To those who have not kept up on the series, here is a foot note.

After the original Ghost in the shell movie, the second movie was loosely based on the series and has since forth become the end of its line.

Stand alone complex is a TV series based on the same world as the original movie but the movie never happened. Stand alone complex consist of 2 26-episode seasons and an OVA movie. There is no "ending" to the series and it is ready to continue from this point if they want.

Ghost in the shell: Arise is an origin tale consisting of 4 OVA episodes detailing how Major Kusanagi picked the team and became the leader of Section 9, and the purpose of Section 9. Later on, Arise was split into a 10 episode "season" suitable for airing on TV, with 2 episodes at the end dedicated to new content.

Ghost in the shell: Shin Gekijōban, the movie trailer we see here, is either a continuation or a side story near the end of Arise. And holy crap I hate those english voices.

If you are wondering if any of it is worth watching, I consider the entire series to be a masterpiece. Stand alone complex is quite deep and loaded with content while Arise is a little light on content and really makes you want more. Luckily it gets better after each OVA.

Oh, also you will see movies related to Stand alone complex called laughing man and Individual Eleven, these are the first 2 seasons with all the side stories hacked out and only the main story arc shown. Avoid these.

I'm upvoting because it's Burr, but I really couldn't stay interested beyond the CCD camera/chin up "joke" because it was awfully boring to that part. Did it get better?

I like it.

It looks only to get better with the tweeks and modifications that have been and shall certainly be forthcoming.

Once again, lucky760, thanks...nice work.

The rozzers arrested a single (!) person during those clashes that saw 34 cops injured. One person. One. They arrested some 200 folks during a peaceful protest against open pit coal mining in Garzweiler last week.

But wait, it gets better. The only person they arrested in Heidenau was... this journalist/photographer.

The inference being that I have a choice..? =) We don't in Aus.

But you're missing the point, X >= 1 feed in tariffs are being subsidised by other users on the grid. You upload your power regardless of demand peaks (so you could be sending power when it really isn't required). Electricity companies are not going to massively drop production of regular power as it takes a considerable amount of time to spool up/down baseload production, and they are still going to switch on high cost gas turbines during peak load just in case a big old cloud blocks out the sun for an hour or so and solar production falls in a heap...

And peak usage times are usually ~8-9am (schools and business start up, switch computers and air con on etc) before solar production really kicks in, and later in the afternoon when it get's hotter, people are getting ready for dinner. If you have significant daylight savings time shifts, then you can certainly get better production when peak demand in the early evening is occurring. If the panels are facing west rather than east or north (because that's where you maximise production and make the most money... =)

As for "the idea that it might take more energy to produce a panel than it will produce itself is ridiculous", I didn't say that it did, just that it's return on that energy invested is comparatively poor. You coal analogy is patently wrong though. Depending on which source you go to, coal is anywhere from 30:1 to 50:1 for EROEI (energy returned on energy invested). It's cheap to obtain, burn and dispose of the waste, despite being toxic/radioactive.

eg. http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

When you talk about solar PV and the energy required to make it, you're not just talking about the production line, you're talking mining the silicon, purifying, the wasted wafers which aren't up to snuff, the cost of the workers and the power that goes in to building, transporting etc, lifetime maintenance, loss of production over time and disposal. The above link puts PV at the low 1.5-3:1 which is well beneath the roughly 7:1 required to sustain our modern society (and does not cover the massive increases in energy demand and consumption from developing countries). And as the author of the article notes, these are unbuffered values. If you add buffering to load shift, the sums get even worse.

"Put simply, if solar PV is such a bad deal, how are they saving me so much money even without any rebates?"

I didn't say solar was a bad deal, I said it's a poor way to reduce carbon pollution. If the electricity company you are connected to is willing to pay high feed in tariffs to you and you save cash, that's great, but that doesn't automagically (intentional typo mean that solar PV is making any sort of serious inroads in to reducing carbon pollution.

If we're going to fix man made climate change, we need to be prepared to pay a far higher cost and worry less about our hip pockets. Nuke might not be economically viable without causing jumps in bills, but in terms of the energy output it provides over it's life time, it is one of the highest returns in energy for the energy invested in building it, paired with very low carbon emissions.

Obviously, the figures on EROEI depend on which article you read, as it's a very complex number to work out (and will always be an approximation), but it's fairly commonly acknowledged by people who do not have a vested interest in solar PV (vs low carbon power sources in general) that PV is a feel good technology that doesn't actually do a hell of a lot in terms of carbon reduction.

"The most hotly debated science issue these days is global warming"

Nope.

So, 8 seconds in and this is already so fucking stupid I don't even need to rebut it.

Oh hey, it's Fox News! Well, they're absolutely my first trusted source about climate change (or anything for that matter).

Maybe it'll get better.

It didn't. Downvote.

Not all blacks are lazy stupid thugs & savages as you again wrongly suggest I say. Like any other demographic it probably on 5-8 % that put your demographic is such bad light.

Fox news - The news itself is fail and balanced. The rest is opinion journalism. Unlike MSNBS which does not even have a news time slot.

You statement
"When all the dimwitted unapologetic willfully ignorant old racist folks like you finally kick the bucket.. then we can move on." is not true. Again your are so biased against me and whites - I have said is past post that things should get better as the older generations pass and times move on.

As for the rest of your dribble. Its just that dribble in which you are trying to justify your race failures to assimilate into society as being caused by the white man. I would more correctly say that you race problems are caused more by government policies.


The media just reflects society and use it to manipulate society fore its own ratings.
Top local news is almost always hard crimes and sadly it appears that your race is most in this segment. All for ratings at your race expense.

Media also users it to manipulate society for sway public opinion. Bruce Jenner is being pushed a a great thing. It not really a great thing abut being pushed as such.

@lucky760

Frankly, it was borderline racist and definitely sexist, but the real problem was that it was just boring and unfunny.

I watched more than half the video because I was hoping it was going to get better. It didn't.

Sorry if thinking a comedy video should be funny counts as "trolling".

Dan Savage was right. It does get better.

Don't worry Neil! It gets better. Like if you... something...

I watched some of Amy Schumer's early stuff and it was ok, but recently she's just getting better and better.

*quality

Ha ha ha ha ha! You're a good person, newt. May you get better. (Citation: Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail, Scene 5, Villager #3)

Oh he keeps getting better.
John Stewart's mentee is exponentially getting funnier.

Ahhh. I have not seen that targeted 2004 election poll, only the other polls and studies about overall current events. What those polls showed was that those that watch his show are (on average) more informed than those who don't, and yes, that could be from other sources, but it was those other sources' viewers/readers his viewers were being compared to, so at least his viewers are more curious and better at filtering BS than those that don't watch him, if they aren't getting better information directly from him.

Yes, I do understand he does not purport or even try to be a news show, which makes it all the sadder to me that, in reality, he is apparently the best "news" show our country has to offer these days...and he does that while being a comedy show. That's TERRIBLE, I hope you agree, and is much more a statement about the sad state of "news" organizations rather than his investigatory prowess.

If he were trying to be a news show, you could point that finger. Because he simply creates the most informative (or at least the most curiosity provoking) show without being or claiming to be "news", he is totally immune from that pointing finger. Fox, conversely, does claim to be straight "news", and it's viewers have repeatedly been shown to be less informed than those that watch/listen/read no "news" at all, far less informed than those who watch Stewart. Make of that what you will.