Jump to content

anglicanbeachparty

Member
  • Posts

    304
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by anglicanbeachparty

  1. Not in the DVD we are looking at right now. Mandela's name is never mentioned. Interesting! Did you see it in the theater, or on DVD?
  2. I also agree. I can't believe they had him riding around in a (expletive deleted) !! Talk about your stick-out-like-a-sore-thumb product placements!
  3. I just now rented this for my daughter, who is 8, African-American, and a good speller. Now, thanks to this film she either taps her hand or pretends to jump rope when she spells. It is cute. I agree with what Nick Alexander said about the quote on the plaque. It sounded fishy, narcissistic, and humanistic to me, and I wondered why its author was never identified in the film. Now at least I have a clue. But I agree with the reasons everyone has given thus far as to why it is a worthwhile film. I could've sworn that at the end
  4. Hello pipples. Hef adapted Borat accent for the use @ homes and works. I like!!! Hef viewed so much short clips of upcoming moviefilm (with childrens allowing watch CLEAN parts only), thet I no longer am needing to attend this in cinema! Waddupwidit, vanilla face?!
  5. One of the reasons I think I will really enjoy this film is simply the opportunity to watch this guy work. I am a bit in awe of someone who knows his character that well, and can play it so seamlessly. Particularly, when the others are not working from a script.
  6. I remember the 1968 World Series quite well. That was back when I was 10 years old, and followed baseball day by day, not just tuning in once a month or less like I do now.
  7. Atlas Shrugged is one of my favourite books ... I mean except for the part John Galt lapses into an hour-long speech on Objectivism, during which Rand forgets she is writing for the character, and just gives us a dump of her own thoughts. Still, as much as I love the book, Angelina Jolie is approximately the worst person I can think of to play the role of Dagney Taggart. 8O
  8. Same here. I saw the film many months ago, but am just now discovering this thread. I think Curse of the Wererabbit is brilliant in places, but I say that as someone who is a sucker for anything comic and English. Especially, anything with an Anglican vicar in it (I love the scene where he's praying ...), so you can see why this is a favourite of mine. But I also agree with whichever of you said that A Grand Day Out was the best. It is for me, too.
  9. Here is an article about our Rector and parish and how we pray for the Tigers. There is at least one mistake in the article: At the end, it mentions that we will be praying for 3 more victories. That should be "4 more victories."
  10. Did you even read this thread? Or are you just here to advertise for your film? Of course it is debatable. We are debating it right here, to some degree.
  11. Does anyone else find it mildly amusing that some of the E. coli-infected spinach came from a place called Natural Selection Foods? Their spinach is clearly intended to promote the survival (only) of the fittest. Natural Selection Foods - Doing our bit for evolution of the species!
  12. I was tempted to make this a whole new Thread, but perhaps one baseball thread is enough. I know why the Tigers did not win the AL Central Division. First, go here and read the entry for Tuesday, September 26th on my Rector's blog. Here is an exerpt from a LiveJournal entry I made on July 27, 2006, which explains the phenomenon: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Aaron and Hur ... in reverse. Since I got to St. John's, we have always had a banner on the side of the church. At first, it said: Pray Here for the Tigers! Then, there was a vote while I was on Vestry, to determine new wording. The slogan that won was: Pray here for the Lions and Tigers! Which vexed me slightly, because another vestryman had suggested: Lions and Tigers and Prayers -- Oh My!, which I thought vastly superior. Anyhow, you may know that during the 2004 and 2005 seasons, the Detroit Tigers were about the worst team in major league baseball. Just about the worst team ever, in fact. Fast forward to 2006. The banner is not up this year, due to stained-glass restoration. Bam! The Tigers are the best in the majors, 8.5 games out in front in their division! I don't think this can be mere coincidence. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + As you can see from my priest's blog, the banner is back up. I think we lost at least 5 games in a row immediately after the banner was put back ukp. I therefore concluded that this banner cost the Tigers the Division title. Unless we pull it back down immediately, the Yankees will walk all over us! Could it be that God is not particularly pleased with making a public show of praying for sports teams?
  13. On the life of the 3-way cats, I haven't seen that data. I think that they must be pretty good for the first several years, to get past the annual Smog checks in states like California. But, your point stands; they dod degrade. And, yes, you caught me fudging a bit on the Chinese city example. One of the main reasons a new car could clean the air like that is that all the old cars first put the pollutants there. We do incredible amounts of computer modeling (for example, some people I work with use finite-element-based thermal analyses to design exhaust manifolds which will "light off" the cats more quickly). I think most modern catalytic converters reach steady-state performance in under a minute. I'm sorry, I also don't know about the benzene. I think there is a lot more oil that we are not (yet) willing to drill for. But again, it's only a matter of time. So, once again, your point stands. I have heard some talks from ethanol and methanol proponents, but they haven't really satisfied me. The one thing that this problem has going for it is that the consumer is on the side of the engineers, in that we all want to drive. It's not the same for the catalytic converter, where (without government intervention) most would want everyone else to buy one, but not voluntarily spend money themselves. If I had to bet on a solution for 100 years out, it would be either electric battery vehicles or hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles with, in both cases, the potential energy ultimately having been produced at a nuclear plant. Yes, but what? If it turns out to be the case that all this warming is purely natural (and as I've said, that's not what the consensus view of the evidence is), what could we do about it? We still only have control over human activities. Wouldn't it still mean drastically reducing greenhouse gases etc.? What else could we do? Actually, I heard a suggestion the other day. Since large volcanic eruptions put vast quantities of ash into the air which have been shown to reduce temperatures, couldn't aero engines be configured to spray volcanic ash into the air and weave us a blanket to reduce the intensity of solar radiation for a while? I don't know either, but we need to start looking. I am enjoying your thought provoking questions, so thanks!
