I agree for the most part, but with batteries, now becoming reasonable in size and price, it's not so hard to be totally off grid. Micro hydro can also be efficient power storage if properly designed with a dual reservoir system.
Granted, that seems to work best in small scale setups so far, but there is an island .....(https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/09/17/349223674/tiny-spanish-island-nears-its-goal-100-percent-renewable-energy)
...currently (since 2014) using this tech to be nearly 100% green.

Dismissing projections as unrealistic without fully examining them may doom our economy and planet.
That's what happened with solar, people just claimed it's expensive and unreliable, which meant those they convinced didn't know how wrong that is, and didn't buy systems or support solar farms. I ignored them and did some light math, and found that even an expensive high tech system with batteries, professionally installed, would pay for itself in about 8 years, with a 20 year expected lifespan (and I live in Humboldt county, with the foggiest airport in America, not Arizona). I'm damn glad I didn't listen. Even a 2 year delay would have cost me 1/2 my rebates, making the system take an extra 2+ years to pay for itself by costing me thousands upon thousands of dollars (instead of saving me thousands per year).

Edit: Also, here in Humboldt we just switched to choice in electricity, we can choose regular pge power (mostly old school generation), a mixture of up to 75% (I think, maybe higher) renewable for cheaper, or 100% renewable for more. All 3 now bill transmission (including voltage/frequency regulation) separately, so it's easy to see what generation alone costs. It's clear so far that mostly renewable is the best bet economically, and I assume it will become more renewable as new technologies become available.....at least I hope so.

Do I have to watch it? This vid, I mean?

Star Wars is about rebels fighting a powerful empire that governs the galaxy. It glorifies taking down the establishment by a group of (well funded) gun-toting terrorists.

I suppose you could draw a parallel to the American war of independence against the British...

But in a modern context this would be like a group of domestic insurgents blowing up an aircraft carrier ("Death Star") while staging an armed rebellion against the US government (now a subsidiarity of "Gov-co," a joint venture of the Disney, Viacom, Lockheed Martin, JP Morgan Chase, and Koch Bros. companies).

Simply put, that's just not going to happen.

--------------------------

edit: Okay I just watched the above clip. That guy made even less sense than the BS that I just made up.

Parallels with religious indoctrination much? Not to mention blunt-instrument nationalism like the pledge of allegiance?

To me, critical thinking, logic, and open exposure to light seem like the best way to combat bad ideas like this. The good news is that exposure to light is generally much more automatic today in the internet age than it ever was before. The bad news is that critical thinking doesn't seem to be doing as well.

I think we're trending in the right direction. Change might be generational, when everything about our culture and society expects things to happen now, but we're getting there.

He definitely put years into it. I first tried reading it cold, with no prep. I read the first 3 pages over and over and gave up, it made no sense. A few years later I read a book about it which was a huge help. Then I found an entire section at the Connecticut College library dedicated to it.

I'm still finding "hidden tracks" in it after reading it and reading about it for 25 years. Like how the first 3 chapters parallel the last 3 chapters. How Bloom's path at a certain point in the city resembles a question mark. The barmaid Sirens, the drunken lout Cyclops character, and all the other Odyssey parallels.

I visited the Martello tower from Chapter one when i went to Dublin, that was so cool to be there. I never did find Nelson's Pillar though. ;-)

Canadian devil's advocate here.

We've got incredibly strict gun laws up here by comparison to the US. So our country has done the 'more than nothing' on gun laws. 3 days before the LA shooting we had a terror attack up here in Edmonton but the attacker used vehicles and a knife.

If we accept the rationale that current levels of freedom to own guns is leading to higher body counts and that restricting those freedoms will reduce body counts, that rationale is slippery.

Here's the parallel.

If we accept the rationale that current levels of freedom to 'practice religion' is leading to higher body counts then restricting those freedoms will reduce body counts.

Because, the Attacker in Edmonton was a Somali refugee. They had an ISIS flag in their car. The US tried to extradite him before Canada welcomed him with open arms. Canadian police even investigated him before when a co-worker reported him advocating genocidal ideas about Shiite scum.

We had a lot of potential red flags that we could have acted harder on or used for profiling and in this case having him in jail would've prevented the attacks.

The thing is, it is NOT immediately self evident that restricting those freedoms is objectively the best answer.

Personally, banning automatic weapons as my country has seems a very sane thing to do. Countering myself though, would the Catalonians in Spain be getting beaten up for holding a vote if the residents had automatic weapon in their basements or would the police show a little more respect to the citizen's than they did?

Fortunately they were already doing a go-around by the time ATC noticed, a few seconds later would have been a disaster. Their minimum altitude was reported as 18m, which is a bit under a metre above the tail height of a Boeing 787-9.

They do have those alarms, but it was initially reported this plane was too far off course from R28R to trigger them and part of the investigation will be whether they were even operating at the time.

A major contributing factor for this incident was that the second runway, 28L, was closed and lights off at the time of the incident. As a result, the FAA has changed San Francisco landing procedures no longer permitting visual approach when an adjacent parallel runway is closed - https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/faa-changes-san-francisco-landing-procedures-after-a-440380/

Being a Canadian colours my view, but it seems there is at least some parallels between race relations up here and in the US. The difference is up here is it's aboriginal/white as opposed to black/white.

I don't know how close the parallels are, but in Canada it is statistically accurate to observe the following:
-Aboriginal people are disproportionately the victims of violent crime
-Aboriginal people are disproportionately committing violent crime
-Aboriginal people are over-represented in the prison system
-Living conditions on Aboriginal reserves even compared to neighbouring municipalities are, on average, grossly worse

These are basic facts that are, statistically speaking, irrefutable.

