After using a Windows Phone for a little more than a year, I can actually say that I don't like the Metro design language. I was all about it, back when I got the phone (Proof: http://braindonut.com/2010/11/20/windows-phone-7-thoughts/) and not many people can believe that I ever liked "Modern UI" or Metro, because I so very much dislike it nowadays.

I think I was just hungry for anything that was different and new. The problem was that it was like living in a dreary, international modernism, concrete building. At first, I appreciated the clean lines, the simple forms... No decoration. "Purely digital." But after a while, it started getting really boring. REALLY dreary.

Microsoft designed a set of design patterns that are made for getting in and out of your phone, quickly. They made it no nonsense - and it's elegant in that objective. But I don't want to get in and out of my phone. I want to live in that little thing. It's an extension of my daily life. And when I live somewhere, I don't want the walls all painted white and everything to be stark rectangles.

There's a big movement right now in design. Microsoft and Apple are kind of leading the opposing charges. Having existed in both worlds for a long while, I can honestly say I'd rather live in Apple's ecosystem. Sure, they could do things to make the iPhone more efficient within certain tasks, but on the whole, iPhone offers a superior experience. A lot of that is due to how much their OS is designed for an App ecosystem, while Microsoft struggles in this area. Even Windows 8 makes installed apps a pain in the ass to deal with.

So yeah, "Modern UI" is neat, different, ballsy. But I can't wait for the inevitable "Postmodern UI" response.

ok, let me explain in another way: the more you demand change from the ecosystem, the more you will get of it.

at times, this can actually be a very good thing.
at other times, it sucks for a while, but eventually, you end up with a more adaptable species. That is the process that is happening right now.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

>> ^criticalthud:
welcome to mutation.
if you change the chemical composition of the atmosphere, a systemic compensation (change) will occur throughout the entire ecosystem.
which is why "climate change" should really be called "planet change".

MUTATION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. GOODNIGHT!
Seriously tho, my guess is some kind of rare swarming of bottom-dwelling creatures that lives in deeper water. Perhaps overfishing in an area means millions of them have unexpectedly survived and washed ashore.


unexpectedly survived?

>> ^criticalthud:

welcome to mutation.
if you change the chemical composition of the atmosphere, a systemic compensation (change) will occur throughout the entire ecosystem.
which is why "climate change" should really be called "planet change".


MUTATION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. GOODNIGHT!

Seriously tho, my guess is some kind of rare swarming of bottom-dwelling creatures that lives in deeper water. Perhaps overfishing in an area means millions of them have unexpectedly survived and washed ashore.

mutation is simply change, and it is happening all the time in the evolutionary process. but as you destabilize the ecosystem you are increasing the rate of mutation as life struggles to adapt.

>> ^TheSluiceGate:

>> ^criticalthud:
welcome to mutation.
if you change the chemical composition of the atmosphere, a systemic compensation (change) will occur throughout the entire ecosystem.
which is why "climate change" should really be called "planet change".

Wow, you've had a peer reviewed paper published on this already?


on a very similar subject, yes.

>> ^criticalthud:

welcome to mutation.
if you change the chemical composition of the atmosphere, a systemic compensation (change) will occur throughout the entire ecosystem.
which is why "climate change" should really be called "planet change".


Wow, you've had a peer reviewed paper published on this already?

welcome to mutation.
if you change the chemical composition of the atmosphere, a systemic compensation (change) will occur throughout the entire ecosystem.
which is why "climate change" should really be called "planet change".

and "climate change" should really be re-termed as "planet change"

you cannot chemically alter the composition of the atmosphere without causing a systemic compensation of the entire ecosystem.

and that, my friends, is a motherfucking fact.

This is the first presentation that i've seen publicly that has mentioned "system adaption" - ie: the period of time it takes the ecosystem to adapt to events that are presently taking place or have already taken place. imho, this is a central concept that has been ignored. let's face it, human's lack both foresight and an awareness of our species as a whole. we are self-centered beings intent on immediate gratification.

the basic idea of system adaption is that even if we stop mucking about now, the damage that we have already done is still in the process of manifesting and will continue for some time.
the very same idea applies equally to the human body, and the human body is an expression of the planet. In other words, if we traumatize the human body, the effects, adaptation, and compensations take some time to fully manifest. this is very far from conjecture. it is fact. and the sooner you can attend to the problem, the easier your job is, and less suffering will be endured.

In parts of India where Zoroastrianism is still practised they "bury" their dead in a similar manner. They believe a corpse is corrupted by a demon and is thus made unclean. Burial means poisoning the ground with this corruption, and cremation means poisoning of the air so they dispose of their dead with the help of vultures. They leave their dead on a flat roof of a building called a Tower of Silence. The vultures take everything but the bones, the bones are left to be bleached by the Sun and gradually disintergrate after which they are washed out through coal and sand filters to the sea.

I quite like this religious tradition because it kind of makes sense ecologically. Vultures are incredibly important in the ecosystem and it seems strange that this bird has a reputation for being dirty or unclean when it is them that helps prevent the landscape from being covered in putrefying corpses. In the 90s vulture populations nosedived due to a drug used on cattle finding its way along the food chain. Something like a 99.5% population decrease. Sadly this burial tradtional pretty much went with them. Where previously corpses were stripped in a matter of minutes they now sat and rotted. Animal corpses also literally piled up, scavenging stray dog population exploded which had knock on problems, even shit like an increase in Tiger attacks (Tigers would venture into populated areas to hunt the Dogs).

Long story short I'd much rather have my body picked over by vultures than rot in a coffin or get turned into polluting gas. You know, assuming my organs weren't good for anything else.

