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.

Your video, Ghost in the Shell - The New Movie Trailer, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

OK, his studies beat my anecdotal bias.

...That being said, I will continue to eat breakfast cereal with milk pretty much every day (as I have since I was very very young), and be strongly tempted to attribute my own lack of having ever broken a bone to that.

The other anecdote I have in my favor is coming from a farm family that raised chickens. I grew up in a prairie grassland area (converted to irrigated farmland thanks to aquifer access), while my cousins lived a couple hours away in limestone hills ranchland. Both of our families raised free range chickens.

Our chickens produced very thin-shelled eggs, and displayed behavior to suggest they were calcium-deprived. For example, our chickens wouldn't cannibalize their own viable eggs, but if we threw empty shells to them they would fight to eat the shells. Same but to a lesser extent for leftover bones, etc. (I assume they fought less over these because bones are harder to near impossible to break down with a beak). On the other side of the table, we sometimes exchanged eggs with my cousins, and their chicken's eggs were always extremely thick-shelled and hard to crack open.

When I asked about that, my folks told me (and later my Biology teacher confirmed) that was because the sod/soil around my home and flora and fauna growing from it contained very little natural calcium. Chickens raised in our area would often be supplemented with commercial feed that contained extra calcium, but we let ours range for food and eat table scraps; almost never supplementing their food with any commercial stuff. But the limestone (aka calcium carbonate) around my cousin's house contained very high amounts of natural calcium, which was naturally infused into the plants / grains / insects that their chickens ate, giving them incredibly thick shells.

So, I guess that while calcium intake apparently doesn't have a very statistically significant impact on human bone growth, I think that it must have a much more significant role to play in egg thickness if you happen to be a chicken... At least if you compare extremes of low natural calcium diet versus extremely high natural calcium diet.

...engage!


--EDIT--
Just noticed the three shells in the head...
--EDIT2--
Finished. Pretty cool, but feels empty and weird without crew. Plus they missed a great opportunity to be meta by not taking the virtual tour by the holodeck...

http://globalblender.com/website/bilder/watercooler/worlds-biggest-firework-shell/world-biggest-firework-shell-size-comparison-closeup.jpg

I'd have to think the rocket to launch a 48" shell has to be huge too...

Yeah, you got me there. Clever girl.

You want credible sources?

Here ya go:
http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/critical_issues/1995/gun/
http://www.hardylaw.net/FailedExperiment.pdf
(and the debate rages on)

Am 100% in agreement - "The problem is that it's simply way too easy to get a gun in the US." As a Canadian living in the USA for the past 15 years, not wanting to become a US citizen because I'd have to cut out half my brain, I've been through Canada's attempts at gun control too. Can't even buy a box of .22 shells at home without completing a classroom course (or is it two now?) which I think is the door swinging too far the other way. Worth noting perhaps is the incidence of gun crime in major metropolitan centers in Canada *appears* to be on the rise... would be nice if someone out there could do a comprehensive update using the same methodology as e.g. Mauser to see if it's real.

Anyone know the way to Shell Beach?

I disagree with the "we all need Jesus" bit. Other than that, unremarkable stuff of the type many non-religious (and some religious) voices have been saying since the gay rights movement broke the shell. Only notable for that fact that it's coming out of this particular vitriolic preacher.

Building a helicopter is not the same as 'magic', where the important part IS all the little things you do to make it look magic.

Or do you just want an explanation like "he does it with slight of hand"?... because that is how he did it in a nut shell.

He just like soft shelled crabs.

In my non-expert opinion the only way to really help Greece at this point is to release a significant amout of debt and set the interest of the rest to zero. (Instead of trying to keep on profiting on their misfortune)

And I fear a Grexit will inevitably lead to the worst case scenario for both Greece and the EU, hyperinflation in an european country.

Edit:
After having read some more stuff about Greece and monetary shell games aka economics I've come to the conclusion that zero interest debt would not actually help. Interest for goverment bonds has been declining worldwide over the last decades, yet government debt has increased proportionally.
Why is that? Well, if you, as a politician, can borrow more money for the same amount of effective interest to fulfill your election promises in order to stay in office for as long as possible then why the hell not? Some day you won't be in office anymore and the higher government debt isn't your problem anymore.
So in the end, lower interest rates may not be 'helpful' for the greek government to balance their budget.

Yes, you did say all that, but you also said none of that is a problem, at least not one to be really worried about. To me, that sounds a lot like climate change denial 3.0, where 1.0 was 'it's not happening at all, don't panic', 2.0 was 'it's happening, but it's natural and normal, don't panic' and 3.0 is 'it's human caused, but no problem, don't panic'. All of those are arguments designed to stall, not to be correct. If I'm reading you wrong, I apologize, but I've heard that argument before from those definitely in that camp.