There facts clearly indicate there is a problem in society. Unless you believe that race determines criminality, they indicate that a group of people is facing some kind of systematic disadvantage, currently, historically or both.

Canada has failed in trying to address this issue IMO. Instead of looking for the systematic problems, we are trying to treat the symptoms. For example, we have passed laws that demand differential sentencing to be more lenient towards convicted criminals if they are of aboriginal back ground.

What we really need is to discuss the root issues. If you grow up on a reserve or in a terrible neihgbourhood, that matters. If the likelyhood of growing up in those places is still racially distributed, that's a major root cause that needs addressing above all others.

Interesting piece in the LA Review of Books: The Supermanagerial Reich

It's a tad long, so I suggest the last two paragraphs to get a taste, see if it's to your liking.

Small bit:

If there is going to be a politics that overcomes the new fascist threat, it must address the fact that the crisis is not now, the crisis has already been for some time. By focusing only on the threat of our homegrown Hitler caricature we have failed to notice the facts right in front of our faces: the uniquely parallel structures, the same winners, the similar losers, the crimes, the human degradation. We are already living in our very own, cruel 21st-century Supermanagerial Reich.

Any section of track looks warped from a low and almost parallel angle.


...but that's fucked up. There's over an inch of deflection between ties at rest. There's so much movement with the passing rolling stock that metal fatigue must be increasing exponentially.

One thing I don't like about this safety announcement is that it makes it seem like rips as these underwater murder machines just lurking out there trying to kill you.

There is nothing inherently dangerous about a rip current per se. Surfers use them all the time to get out quickly into the lineup quickly without having to duck dive the heavier sets.

The real danger of rips is to inexperienced or poor ocean swimmers. The rip can carry you out to water that is too deep to stand in very quickly, so if you're not comfortable floating or treading water for long periods that's going to be a big problem.

Most people drown because they panic when they realize they can't touch the bottom and try to swim back against the current to get to a place where they can stand again. In their panicked state they forget about floating or treading water and exhaust themselves. As long as you swim perpendicular to the current you should be fine. The number one mistake people make is that they forget to stay calm and take breaks by doing the side-stroke or treading water until they're ready to do the crawl stroke again.

All that said, lateral rips (rips that run parallel to the shore rather than out to sea) are some scary shit, as they can move basically as fast as a river. During lifeguard training in my younger days I got caught in one while doing a training rescue and was swept in literally seconds into a wooden jetty. Thankfully I was able to ride the crest of a wave up to the top of the jetty, pull myself up, and then sprint down back to the shore before the next set of waves washed me back into the ocean and carried me even further down the shoreline. After getting back, I took a lot of shit from my instructors and peers for nearly having to be actually rescued during a training rescue.

There are a lot of parallels between advertising and copyright. Buy wholeheartedly in to either, and you end up sort of failing to accept the reality of their flaws.

Advertisers think they have a big problem whenever someone circumvents their ads. They panicked when VCRs came around and allowed people to record shows and fast-forward through ads. They panicked when DVRs came out and let people digitally skip through ads. And they are panicking now, with more and more people getting fed up and putting ad-blocking software on their computers or devices.

Copyright holders think they have a big problem when someone tries to circumvent their system, too. They worried about libraries giving people free access to books; but at least a physical book is pretty much limited to one person at a time. They freaked out about cassette tapes being easily copied with a dual cassette deck. They freaked out about people sharing MP3 music over the internet. They freaked out when DVDs came out with CSS protection which was circumvented almost immediately. They continue to freak out by pushing for ever more and more drastic DRM schemes, that are generally circumvented quite rapidly.

The general theme in both advertising and copyright is escalation; a sort of arms race. The problem is that that solution doesn't actually improve things for anyone, in either case. Ads get more and more offensive and annoying, more and more people block/skip them. Copyright gets more and more locked-down, more and more people circumvent it. In both cases, as the "legitimate" side squeezes harder, it ends up making the user experience better for those who circumvent it "illegitimately". See, for example, this good old comic from The Oatmeal:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

The web with adblock software is a massively better experience than the web without it. A pirated 1080p movie or TV show lets you skip the previews/commercials that are often unskippable on a DVD. And on and on.

This arms race doesn't have a good future. Creators and distributors must start wracking their brains to come up with whole new ideas, or at least variants of the old ones, that break that cycle and ensure that "illegitimate" users/viewers don't have a better experience than legitimate ones. I'm sure not holding my breath though.

Perhaps I am being obtuse but I feel that one of us, or perhaps both of us, are not understanding the other.

A parallel: After Brexit there was some rather ugly anti-immigrant stuff flying around. "Polish vermin" etc. I did, in my bitterness, fantasise about a UK without immigrants because it would be such deliciously ironic justice. I mean, in reality I'd have my Polish friends and a country that actually functions rather than "I told you sos" and packing bags... but still, sometimes I do wish lessons would be learned the only way some will ever learn them.

ok, These people are all morons... EXCEPT the guy at 4:54 who just decided to parallel park in the most badass fashion possible

@vil
i was going to reference hitchhikers guide to the galaxy,because the parallels are there,except without the humor.

i have read many a sacred text,and even though the book of urantia is written in a similar format,it read more like a government procedural book than anything.i simply could not get far into the book at all.

still,as a text that lays out the workings of the universe,i felt i should add this book to the pile.

no fantastical stories of resurrection,or miracles,or interventions by a supreme being.just a break down of your basic universe's bureaucracy.

Yes, I fully understand his intended point. And as I put forth, it's wrong. Using the scientific method you very well may not come to the same main theories today. We may end behind, develop something parallel to, or skip them to a more advanced point entirely. All because science never shows a truth. It shows a human's best interpretation of fleeting data that is quickly shown to be "wrong" by the next set of data (which is "less wrong").