*related=http://videosift.com/video/Gag-Reel-Star-Trek-The-Next-Generation-Season-2

The specified related post, Gag Reel - Star Trek "The Next Generation" Season 2, is already associated with this post - bypassing related request by ant.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Gag-Reel-Star-Trek-The-Next-Generation-Season-1-VHS

Gag Reel - Star Trek "The Next Generation" Season 2 has been added as a related post - related requested by ant on that post.

Gag Reel - Star Trek "The Next Generation" Season 1 (VHS) has been added as a related post - related requested by ant.

Your video, Gag Reel - Star Trek "The Next Generation" Season 2, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

So i was playing saints row the third earlier today and save for some reflections and the quality of some of the textures and lighting it's not far off, in fact i am pretty sure next generation consoles will be able to reproduce most of this and more without modification (reflections are still tricky, but you can fake those)

the first star wars trilogy is epic. the last one not so. in fact it sucked big time and almost ruined my impression of star wars universe.
with star trek it was different -- the next generation was awesome while the other star trek spin-off tv series were not even close. and all the star trek movies more or less sucked
still, if if I had to decide on a threat of pain, I'd say star wars win

there's only one real trilogy, after all
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxAEo3CWeq8

Next generation will born already concussed

@GeeSussFreeK

I tried to stay way from issues specific to the use of nuclear technology for a reason. There's very little in your reply that I can respond to, simply for a lack of expertise. So bear with me if I once again attempt to generalize and abstract some points. And I'll try to keep it shorter this time.

You mentioned how construction times and costs are pushed up by the constant evolution of compliance codes. A problem not exclusive to the construction of power plants, but maybe more pronounced in these cases. No matter.

What buggers me, however, is what you can currently observe in real time at the EPR construction sites in Olkiluoto and Flamanville.
For instance, the former is reported to have more than 4000 workers from over 60 nations, involving more than 1500 sub-contractors. It's basically the Tower of Babylon, and the quality of work might be similar as well. Workers say, they were ordered to just pour concrete over inadequate weld seams to get things done in time, just to name an example. They are three years over plan as of now, and it'll be at least 2-3 more before completion.
And Flamanville... here's some of what the French Nuclear Safety Authority had to say about the construction site: "concrete supports look like Swiss cheese", "walls with gaping holes", "brittle spots without a trace of cement".

Again, this is not exclusive to the construction of NPPs. Almost every large scale construction site in Europe these days looks like this, except for whatever the Swiss are doing: kudos to them, wonderful work indeed. But if they mess up the construction of a train station, they don't run a risk of ruining the ground water and irradiating what little living space we have in Europe as it is.

Then you explain the advantages of small scale, modular reactors. Again, no argument from my side on the feasability of this, I have to take your word on it. But looking at how the Russians dispose of their old nuclear reactors (bottom of the Barents Sea) and how Germany disposes of its nuclear waste (dropped down a hole), I don't fancy the idea of having even more reactors around.

As for prices, I have to raise my hands in surrender once again. Not my area of expertise, my knowledge is limited to whatever analysis hits the mainstream press every now and then. Here's my take on it, regarding just the German market: the development, construction, tax exemption, insurance exemption, fuel transport and waste disposal of the nuclear industry was paid for primarly by taxes. Conservative government estimates were in the neighbourhood of €300B since the sixties, in addition to the costs of waste disposal and plant deconstruction that the companies can't pay for. And that's if nothing happens to any of the plants, no flood, no fire, nothing.

That's not cheap. E.ON and RWE dropped out of the bid on construction permits for new NPPs in GB, simply because it's not profitable. RWE CEO Terium mentioned ~100€/MWh as the minimum base price to make new NPPs profitable, 75.80€/MWh for gas-powered plants. Right now, the base (peak) price is at 46€/MWh (54€/MWh) in Germany. France generates ~75% of its power through NPPs, while Germany is getting plastered with highly subsidized wind turbines and solar panels, yet the market price for energy is lower in Germany.

Yes, the conditions are vastly different in the US, and yes, the next generation of NPPs might be significantly cheaper and safer to construct and run. I'm all for research in these areas. But on the field of commercial energy generation, nuclear energy just doesn't seem to cut it right now.

So let's hop over to safety/dangers. Again, priorities might differ significantly and I can only argue from a central European perspective. As cold-hearted as it may sound, the number of direct casualties is not the issue. Toxicity and radiation is, as far as I'm concerned. All our NPPs are built on rivers and the entire country is rather densely populated. A crashing plane might kill 500 people, but there will be no long term damage, particularly not to the water table. The picture of an experimental waste storage site is disturbing enough as it is, and it wasn't even "by accident" that some of these chambers are now flooded by ground water.

Apologies if I ripped anything out of context. I tried to avoid the technicalities as best as I could in a desperate attempt not to make a fool of myself. Again.

And sorry for not linking any sources in many cases. Most of it was taken from German/Swiss/Austrian/French articles.

the next generation's Kirk Cameron

>> ^CreamK:

What a load of bull... All thou he is right on one thing: we would see only carly-rae-rihanna-gaga-shit on that channel that we already are been forcefed. The reason they went for reality route is money, specifically advertisement value of "original programming" is way higher than any bunch of short 3-5 minute video clips, cost of doing one minute of reality show is hundreds of times cheaper than one minute of a music video.
It certainly is not because we steal music, it ain't about us wanting to hear Nirvana, that all is just pure lying. It's cost per minute vs revenue per minute.
Music videos are more important than ever, when you go to youtube and search for that one song you want to hear, you expect to see a music video. Even if it's one of the "b-side" songs you still expect it to have a visual part of the story..
The problem isn't our generation but the 14 year old girls, they get all the attention since they are most willing to spend money on fabricated dreams. Our generation, the 80-90s kids grew up seeing really ground breaking good music and wish to see more real art from the next generation. i would love to scream at MTV "too much dubstep", "kids these days are crazy, i don't understand this"... Now the music i see from youngsters is "this is incredibly stupid, monotonous, no substance crap" as we undertand very well what that Nicki Minaj crap is about.


