I would start by saying that all Star Trek is rubbish.

It's got this built-in level of crapness that you have to tolerate if you end up as a fan. I actually view Voyager as a great guilty pleasure and the others can go hang apart from the TOS which at least was good old campy fun.

TNG was utter drivel for it's first three seasons and that's a long time these days. Even after that it was dull and only intermittently exciting. No way a show would last that long now. I just thank the folks who made BSG and proving that intelligent, entertaining SF can be made and broadcast.

Enterprise was the lowest of the low - it couldn't maintain it's low-tech premise (weren't they resorting to transporters even in the first episode!?) and it looked like they had no idea what they wanted to do with it apart from recycle the standard Trek premise. And the characters were uniformly forgettable. Even pineapple head in Voyager trumped them.

After I saw Carousel, mentioned above, I wondered how they did stuff like this... and then I found out, and most of it is very low tech. All the people stand or hang around very still during the shot. If anyone is in a position they can't get them in, they use a dummy and cgi the face/head on later.

A lot of the larger items in mid flight are hung by fishing line (removed later in post), and most of the small stuff is digital.

So, it's taking low tech: people being still and things being hung around on wire, and mixing it with high tech: removal of lines, adding of particles for cool end result.

But... Carousel is WAY cooler as it has an awesome twist in the story it tells.

a low-tech fake! at 0:30, you can clearly see the blue bottle "magically" re-appear in the guy's hand. the bottle in the bush was already there before she swung.

OMG this is full of some complete and utter retardation that undermines the general correct points of the video. I cant belvie that sum one could go to all this effort and yet be so dence. especially when you don't Evan need to use fallacious arguments to make your point.

she goes on about planed obsolescence (which im sure dose happen with Manny products) but then goes on to sight computer chips as an example, the simple fact is it would actually be nigh imposable to build faster computer parts without actually changing the architecture. allso its fairly common knowlage that the processor is not the only part of a PC u can upgrade to make it faster there are Manny ways you can upgrade a pc at little cost and for big results. if you consider that PCS are probably one of the fastest areas of technological growth the fact that u can maintain a pc for 3+ years easily is remercable and more than good enough evidence to counter her clams.

she should have instead attacked maby the I phone that could have far more storage space at little cost but dose not simply so apple can bring out a new i phone with more space and use that to persuade people to buy it. there are also many other low tech items that im sure she could have made a piont out of , but no.

she dos not actually present capitalism fairly at all. if you want to win with an ideological view point you cannot miss portray the other side . if you do this people will simply reolise this and think everything you say is full of shit.

personally i think consumption and capitalism as it is now is compleaty mucked up and needs to be fixed, whats annoying is this video could have been so much better (and ohnist) with so little effort.

That's actually a pretty clever low-tech solution to perfectly folding a shirt. I'm not anal enough to want my shirts folded that perfectly, but it's still kind of neat.

*engineering

bad taste is truly a wonderful example of exception amateur film making.
Made for (literally) no money, over several years. Peter Jackson shot this entirely on a single camera. Did all the make-up, special effects (which are low tech, but work). and even made all the replica guns himself.

On top of that, it's also suprisingly well directed.

I love bad taste, more than any of his other films until LOTR.

If I am accused me of polemics, I stand guilty as charged. But not without reason.

http://www.hennesseyingalls.com/hennessey/product.asp?dept_id=4155&pf_id=PAAAIADJFEHOJHBD&ad_id=froogle&key_id=BigandGreenTowardSustainableArchitectur
einthe21stCentury
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_architecture
http://www.wisebread.com/sustainable-architecture-and-design-a-book-review-of-living-homes
http://www.need.org/needpdf/infobook_activities/IntInfo/ConsI.pdf
http://www.wastewater.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_architecture
http://www.wisebread.com/sustainable-architecture-and-design-a-book-review-of-living-homes
http://cgi.ebay.com/Sustainable-Architecture-Low-Tech-Houses_W0QQitemZ170127281000QQihZ007QQcategoryZ378QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem?refid=store
http://www.cleancars.nh.gov/pdf/NHCPS.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Green-Urbanism-Learning-European-Cities/dp/1559636823
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7202410/claims.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_energy_building

I'm sorry my numbers can from a lecture at UNM. But a few of these links give reference to the outcome, you'll have to do the percentages yourself. I may have jumped the gun from 4% to 2%. I apologize. Remember that cars always drive no matter what the emissions register. The books are really worth checking out if you have the time. Sorry it's kind of a mishmash, but I'm sure you will work it out.