  14. Which emissions (CO2, CO, NOx, HC, particulates)? And what effects? When I was in school (the 1970s), the big enemies were CO, NOx, and unburnt hydrocarbons. With the advent of the catalytic converter, these are not a serious problem. If you drive any modern automobile through the streets of any large (say) Chinese city, there will actually be less of these pollutants coming out your tailpipe than went in at your air intake. You are cleaning the air as you drive. So, we are left with CO2. If I am missing some pollutant (from IC-engined automobiles), what is it? All I ever hear about these days (Because the auto industry has effectively solved the other problems. You're welcome.) is CO2. If that is indeed the culprit, we are going to need to take more radical steps than doubling or trebling fuel economy.
  15. To me, it makes a huge difference whether the human contribution is 0.1% of the total versus 1%, 10%, or 100% of the total. In the first two cases, at least, I am strongly motivated to seek a solution which lies outside the cessation of recently popular human activities (such as driving automobiles). Directionality means almost nothing if we do not know relative magnitudes. And no one seems willing to state the magnitudes. I am in the auto industry, and we are under pressure to come up with (say) 50-100% improvement in fuel consumption for our products. But if we take the fuel consumption per mile in half, and then have 3 times as many people driving (China will contribute here), what have we accomplished? "But it is still directionally correct!" we are told. Yes, fine, but if the net effect is less than zero, I don't see how that is helpful. Why is this important? Well, if the solution lies in something we are not even looking to affect, we are wasting time. Are we sure that we are barking up the right tree?
  16. Yes, in each age there has been the Modern Science, which is the best ever, and which finally allows us to know the truth. I'm guessing that the data analysis methods have improved much more than the size of the data set, at least that which consists of direct temperature measurements. One other direction I'd like to see this discussion go is the area of Climate Control: (1) What is the fraction of (recent) global warming attributable to human activity? On "my" side of things, one always hears the old saw about trees and other plants producing much more CO2 than human activity. If so, this needs to be firmly established and believed by those for whom it is an inconvenient truth; if not, folks need to stop saying it. (2) Will humans ever have the level of climactic "authority" to affect global temperatures as we'd like? Can we make a difference? This hearkens back to my old idea of 20 years ago of creating a Global Ozone Pump. I was always puzzled why Ozone was a bad thing locally (e.g., we have "Ozone Action Days" so as not to produce too much), but a beautiful thing globally (e.g., it is a bad thing to have a Hole in the Ozone Layer). My solution: Find a way to transport the Ozone from where it is harmful (e.g., hanging over Los Angeles) to where it is helpful (the "hole" in the Ozone Layer). But the larger point here is to find ways to expand our authority, our ability to control long-term temperature trends. (3) If and only if we have sufficient authority in the matter, do we come to the next problem: Design a Control System to govern things like the afore-mentioned advent of lower solar activity. This is probably the easiest part, in theory. The main issue is that certain people holding the "levers" that govern global temperature trends (if such levers can be found) will find political advantage in not turning them in the way that the Control System theorists tell them to do. As usual, I think the human problem (sin) will be greater than the technological problem (finding a Control System which reacts to the proper input signals and ignores the ones it should ignore). All this, though, only if we have the means to make significant changes. (4) Remember, that if we are going to be on the planet for a long time, we'll have to know both how to make it cooler and how to make it warmer.
  17. This is my impression, also. For the conversation to go to the next logical step in response to popechild's post, one good alternative would have been to detail the difference between the scientific methods (and size of data sets) available now versus during the time of previous climate-change scares which he cited.
  18. Tony, when you say "should be" do you mean simply, "Faster than we would like them to"? Or "Faster than they would if no humans lived on the planet", perhaps? I'm asking about your baseline assumption of how fast the glaciers should be melting. Indeed, should they be melting at all?
  19. I found this part to be truly profound: Studies have shown that when solar output is high, the climate tends to be hot. We needed a study to show that? But, seriously, my question is a rather naive one about melting polar ice-caps and rising sea levels. Of course, we all know that ice takes up more volume per unit mass than liquid water. So, when the ice caps melt, the total volume of the water/ice system will be smaller. Is the predicted (or observed) rise in sea level due to much of the ice being located above sea level?
  20. This has interesting implications for the science-faith dialogue. It is a crucial point that one of the foundations of science - the uniformity of physical laws - is a statement of faith rather than being a scientifically-demonstrable fact. (It reminds me of Richard Dawkins' constant insistence on having evidence for everything that is worth believing - some things, like the need for evidence, cannot be proved evidentially). You raise an extremely important point, Tony. No one is presupposition-free. I used to belabor this point when I taught Euclidean Geometry, to that point that my students got sick of it. In fact, I wrote a curriculum outline once (for a Curriculum Development class I took to get certified to teach), which I called The Foundations of Physics, which sadly I never have had the opportunity to teach. In it, I raised these same points you raise and, for instance, the distinction between Prescriptive and Descriptive laws. (After I lose my job in the auto industry, perhaps I'll have the opportunity to actually teach that course.) It always makes me laugh when big-time Scientists think I have Religious Presuppositions, and they fancy themselves as having none. They could all do with a healthy dose of Cornelius Van Til.
  21. Not looking too good for the Chicago White Sox at this point, is it? Go Tigers!
×
×
  • Create New...