If the IPCC says it won't be disastrous, yes, we would disagree, because I say it already is, and so have they in their summaries of their last few reports. Just abnormal drought alone is disastrous in many places worldwide already, as is increased flooding in some areas. I did not read the entire PDF's, only what you quoted because they were only linked as downloads/files, and I don't download files from sites I don't recognize.

I linked the first google search pages that came up with water/glacial data, not the other dozen that said the same, or near the same thing, not the NOVA on glacial retreat that said the same thing, not the movie on the same topic with photographic proof of the retreats-Chasing Ice. You ignored that they did list their source for the 2/3 of Chinese cities low on water and the 50% loss of glacial mass per decade as the Chinese military and claimed they were source less so easily dismissed.
As for the diatoms and shellfish, I've seen numerous studies on them, and again just grabbed the first one that came up in a search with data. You seemed to dismiss it as well, but it's not alone. In one snail study I saw, the woman said the last few years it had become nearly impossible to get measurements because the snail shells literally turn to paste in her fingers and weighed nearly nothing! I'm glad to read now that you don't disagree that it's an issue, you only think it's not severe?

I'm not holding my breath on fusion or fission, we've heard the 'we're only 5 years away from fission/fusion' line before about as often as 'Iran is only 2 years away from having a nuclear bomb', but we can agree on wind and solar, except I say it is great for base load, you just need to pair it with micro hydro storage (pump water uphill with surplus solar/wind, then run micro hydro at night). Small solar/wind also decentralizes production, safeguarding from terrorism, and is quite cost effective. Mine paid for itself in well under 10 years.

My issue with your position is that what we do today just with CO2 production reduction won't really effect the atmosphere for 20-200 years (the accepted lifespan of 65-85% of atmospheric CO2, the remaining 15-35% takes thousands of years to be trapped) and that's only IF the ocean CO2 sink continues functioning, so we're already well past the point of avoiding moderate climate change. Without quick action, feedback loops like methane and/or ice sheets melting make the problem exponentially larger and difficult/impossible to manage at all. It may already be too late even if we cut to zero CO2 tomorrow, but it's certainly too late to avoid more, massive, unsolvable global issues if we don't even mitigate them before 2050.

Let's not get into the quagmire of global dimming from sulfur in coal actually mitigating a large part of expected global warming by reflecting sunlight. I've yet to hear a plan or study involving that variable.

@newtboy
Your mind is made up that there's no issue of ocean warming, rising, and/or acidification, so of course you will be taking advantage of those islanders that have been 'tricked' by the climate change frauds (oh, and also tricked by that water in their homes, the loss of snails, shellfish, fish, and the destruction of their reefs), and you'll be buying their properties at reduced rates, because the ocean rising is a fraud and you'll make a mint when everyone sees the 'truth' in 30 years...right?

Well, I have to say that you'd have me beat if I'd said any of that...
I've already stated the planet is warming.
I've already stated that CO2 is rising.
I've already stated we are responsible for the CO2 rise.
I've already stated that the CO2 rise has caused the TOA energy imbalance.
I've already stated that TOA energy imbalance is causing temp rise.
It seems redundant, but I'll spell it out more as it seems you don't understand me.
The Ocean's are warming, they are in fact absorbing alot more energy than the rest of the planet, as water does that alot more quickly than air.
The additional CO2 is acidifying the ocean's, that's once again HS chemistry.
Sea level is rising, and has been for the last century or more at a relatively consistent and steady rate, and no doubt again is because of the energy increase/warming.
Shell fish and coral reefs are dependent on acidity levels in the oceans and shifts absolutely will impact them.

Now, with that all on the table, where my opinion diverges from yours is when you state:
by 2050 is going to solve the issues, (issues that will be totally disastrous by then by most estimations, for tens of millions it already IS disastrous)

I've pointed out the severity, as assessed by an international body of relevant experts in the IPCC, disagrees starkly with your opinion. The scientific community simply does not assign disastrous results right now for tens of millions from climate change, I'm sorry but that is contrary to the science. The scientific community simply does not predict the severity of these consequences to be disastrous by 2100, let alone your claimed 2050.

You've linked to blogs and a news blurp, and I've responded with direct links to the IPCC affirming my position, and at least a dozen scientific journal articles corroborating their position. If you want to claim any actual scientific veracity to your position back it up or lay off mis quoting and misrepresenting what I've claimed to try and make cheap points burning a strawman.