Random Thoughts

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs202...._1880584_n.jpg

i too have been wearing glasses since very early. (4 or 6 year old) scar, that is adorable.

In before Wats makes a creepy comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melville

I'm going to guess that Penn & Teller did the same thing here that they did with global warming: cherry-pick their data and then misconstrue its implications. First off, recycling isn't an either-or proposition. We can decide what we want to recycle, what we want to incinerate, what we want to send to the dump, etc. It's drastically more efficient to recycle aluminum than to mine for ore and then extract it from that, while the benefit of recycling stuff like glass and glossy paper is less obvious. So we could opt to just recycle the stuff that's more obviously beneficial to recycle. In addition to the varieties of materials, there are also the varieties of cities to consider. Recycling and other methods of waste-disposal will cost different amounts (in terms of energy, resources, and money) in different cities, with different population densities, proximities to landfills, recycling systems, etc. So different cities should have different programs tailored to their situations.

However, even accounting for the differing materials and for the variety of situations, in most cases (83%, according to a study cited on Wikipedia), recycling is less expensive than sending stuff to a landfill. Also, Penn & Teller are probably referring to direct costs, neglecting external costs, which are the main concern when we're talking about environmental policy. Similarly, you can't just say it takes more energy at one stage of production: you need to do a complete lifetime analysis. So without some more evidence, I'm not buying their argument.

And finally, just because recycling methods right now might be inefficient in certain cases doesn't mean that we should give up on recycling. The overarching goal of recycling seems quite obviously desirable. By putting money into it and spurring on recycling initiatives, we have been creating, and continue to create, more efficient recycling technology.

Regarding the methane thing, that seems like a great idea, but it's a recent one. Most gas from landfills is vented or burned. And I'd guess that a lot of money and effort has to go into making sure that the environmental impact of a landfill is minimized, though even when minimized it's obviously negative.

---

It's important to keep in mind that I'm not the one making the argument here, so don't hurt me, please.:lol: I just figured I'd bring their argument here for those that haven't seen the episode.

Like number8 said, their job is to point out fallacies and debunk common misconception. Their central target was the recycling of plastic, which they said is cheaper to produce from scratch. The argument on paper was covered by number8. They did point out the benefits of recycling cans.

I would think the environmental impact of having to process and move all that recycling would be significantly higher than simply dumping it all, and Penn & Teller pointed that out. I'm interested in some more data on the cheaper vs more expensive argument as it seems like a big deal for a lot of people.

Damn, Scar, your niece could give my girls a run for their money in the cute department.

Tonight I'm going to Sweden to ski and drink responsibly for a week. This'll be interesting, especially since two of the five people going are my ex and her new boyfriend. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bac0n

Damn, Scar, your niece could give my girls a run for their money in the cute department.

---

My Mom always said that John would be 'cursed' w/ a baby girl with curly blonde hair and pretty blue eyes.

He's in trouble when she gets older.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scar

My Mom always said that John would be 'cursed' w/ a baby girl with curly blonde hair and pretty blue eyes.

He's in trouble when she gets older.

---

Ya'll can hate Bad Boys 2 all you want, but the day I have a daughter getting picked for a first date, that scene will be reenacted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lasse

Tonight I'm going to Sweden to ski and drink responsibly for a week. This'll be interesting, especially since two of the five people going are my ex and her new boyfriend. :lol:

---

Wow, it's going to be just like one of the worst music videos of all time! ("Last Christmas" by Wham! You're welcome.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mara

Wow, it's going to be just like one of the worst music videos of all time! ("Last Christmas" by Wham! You're welcome.)

---

Haha, yeah, I hope not. But thanks for putting that song into my head. It'll stay there for a eleven months now. :frustrated:

I am frakkin' sick of snow, especially on the damn weekend.

Obama's helping commentate a Georgetown basketball game right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lasse

Tonight I'm going to Sweden to ski and drink responsibly for a week.

---

I'll believe it when I see it.