In reply to this comment by EDD:
I call bull on you, sir. Back up and reference your would-be data.

>> ^Bleedingsnowman:
If everyone switch to a hybrid car right now the effect on oil consumption would be less than 2%. If every skyscrapper in the country replaced its windows and slightly modified its design consumption would be reduced by more than 40%. We hear about hybrid cars because someone can make a profit off of it.

If I am accused me of polemics, I stand guilty as charged. But not without reason.

http://www.hennesseyingalls.com/hennessey/product.asp?dept_id=4155&pf_id=PAAAIADJFEHOJHBD&ad_id=froogle&key_id=BigandGreenTowardSustainableArchitectur
einthe21stCentury
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_architecture
http://www.wisebread.com/sustainable-architecture-and-design-a-book-review-of-living-homes
http://www.need.org/needpdf/infobook_activities/IntInfo/ConsI.pdf
http://www.wastewater.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_architecture
http://www.wisebread.com/sustainable-architecture-and-design-a-book-review-of-living-homes
http://cgi.ebay.com/Sustainable-Architecture-Low-Tech-Houses_W0QQitemZ170127281000QQihZ007QQcategoryZ378QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem?refid=store
http://www.cleancars.nh.gov/pdf/NHCPS.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Green-Urbanism-Learning-European-Cities/dp/1559636823
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7202410/claims.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_energy_building

I'm sorry my numbers can from a lecture at UNM. But a few of these links give reference to the outcome, you'll have to do the percentages yourself. I may have jumped the gun from 4% to 2%. I apologize. Remember that cars always drive no matter what the emissions register. The books are really worth checking out if you have the time. Sorry it's kind of a mishmash, but I'm sure you will work it out.

In reply to this comment by EDD:
I call bull on you, sir. Back up and reference your would-be data.

>> ^Bleedingsnowman:
If everyone switch to a hybrid car right now the effect on oil consumption would be less than 2%. If every skyscrapper in the country replaced its windows and slightly modified its design consumption would be reduced by more than 40%. We hear about hybrid cars because someone can make a profit off of it.

low tech brilliance.

When Rumsfeld came in it was supposed to be all Star Wars, high tech stuff... and it's turned out to be the opposite. Low-tech politics and social networks and IED's. It's the geopolitics, stupid. Better to engage root causes than rely on the latest BFG.

The budget is all in the camera rig. Low tech brilliance.

another example of cheap low tech defeating expensive high tech, and to defeat the tv b gone tech use even lower tech - a piece of tape.

Low tech brilliance!

I did some of that. After logging on, I got what looked like UNIX. I did LS, got two files. One was an application program, and one was notes. These are the notes:

1953 - Aperture Science begins operations as a manufacturer of shower curtains. Early product line provides a very low-tech portal between the inside and outside of your shower. Very little science is actually involved. The name is chosen to make the curtains appear more hygienic.

1956 - Eisenhower administratin awards Aperture a contract to provide shower curtains to all branches of the military except the Navy.

1957 - 1975 - Mostly shower curtains.

1978 - Aperture Founder and CEO, Cave Johnson, is exposed to mercury while secretly developing a dangerous mercury-injected rubber sheeting from which he plans to manufacture seven deadly shower curtains to be given as gifts to each member of the House Naval Appropriations committee.

[MORE]

Smibbo, I wouldn't say there's much difference between agribusiness and pharmacorp. And it's just not true that the GMO's have been well tested before release -- I forget which documentary it was that I watched a while back, but it showed how every director of the FDA is a former board member of Monsanto. Pretty convenient, huh? They just wave these things through.

Dag: I totally agree with you, except where you say that organic food production has a lower yield than conventional agriculture. I have personally seen organic crops significantly outperform conventional ones -- organic growing techniques have advanced a lot too! And most conventional soils are now degraded to the point that they are essentially just an inert medium for soil-based hydroponics.

There are some free ebooks by Dr. Raoul Robinson that talk about breeding for pest & disease resistance -- I recommend Return to Resistance as a good starting point. Dr. Raoul is my uncle; we are currently building an open-source breeding foundation that will share seeds and encourage effective low-tech breeding methods.