Nthng sys "mndlss clt" bttr thn sch kn jrk dfns f rrr.
[Editor: ignore=off]You know who the Ann Coulter of "60 Minutes" is? Katie Couric.
Posted by Joseph at March 26, 2007 06:42 AMI saw him on CSPAN with his guffaws on what he called Gore's emotional spin. He was a Rep invitee after all. Then I googled him and saw that he was an economist and there to spout the new talking point of the economic collapse of the entire world if we were to take Gore seriously. These guys are the best argument against Darwin's evolution I've seen to date.
Posted by mainsailset at March 26, 2007 07:05 AMMaybe we can divert his apparently limitless methane production into powering vehicles. Where do the political hacks find these fruitloops?
Posted by tempus at March 26, 2007 07:12 AMIt won't be long before the imbalance between growth in energy demand and lack of growth of energy supply bumps global warming off the front pages. Peak world oil production is not a myth and presents some almost intractable problems for doing business as usual.
Of course, nat gas is on it's own peak production bell curve and it's energy substitute is going to be coal. Not the best in terms of air quality and CO2 emissions. For those who want to eliminate coal fired power plants with solar and wind power, fagetaboutit. These renewables provide only a fraction of the megawatts needed.
Who wants to volunteer for the energy availability and reliability of Bagdad? The energy situation is difficult to say the least. Check out www.theoildrum.com for in depth evaluation of the issue.
Posted by brisa at March 26, 2007 07:32 AMNothing says "mindless cult" better than such a knee jerk defense of error.
No shit! So which error are you defending? The one that we should pollute the fuck out of the environment and all will be well? That is a really ignorant -and dangerous- cult you belong to there, oh you spouter of the cultist neo-con line. Back to your Kook-aid.
You know who the Ann Coulter of "60 Minutes" is?
Puff-piece Katy. I will never again watch CBS News. Her interview with the Edwards was as good as any she has ever done, which implies fucking terrible -about what you would expect for an inexperienced sorority girl and cheeleader when tasked with something well above their head. How did you like that wrinkle removing smoothing filter they used on her to remove her wrinkles? You could watch the thing process. She would move and you could see an individual hair from her coiff, then it would blur and smooth. No lines on Katies old wrinkley saggy face. The Edwards were in harsh light and no smoothing applied. Thank God Katie is the CBS anchor. I now have an extra 30 minutes I can use in the evenings because I sure as hell don't watch CBS News. I watched her 3 times and that was all I could take.
But back to your analogy. Lionel Annie is vicious while Katie is incompetent. That's the only comparison that can be drawn between the two.
Posted by phidipides at March 26, 2007 07:40 AMHow did you like that wrinkle removing smoothing filter they used on her to remove her wrinkles? You could watch the thing process. She would move and you could see an individual hair from her coiff, then it would blur and smooth.
That's really about the only thing I've heard about the interview makes me want to see it. It sounds fascinating. The new set and lighting for the CBS Evening News turned me off because it looked hyper-realistic. I thought it was the HD-quality signal they broadcast in, but I'm wondering if they're doing something with the signal. I can't imagine how they're doing it in real-time though - that'd be a HUGE amount of processing power I would think.
It's like video equivalent of the pitch 'fixer' used by Celine and other signing stars.
Posted by idiosynchronic at March 26, 2007 08:13 AMFor those who want to eliminate coal fired power plants with solar and wind power, fagetaboutit. These renewables provide only a fraction of the megawatts needed.
Not correct. For the cost of the Iraq war supplemental -$125 billion dollars- the government could make low interest energy loans available to homeowners and put solar on 6,250,000 homes. That's six million two hundred fifty thousand homes producing much of their energy needs through solar electricity (heating, cooling, refrigeration and all the crap our overconsumptive lifestyles demand). We haven't even started talking about wind, biomass and...Gadzooks...energy conservation. It's not that it can't be done, we just won't do it.