It's not "pure lying". There's been a massive drop in what was a lucrative CD market. It made sense to push music videos when the tv screen was the only one you had access to.

With both those changes you can hardly expect to attract advertisers with music programming. Piracy has been a factor and while it serves certain interests to overstate it, the switch from physical media to downloads meant huge revenue drops.

Are videos still important? Yes but as he says the budget for these things has plummeted. And probably for the better. The more memorable videos of recent years have probably not suffered for the lack of speedboats and explosions.

What a load of bull... All thou he is right on one thing: we would see only carly-rae-rihanna-gaga-shit on that channel that we already are been forcefed. The reason they went for reality route is money, specifically advertisement value of "original programming" is way higher than any bunch of short 3-5 minute video clips, cost of doing one minute of reality show is hundreds of times cheaper than one minute of a music video.

It certainly is not because we steal music, it ain't about us wanting to hear Nirvana, that all is just pure lying. It's cost per minute vs revenue per minute.

Music videos are more important than ever, when you go to youtube and search for that one song you want to hear, you expect to see a music video. Even if it's one of the "b-side" songs you still expect it to have a visual part of the story..

The problem isn't our generation but the 14 year old girls, they get all the attention since they are most willing to spend money on fabricated dreams. Our generation, the 80-90s kids grew up seeing really ground breaking good music and wish to see more real art from the next generation. i would love to scream at MTV "too much dubstep", "kids these days are crazy, i don't understand this"... Now the music i see from youngsters is "this is incredibly stupid, monotonous, no substance crap" as we undertand very well what that Nicki Minaj crap is about.

I am appalled at some of the responses to this here on the Sift: "she should just take it and shut up", "yeah what's wrong telling someone they're fat" and @scannex's craptacular line of argumentation. This discussion took such a bizarro turn that even bobknight33 has more sense in his comment than a good half of the commenters!

There are several important issues at stake here:

1) Unethical behaviour should be called out, as done here, not silenced/ignored, no matter how "petty" it may seem. Silence (often enforced by shaming and/or interiorised guilt) is one of the main contributors to a culture of abuse of privilege, of bullying, humiliating, harassing, etc etc. I just wish stuff like this (the video) happened more often on TV and in the media in general. The more this kind of behaviour (be it sexist, ableist, bigoted, etc.) is called out as socially unacceptable, the less it will spread over the next generations.

2) Privilege: this guy thinks it is his place to tell a perfect stranger that she's too fat for TV, as if his small-minded opinion was worth anything. Even if it hadn't been so disgustingly condescending, he should know (lets hope that's now the case) that it's not his place to make those remarks. Even if he's a doctor, nutritionist, you name it. He's not her doctor, nor friend, and you have to be pretty fucking stupid to think you're illuminating someone on their hitherto unnoticed BMI, and even more fucking stupid to defend that as "doing her a favour".

3) Obesity is not like smoking. Yes, they are both health problems, but unlike smoking, being obese is not a behaviour. It can be caused/aggravated by certain behaviour, among many other factors. But while a behaviour can be inhibited while in front of others (e.g. not smoking in front of kids/a camera), you cannot "stop being obese". This brings out another distinction, namely that, while seeing people smoke can entice impressionable minds to do the same, seeing someone who is fat will not make one want to be fat as well. Seeing an overweight person on TV having a job or living a normal life might, on the other hand, give hope to people who are mocked and discriminated against for their weight issues, something which does not undermine in the slightest the struggle against obesity.

I could go on, but I've ranted enough as is. Suffice it to say that I fully *support what this woman and her colleagues have taken the courage to do, and hope it is a situation we will see more of in future. We can't (and shouldn't) outlaw douchebaggery, but we sure as hell can make it socially stigmatising, and we damn well should. (and unlike obesity for some, douchebaggery and hateful/hurtful ignorance is something anyone can be cured of)

/rant

The song was popularized by Old Crow Medicine Show who has long been affiliated with Alt Country/hippy jam fests. To be fair to OP though, there has been a bit of a fusion of the "scenes." Live electronic bands like the Disco Biscuits, Sound Tribe Sector 9, and the New Deal spawned this sort of new breed of "hippy-raver hybrids." As @visionep pointed out, there is somewhat of a natural symbiosis there. Anyway, this unholy alliance has come so far along as to push classic hippy bands like String Cheese Incident, Galactic, and Medeski Martin and Wood towards more electronic influenced sounds. These days you see kids on phish tour rockin' skrillex tattoos (oh the humanity). Whatever. I for one welcome our next generation of inebriated overlords. We all like to get down. Let's get down together.

>> ^Lann:

@visionep I known a lot of [insert creative subculture] that love bluegrass/Americana/old timey/folk music. So this isn't really all that strange to see. Also, this isn't exactly your normal country music you hear at some truck stop in Kansas.
<div id="widget_2014515807">