Reality check!

From Wikipedia: "...the fur hosts two species of symbiotic cyanobacteria, which provide camouflage.[3][4] Because of the cyanobacteria, sloth fur is a small ecosystem of its own, hosting many species of non-parasitic insects..."

My only question is is this stuff harmful to people or the environment if spilled? Like would it fuck with the ecosystem?

If not this guy should just market and sell the stuff I'd pay for one of these it's a really neat idea.

First off, Romney does not equal Obama. This kind of thinking is truly what frightens me, and it's not because of the reasons you probably think.

Some 20 years ago, the overwhelming majority of the population were ignorant of politics and apathetic. Political games were played, cheap shots were utilized, but in the end, in the big scheme of things, on the truly big issues, both sides would compromise and do the right thing. Clinton and the GOP Congress balancing the budget, Bush Sr. raising taxes, etc. etc. Stuff got done. And the majority of people were wholly ignorant on things like federal budgets, that kind of thing. There was also some kind of understanding on basic principles where regardless of your ideology, you couldn't do catastrophic things just because it suited your ideology.

Now, that's gone. Extremists in both parties are labelled fascists or communists, or whatever, but now moderates are being labelled as either part of the same extremist groups, or they're called sell-outs, part of a completely corrupt system, and perpetrators of that system, not as agents trying to work within a system that was built long before they got there, who could change the system while they work within it. When they do the right thing that violates ideology, it's not because it was the bipartisan right thing to do; it's because they're extensions of the corrupt system. The bailouts are an absolutely perfect example. I hate to break it to people here, and I know most won't agree with me, but the bailouts were the right thing to do, even if you're against too big to fail, etc. The banking system was already in place when the economy collapsed. It's like being in a boat as its sinking. You can critique the design of the boat all you want, but the boat sinking kills you all. It's ridiculous to talk about actions that will blow up the boat. Plug the holes, do what you need to do to get the boat to land. THEN figure out how to fix the design, or build a new boat. But what happened? The bipartisan policy by both a Democrat and Republican president was tarred and feathered as government being in the pocket of big business. Those same people don't seem to realize the boat didn't sink. We didn't face another depression. Be critical the banking system wasn't significantly reformed after that was done, I have no issues with that.

To the person who said Obama's policies haven't worked in three years? Again, are we in a depression? No. Those policies worked. And how can you expect a macro-economic shift within a year or two of his other policies? Go back and look at economic history. Things don't change on a dime just from macro-economic policies instituted by the government. It takes several years before the effect can be measured. Again, sheer ignorance. The difference today is the ignorant are far more willing to participate in the political debate even though they don't have a clue what they're talking about. This is a problem on both sides.

Both sides are stoking the ignorant to get involved in the public debates, and not encouraging a very very basic understanding of crucial facts about history. Like... WWII was a Keynesian economic exercise effectively, which in the end was a gigantic gov't deficit that did end the Great Depression. This is a very straight forward basic economical historical fact. But there's 30% of the population that will not believe it because it blows apart what they politically favor today. It's ridiculous.

I disagree with Romney, and I probably won't vote for him. But he's not a fascist. There's a significant difference between him and Santorum. And there's a significant difference between him and Obama. Is there a choice as clearly different as say Ron Paul vs. Ralph Nader? No. Is that a bad thing? Not in my book.

My fear is in our political ecosystem, the moderates, the good ones who truly aren't compromising for the wrong reasons, but do it to get things done, and have a willingness to ignore ideology for practical solutions that help the country are getting drowned out, and characterized as corrupt when they're not. I disagree with Romney, but he's not corrupt. I disagree with Obama, but he's not corrupt. We don't need a revolution to fix our current political system, but an increasing number of people think we do. And the last decade we're seeing a rise in the extremists on both sides enough to drown out the political moderates we desperately need. This just can't continue indefinitely.

>> ^deathcow:

>> ^lantern53:
Obama's policies have not worked for the past 3 years. If you believe some improvement is coming, you have far more faith than the average Catholic bishop.

obama = romney = anyone else they put forward

fuck "saving the children"
save the planet's diversity and ecosystem by a worldwide distribution of contraception

and that will take care of the other problem - having millions of incredibly poor children susceptible to being handed a machine gun.

>> ^transporter:

I feel your empathy towards wildlife, but if you lived near the Mississippi River you would understand. I don't know if you noticed but those sliver carp get pretty big and they jump out of the river when they hear a motor. So yeah, pretty much makes boating impossible, and there have been cases where people have been put in comas or worse from them. Not to mention they kill off all the native fish populations....and their next destination is the great lakes. So its tough to care about how it gets done --> these fish need to die. Slow, quick, I don't care, but they need to be culled big time.
The Mississippi is fucked up and the entire ecosystem of the great lakes is in jeopardy. This is a cause that unites sport fishermen (billion dollar industry in great lakes) and environmentalists alike. Although these guys aren't going to spokesperson for PETA anytime soon, the carp isn't exactly a higher life form. The farming industry does much worse to higher functioning animals. I think here the ends justify the means.
Anyhow, I thought this was hilarious.>> ^artician:
I'm not exactly an animal rights person, but I was a little miffed at the fact that they basically just maim the majority of the fish they hit.
Early in the video the guy with the machete even cuts a fin off of one. You know that fish lived, and it kind of sucks to think about.
For me...
Again, not an animal rights person, (maybe I am and don't know it?) but this is a good example of humans just fucking up their world and the species they share it with for fun.



Hah! Not a perspective I had previously thought of. Thanks for shedding some light on it for me!