When I first started forecasting my energy needs and the cost of conventional, renewables had a 20 year payoff. After the inanity of Buschco I'm looking at a 5 year payoff for renewables. Unless they make it illegal, I may be off of the grid quicker than they want. Corporate greed, the mother of invention.
Nothing says "mindless cult" better than such a knee jerk defense of error.
testing out the new loyalty oath, huh? fits you like a glove.
Posted by benjoya at March 26, 2007 08:29 AMPhil:
I don't know where you live, or the orientation of your home, or how many megawatts your lifestyle requires. But solar panels on the roof, along with a bank of batteries to provide power on overcast days and during night hours, I agree, would certainly reduce your energy grid requirements. Is this a suitable replacement for coal fired plants for the general population or industry? I have my doubts.
BTW, how much oil is required for the manufacture of solar panels and batteries?
The never ending growth paradyme, upon which capitalism and the fractional reserve banking system depend needs to be replaced by one that can be supported by renewable energy.
It seems to me the sustainable growth is an oxymoron and if you don't change the way money works, you change nothing.
Posted by at March 26, 2007 08:33 AMI can't imagine how they're doing it in real-time though - that'd be a HUGE amount of processing power I would think.
They started using it with Rather. I don't know if it occurs during the delay or, in Couric's case, post processing. I do know that shooting digital video at 24fps softens the whole thing. Compare Couric's face during the Colbert interview to the Edwards interview. It's either digital filters or they used Silly Putty to fill in the cracks. Watch the hair. You'll see the "line" magically soften during her interview.
I watched the Colbert interview with Couric and saw at her best, in her element....being genuine, laughing and having her bubbly personality shine through.
She has been miscast in the role of network anchor. I don't know if CBS was trying to lift ratings by tapping into the female demographic with the format change, but it doesn't seem to have worked.
The nightly news is not the place to take advantage of her considerable talents. It's like forcing a square peg in a round hole. She may be a serious journalist, but her personality fit's much better into the feature story category.
Posted by brisa at March 26, 2007 09:21 AMBrisa - I saw a twit of a journalist who couldn't keep from laughing at the end of every sentence she said. It made her look like an insecure airhead.
It was an inane interview. I know it's comedy, but I like mine with a splash of nitric acid and a whisky chaser.
Posted by idiosynchronic at March 26, 2007 10:17 AMStupid Dems, instead of sending helicopters (and their private jets - the hypocrits!!!) to airlift our troops out of Iraq, they're doing boring old oversight! The bastids!
Monday, March 26, 2007
Administration Oversight
Committee Directs RNC to Preserve White House Emails
Citing evidence that senior White House officials are using RNC and other political email accounts to avoid leaving a record of official communications, Chairman Waxman directs the Republican National Committee and the Bush-Cheney ’04 Campaign to preserve the emails of White House officials and to meet with Committee staff to explain how the accounts are managed and what steps are being taken to protect the emails from destruction and tampering.
I don't know where you live, or the orientation of your home, or how many megawatts your lifestyle requires.
Seems to be working in Northern Canada to replace diesel generators. I should have little difficulty.
BTW, how much oil is required for the manufacture of solar panels and batteries?
Whatever it takes to melt sand. Of course, that may all be ancient history if the "solar cells" being researched at the Center for Nanotechnology at Wake Forest University in North Carolina come along. They are a thin plastic and can be applied like paint. Paint your house and plug it in. Too cool!
Posted by phidipides at March 26, 2007 10:35 AMGood for Lomborg. We need skeptics. We need people who will disagree. In everything, not just climate science.
Posted by idlex at March 26, 2007 02:38 PMFor those who want to eliminate coal fired power plants with solar and wind power, fagetaboutit. These renewables provide only a fraction of the megawatts needed.
Brisa, you are correct. And we're wasting natural gas to create electricity. We should be building more nuclear power plants. (Like China, Russia, India, Japan, England, Australia, France... etc).
It's not that these "alternative" energy plants don't help. But as you said, they're such a small percentage of what's needed.
Posted by muckdog at March 26, 2007 06:33 PM