So last night was a big get-together/reunion with some friends from high school.

One of my friends from back then, Kevin, has been living with his girlfriend of 4 1/2 years. I have only seen them like once a year since high school. Here's a conversation between Kevin and I from last night...

ME: I feel like I don't see you nearly enough, dude.

KEVIN: I know! We should really try to do something about that.

ME: Why don't you and Jen come over sometime? We can watch a movie, have a few drinks, whatever.

KEVIN: Um, me and Jen broke up a few days ago.


And thus, I felt like a big piece of shit for the rest of the night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ezee E

I'm considering a tattoo. I'm thinking the Masks of Tragedy/Comedy. In black only. Each one the size of a fist. Probably on one shoulder. How's it sound?

---

Make sure your artist can spell.

http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/2181/53802121.jpg

Oh, Jen, that tattoo is absolutely lucious.

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megladon8

Oh, Jen, that tattoo is absolutely lucious.

;)

---

I have to find her tattoo pic. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jenniferofthejungle

Make sure your artist can spell.

http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/2181/53802121.jpg

---

Ha. No need to spell it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spun Lepton

I'll believe it when I see it.

---

http://mordred.bioc.cam.ac.uk/~semin...to-believe.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brightside

It's important to keep in mind that I'm not the one making the argument here, so don't hurt me, please.:lol: I just figured I'd bring their argument here for those that haven't seen the episode.

---

Whoops, should have responded to this earlier.

Quote:

---

Their central target was the recycling of plastic, which they said is cheaper to produce from scratch.

---

But again, you have to account for externalities. And for cities, recycling ends with a product that they can sell, which offsets the cost of their recycling. Also, improvements in technology should alleviate one of the big problems with recycling plastic, which is that it's difficult to sort.

Furthermore, even though recycled plastic is more expensive to buy than plastic made from scratch, it's still going to be a small fraction of the cost of a product; and having higher-cost plastic doesn't seem like necessarily a bad thing, given its environmental impact (have you seen that garbage-island in the Pacific?).

Quote:

---

I would think the environmental impact of having to process and move all that recycling would be significantly higher than simply dumping it all, and Penn & Teller pointed that out.

---

I don't know how the environmental impact of processing and transporting garbage would be greater than dumping it into a giant garbage-heap, extracting new raw materials from the environment, and then processing and transporting those materials.

To get real data, you'd probably have to read real scientific journals (which typically require a subscription), but here are the first, admittedly less reliable, things I found with google:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...h/4290631.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/home...s/4291576.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycli...nefit_analysis

I love and hate this site for having links to so many delicious things I don't need, but want anyway.

http://design-milk.com/retro-classic-tv/

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/7...lassictv02.jpg


http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/7...tlunchbags.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by number8

Aaaand the lowest age of consent in the world goes to:

http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm?12

Tip: Scroll down to V.

---

did a little research, nothing really legitimate, but it seems to explain it

Quote:

---

This is a misnomer that involves an arcane law that was part of the old Codic Penal from Italy.

In 1929 when the Vatican became a city state from the Lateran Treaty with Italy, it carried over the same civil law that was on the books in Italy at the time.

At the time, the Italian Codic Penal had an age of consent of 12 years. It is an arcane law and is irrelevant to Vatican City.

There are only 824 citizens in Vatican City. None of them are children. They are prelates and guards.

Children have never been citizens of Vatican City.

The arcane law of consent doesn't apply to anyone because there are no children who are citizens.

---

I think it just proves how archaic and stubborn they are about change.

Also, no children citizens in Vatican city doesn't mean children don't go there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by number8

Also, no children citizens in Vatican city doesn't mean children don't go there.

---

You just put the image of 12 year olds sneaking off a guided tour to look for some "action" and now I want to kill you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [ETM]

You just put the image of 12 year olds sneaking off a guided tour to look for some "action" and now I want to kill you.

---

What if there's a sneering old man peeking from a gold-plated corner holding up a lollipop from behind the tour? Is that better?