinking out of other people's cups because they wouldn't pay attention. I stopped doing that.

So, if your reason for drinking bottled water is because you don't trust other people not to get ass matter and worse all over the handles and spout of water spigots, etc....then I understand.

What the fuck are you saying? You think "cost" is a meaningless word?

"Cost" is nothing more than a way of measuring the resources required to produce a product or service. If 100% of our time and effort is spent on health care, who produces the food we -also- need? Or is that also just indoctrination? Maybe we don't really need food, shelter or drinkable water.

"Cost should not even be considered" is a nice soundbite, but give it any thought and it's clear that it can't possibly work in the larger picture. As a simple example, let's assume that a new treatment is discovered that would completely cure heart disease. It only requires the complete output of one million people for several years to treat someone. The soundbite would say that such a treatment should be given to everyone...totally ignoring the fact that it's simply not physically possible.

>> ^ReverendTed:
>> ^Duckman33:
Estimates now say 100,000 dead...
The last estimates I heard were now at around 45,000-50,000.

Still a catastrophic loss of life, and if the lack of infrastructure continues to stymie aid efforts, particularly the distribution of clean water and medical treatment, there will be a considerable number of secondary deaths from untreated injuries and eventually lack of drinkable water and basic sanitation.
And that is to say nothing of the potential for civil unrest as individuals are driven to desperation.
The reports that I've heard (NPR, mainly) suggest that people are currently remarkably calm and acting in the spirit of neighbor-helping-neighbor, but with areas of the city still not receiving any organized aid a full two days after the quake, it might be a question of how much longer that can last.


Well it was CNN reporting 100k at the time I posted that comment. Take it for what it's worth.

>> ^Duckman33:
Estimates now say 100,000 dead...
The last estimates I heard were now at around 45,000-50,000.


Still a catastrophic loss of life, and if the lack of infrastructure continues to stymie aid efforts, particularly the distribution of clean water and medical treatment, there will be a considerable number of secondary deaths from untreated injuries and eventually lack of drinkable water and basic sanitation.
And that is to say nothing of the potential for civil unrest as individuals are driven to desperation.
The reports that I've heard (NPR, mainly) suggest that people are currently remarkably calm and acting in the spirit of neighbor-helping-neighbor, but with areas of the city still not receiving any organized aid a full two days after the quake, it might be a question of how much longer that can last.

Cenk kinda falls apart with the "why global warming is bad" thing, but mostly it's concerns about negative effects on the amount of: farmland, access to drinkable water, biodiversity in ecologies everywhere, sea levels, and the overall stability of weather itself.

Incidentally, I'm sure Doocy wasn't joking about how lame the Republican claims of "global cooling" were when it was pretty much short-sleeve weather through November and well into December this year.

We'll be waaaay past the point of no return if it ever fails to get cold in winter, especially in the northern midwest.

*eco

America's Test Kitchen covered sangria -- here's an excerpt

Many people mistake sangria for an unruly collection of fruit awash in a sea of overly sweetened red wine. There's also the premade sangria sold in liquor stores, which is at once sugary, watery, and flavorless--a poor substitute for Hi-C.
The Goal

A robust, sweet-tart punch.
The Solution

Start with cheap red wine, which actually makes a better sangria than the expensive stuff. (Experts told us that the sugar and fruit called for in sangria throw off the balance of any wine used, so why spend a lot on something that was carefully crafted?)We experimented with untold varieties of fruit to put in our sangria and finally concluded that simpler is better. We preferred the straightforward tang of citrus in the form of oranges and lemons. And we discovered that the zest and pith as well as the fruit itself make an important contribution to flavor. Orange liqueur is standard in recipes for sangria, and after experimenting we found that here, as with the wine, cheaper was just fine, this time in the form of Triple Sec. Fortification with any other alcoholic beverage, from gin to port to brandy, simply gave the punch too much punch. What we wanted, and what we now had, was a light, refreshing, very drinkable drink.

Here's the recipe -- http://www.recipezaar.com/The-Best-Sangria-64855 . I haven't tried it yet, but it's on my list

rtm = my initials

In reply to this comment by looris:
rtm? read the manual or what?

anyway +eia means *eia without actually doing this.

I said I was tempted to do that because if it's true that fluoride is bad for health, but people add it to drinkable water, if they die, hey, it's evolution baby.

In reply to this comment by qruel:
what does your comment mean ?
"and I'd be tented to +eia too"

rtm

In reply to this comment by looris:
*politics
and I'd be tented to +eia too