Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Bad Movies => Topic started by: Gecko Brothers on May 04, 2004, 12:40:33 AM

Title: Are we that stupid?
Post by: Gecko Brothers on May 04, 2004, 12:40:33 AM
A poll on Scifi.com in the news section there is a poll on The Day After Tomorrow which looks really cheasy in the expensive form of the word.  The  poll said "The SF movie The Day After Tomorrow is roiling debate about the possible disastrous consequences of global warming. Do you believe such a scenario is possible?"
 The answers were
a) Yes. It's only a matter of time.
b) No. It's hysterical exaggeration.
c) I'll believe it when hell (or New York) freezes over.
I of course using logic said "c" knowing it would never happen. First all global warming is mostly an overexagerated myt h produced by nut jobs that dress up as cows and mutant freaks that are not for movies. If you look overall temperatures throughout time on earth,(read Give  Me a Break by John Stossel 20/20 anchor) wether your a Creationist like me or an Evolutionist  you can see that certain times the average temperature has been way higher before than now. This is only one point but what shocks me is not the question but the response. Either the people are joking or they are seriously taking lots of pills, but most people choose "a"!
If the majority is that stupid enough to believe a hype over a movie *cough Blair Witch and Fargo and Texas Chainsaw Massacere cough* then we are really doomed!
Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: raj on May 04, 2004, 02:04:42 PM
Sure it was warmer in the past.  That's because all the dinosaurs were driving SUVs.
Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: dean on May 04, 2004, 10:57:00 PM

Global Warming is possible, you've also got to remember that even if temperatures of the earth have been bigger and hotter, the landscape was different.

I seriously doubt that big floods and whatnot would occur, but just a slow, constant rising of the water level: I can't see how big floods could just come about; we would be talking massive defrosting of the polar caps at one short amount of time.
Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: ulthar on May 05, 2004, 12:00:39 AM
If you melt the North Polar Ice Cap, the water level goes DOWN.  The North Pole is all water, with ice floating on top.  If this ice (which is less dense than liquid water) melts, the result is smaller total volume. Do the experiment.  Put ice in a glass...fill to brim with water...wait for ice to melt....did it overflow?

South Pole (which is colder)  would have to melt as much, just to break 'even' with current ocean level.

As a teacher of college Chemistry for years, I am quite disappointed that so many people miss this basic fact.  Melting to polar ice caps will not cause any kind of catastrophic rise in ocean levels.  ESPECIALLY when you couple with the process energy sinking mechanisms we don't even understand that would probably kick in if the caps started to melt.

Physics Today a few months ago had an excellent article in which a science historian outlined how scientists at the turn of the century (1900) had evidence of really huge climatic changes in very short time scales (with no resulting catastrophic changes to the ecosystems), but ignored it because this evidence did not fit popular view that global climate can only change slowly.  Here's a link to my brief synopsis of this article, posted for a friend who was teaching a science class at the time:

http://www.dsbscience.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3

Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: Chopper on May 05, 2004, 10:56:47 AM
check out the brain on brad!! ;)
Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: Susan on May 05, 2004, 06:47:14 PM
Everytime a disaster film comes out there are always news articles and stories..people start thinking that meteor or earthquake is going to hit any minute and that everything depicted in the movie is entirely possible.

Global warming is a gradual process that will slowly affect our weather patterns. It's not like a 5 mile wide meteor is dropping from the sky and sending us into the next ice age. People get so hyper - on the flipside i have a feeling people secretly wish disaster films would come true to add some excitement to their life. ;-)

Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: Mr. Hockstatter on May 05, 2004, 10:59:37 PM
A while ago I watched an old episode of "In Search Of" with Leonard Nemoy.  This was back in the '70s, and they were talking about the next ice age - which was already upon us back in the '70s.  They interviewed all the scientists, who assured us that the ice age was here - it's an undeniable fact, anyone who disagrees is an ignorant moron, etc.  There was Leonard Nimoy, standing in the middle of a snow drift, pointing out that the past two or three winters had been colder than normal, and as proof, well, he's standing in a freakin' snow drift!  I mean, how can anyone deny that the ice age is upon us?!?

Another comical tidbit was the old "secrects of the ice" thing on PBS.  It used to be on their website, and they had charts of global temperatures over the last couple million years.  The charts clearly showed that carbon monoxide levels (the stuff that comes from car exhaust) was higher - yes higher - two million years ago than it is now.  But the really funny part was that, right next to the chart was the PBS commentary stating that carbon monoxide levels have never been higher than they are now.  Um, I guess PBS thinks people are pretty damned stupid.

Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: ulthar on May 05, 2004, 11:04:07 PM
I actually remember this from elementary school.  Someone, a Forest Ranger I THINK, came to talk at our school about the changing climate.  The topic of his talk was the coming Ice Age (now that I think about it, it MAY have been a film strip...one of the ones with the 'beep' when it was time to click to the next frame, or possibly a movie).

Since I remember the attempt at brainwashing our young minds with Ice Age Cometh Environmetalism in the mid 1970's, I have never given much credibility to the Global Warming doomsayers.  Well, that and the butt-loads of scientific evidence that contradicts the half baked theories of some that want to believe it for whatever reason.

Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: Eirik on May 06, 2004, 07:57:37 AM
"Since I remember the attempt at brainwashing our young minds with Ice Age Cometh Environmetalism in the mid 1970's, I have never given much credibility to the Global Warming doomsayers."

The Global Warming people today - like the Ice Age people of the 1970s - make the same basic mistake.  They look at approximately 25 years of data and try to extrapolate from that data a trend for a planet that is millions of years old.  It would be like looking at a one week stretch in the 1922 season where Babe Ruth went 1 for 10 and concluding that he he couldn't hit.  Bottom line, it'll probably take several more centuries of recording data before mankind do any kind of meaningful trend analysis on the nature of this planet.  Doesn't mean we shouldn't look for alternatives to fossil fuels though...
Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: ulthar on May 06, 2004, 08:51:45 AM
Eirik wrote:

> The Global Warming people today - like the Ice Age people of
> the 1970s - make the same basic mistake.  They look at
> approximately 25 years of data and try to extrapolate from that
> data a trend for a planet that is millions of years old.

That's right on the money.  That's kinda one of the things that Physics Today article hints at...when one looks at the long term data that *IS* available, the conclusions of catastrophic climate change are a bit different.

> Doesn't mean we shouldn't look for alternatives to fossil fuels
> though...

Fair enough.  Won't argue with that.  And, we *are* looking for alternatives, we just don't have anything as versatile and efficient RIGHT NOW.  I personally just think it's dumb to try to hide a reasonable scientific/technological pursuit (alternative fuels) behind all this 'the sky is falling' hysteria.

And, like it or not, fossil fuels are what we use now, and what we will use for 25 years or more.  Even if a better alternative happens next week, it will take time to adjust our entire economic base from one fuel source to another.  We have over 100 years of 'building' a fossil fuel economy, so I doubt it will go away overnight.

All I'm saying here is let's be realistic about what can be done and how fast.  Fuel cells, solar, wind, etc are not the panacea that will transform the earth's economies in the next five years.  Note again, this is NOT me saying we should not be researching ways to improve these technologies.  (Actually, wind is a bust.  There's just so much energy available in moving air, and the numbers show it just is not worth trying to extract it for large scale needs, but I digress).

Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: Mr. Hockstatter on May 06, 2004, 09:26:57 AM
I think what the oil companies are doing will drive people to alternative fuels a lot faster than any environmental hysteria.  I mean, they take over Iraq and the price of oil goes UP?  Hello?.  Not long ago, there was actually a printed apology from the oil companies in my local gas station for how they gouged us, and of course they waited something like a week before gouging us again.  Every time anything happens, the price of gas goes up immediately, or often times weeks before anything happens in anticipation of the event.  Then when the event that made prices go up never happens, it takes half a year for the price to go down.  And of course by then five more things have happened or might happen.  

What a freakin' racket.
Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: raj on May 06, 2004, 10:00:27 AM
And of course there are some wonderful alternatives to fossil fuel autos.
Electrics, which even if they have power, need to be recharged and where does that electricity come from?  Fossil fuel power plants!
OK, how about hydrogen powered fuel cell cars?  And where does the H come from, why it gets created (splitting H20) with energy from fossil fuel plants, or else from natural gas!

It's like getting a heroin junkie off the stuff by giving him methadone -- a synthetic opiate!
Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: ulthar on May 06, 2004, 10:59:09 AM
Actually, I'm for nuclear cars.  

It might help with people following too close on the highway if they just recall the car they might crash into is roughly equivalent to a 20 kiloton device.

Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: raj on May 06, 2004, 12:00:08 PM
Ford, at least, did research a nuclear car, there's a model of it in the Henry Ford Museum (I was there last weekend).  IIRC, it was from the 50s or 60s, back when nuclear power was full of promise, and they didn't think of things like waste, and accidents, and terrorists.
Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: Flangepart on May 06, 2004, 06:57:43 PM
True. And i've heard recently about the hybred cars haveing safty concirns for rescue workers. All the power in those batteries could kill an EMT.
Gas blows up (Espchualy in movies), electricity zaps, and horses freak at the sight of a mouse, and drag you to death when you don't quite fall out of the sturrips....
MOVEMENT KILLS!

Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: Gecko Brothers on May 06, 2004, 08:23:20 PM
Excellent-Mr. Burns
Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: JohnL on May 07, 2004, 12:23:40 AM
Back when SciFi was runningh their technology shows like C/Net Central, one of them had a demonstration of a new artificially created fuel. It was a chemical that could be added to water to produce fuel. Supposedly it was cheap and easy to produce, plus it didn't burn in the open. They showed them waving a blowtorch over the top of the liquid in a tub and nothing happened. I wish I remembered what it was called so that I could see if there was anything about it on the net. The paranoid part of me says that the oil companies probably paid a fortune for all rights to the formula so that they could bury it.
Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: wickednick on May 07, 2004, 06:14:50 AM
I really hate these doomsday theorists that say we are all going to be dead in ten years because of global warming. The fact is that temperatures have been going up and down on are planet in drastic degrees since the earth was first formed. To say that things are hotter or colder now than it was 50 years ago is just plain dumb. You can't expect that we know everything about are climate in just the few years we have actually been recording and studying it.
But no one should be lead into a false sense of security though.Are world is destined to change, whether it be by are own hands or gods we will see natural disasters happen to are world again. Of course when the next ice age comes or a asteroid or even when Yellowstone erupts again, those who are living now may not be alive to see those things happen.
But I have a thought now and hear me out.Is the human race not apart of nature, of course we are.And the disasters that we may cause are just anouther step in the evolution of are world. Those animals that die because of are influance will be replaced by other creatures that are suited to live along side are species.And we are selves will of course change because of are actions.
.



Post Edited (05-07-04 06:47)
Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: ulthar on May 07, 2004, 09:00:17 AM
JohnL wrote:

>The paranoid part of me
> says that the oil companies probably paid a fortune for all
> rights to the formula so that they could bury it.

More likely it was something that was cool in a lab setting (and probably a novelty kind of thing) that did not 'scale up' to industrial use very well.  We see these things all the time.  Folks claim to have discovered The Next Big Thing(tm), only to learn upon closer examination that it is either (a)something known all along, and they are attempting a true scam or (b) they see some behavior in a 50 mL beaker and think that will work well in a 200 ton vat.

Not saying these statement apply to what you saw, but I'd think this more likely than some giant conspiracy by the oil companies.  I've mentioned this before, but what is the motivation of the oil companies to keep new technologies down?  Really? If they learn of a new technology, and THEY are the ones to develop it (because they have financial resources to do so), they stand to make LOTS and LOTS of money.  

There is no rational business motivation for 'Big Oil' to suppress new energy technology.  That notion is just pure anti-American, anti-capitalism hogwash perpetuated by ding-dongs that would not know a real science book if it smacked them in the head.

Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: Mr. Hockstatter on May 07, 2004, 09:48:11 AM
QuoteThey showed them waving a blowtorch over the top of the liquid in a tub and nothing happened

You can do that with just about any flammable liquid - you just refrigerate it first.  It's the fumes on top of the surface of the liquid which catches fire, and the colder a liquid is the less fumes it puts out.  You can toss a lit match in a cold bucket of gasoline and it will go out, just like if it was water.

That's extremely typical of the Sci-Fi Channel, broadcasting a parlor trick and claiming it to be hard science.
Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: mr. henry on May 07, 2004, 12:32:07 PM
what's wrong with FARGO>>>>>>?????????????????/

Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: wickednick on May 07, 2004, 10:05:56 PM
Mr. Hockstatter wrote:

> That's extremely typical of the Sci-Fi Channel, broadcasting a
> parlor trick and claiming it to be hard science.
Cough.John Edwards.Cough.

Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: odinn7 on May 07, 2004, 10:54:06 PM
Huh? You mean John Edwards isn't for real? snicker...

Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: ulthar on May 08, 2004, 09:16:06 AM
John Edwards, the Democrat Senator from NC, former presidential hopeful, is not for real??  Who'd a thunk it.



Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: JohnL on May 09, 2004, 01:35:20 AM
>I've mentioned this before, but what is the motivation of the oil companies to
>keep new technologies down? Really? If they learn of a new technology, and
>THEY are the ones to develop it (because they have financial resources to do
>so), they stand to make LOTS and LOTS of money.

If someone were to develope a fuel that's cheaper to produce, what profit would there be for the oil companies to develope it? If they sell it for a cheaper price, they'd lose money compared to gasoline sales, and if they jack up the price, people won't see much incentive to switch.

>You can do that with just about any flammable liquid - you just refrigerate it first.

I didn't know that.
Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: ulthar on May 09, 2004, 05:25:00 PM
JohnL wrote:

>
> If someone were to develope a fuel that's cheaper to produce,
> what profit would there be for the oil companies to develope
> it? If they sell it for a cheaper price, they'd lose money
> compared to gasoline sales, and if they jack up the price,
> people won't see much incentive to switch.
>

The point is if the Oil Companies see a viable product, one that *WILL* revolutionize the 'energy industry,' it'd be foolish for them to try to 'suppress' it rather than be the ones to capitalize on it.  The issues are not 'cheaper price' so much as renewable (no such thing as renewable energy, unless we want to rewrite the laws of nature), cleaner and more efficient.

Talk to an Oil Company exec...ask 'em.  Go to the source.  As them "If you saw research that showed a fuel product 5% more efficient than petroleum based fuels, that was cleaner burner and could be relatively easily engineered to be used in existing applications (cars, trucks, planes, etc), would you invest in it, or try to bury it?"

I'd be willing to wager they would want to jump on that as an investment in a heartbeat, and would be more likely to break insider (or similar) laws trying to exploit the new technology than to suppress it.

Suppression of technological advancement sounds cool as a conspiracy theory, but it makes absolutely no business sense.

Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: odinn7 on May 10, 2004, 09:26:44 AM
*Talk to an Oil Company exec...ask 'em. Go to the source. As them "If you saw research that showed a fuel product 5% more efficient than petroleum based fuels, that was cleaner burner and could be relatively easily engineered to be used in existing applications (cars, trucks, planes, etc), would you invest in it, or try to bury it?"*

I think you would be hard pressed to find an oil company exec that was willing to admit that they would try to bury something like that whether they were or not.
I look at it this way...assume that we some how discovered that water is the fuel of the future. With minor work, it could be used to power all kinds of things that used to need gasoline. Do I believe the oil companies would jump on getting that idea working for them and out to the public? I can't say that I do. How could they drive the price up and make money off of something like that? Water is everywhere. Of course, that is just me who believes that all major companies are inherently evil. Gas is $1.93 for regular where I live. It has gone up 20 cents within the last 2 weeks. Why? What's happened over the last 2 weeks to cause a 20 cent increase? They can raise the prices and nobody can do anything about it. They will then at some point lower the price down to $1.70 or so and everyone will breathe a sigh of relief because the price came down...never thinking how it's way higher than it had been before. This I call evil. I understand companies are in business to make money but this has gotten way out of hand. This is why they won't find a cheaper alternative to fossil fuel until it is absolutely necessary to find something else.

Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: Mr. Hockstatter on May 10, 2004, 11:33:30 AM
I agree with you about the oil companies - my favorite was when they raised prices in anticipation of an especially cold winter, which would drive demand way up.  But, wait, who's stupid enough to think anybody can predict what the weather is going to be like months in the future?  Yesterday they said is was supposed to rain all day today, yet today it's not raining.

I'd only choose a different adjective to describe the oil companies.  Greedy to the point of excess, perhaps.

But something to keep in mind:  Everybody remembers the good old days when gas was 50 cents a gallon.  And everybody's outraged that it's almost $2.00 a gallon today.  Yet nobody seems to remember that back in the good old days, a  new car cost $4,000, and now they're 15 - 20,000.  Yet no outrage over the tripling or quadrupling of car prices.  It's just that gas is one of the few things we keep track of.  We hear our parents talk about how they bought their first house for fifteen thousand and chuckle.  We listen to how they paid fifty cents a gallon for gas and we're outraged.  Yet cars get much better mileage today, which lessens the impact of the price increase by quite a bit, 50% or so maybe (Well, if you choose to buy a fuel efficient one at least).  Actually we should probably be much more outraged about real estate prices and a hundred other things.

Anyhoo, my two cents worth.
Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: ulthar on May 10, 2004, 11:50:40 AM
The fundamental "flaw" (as I see it anyway) is that so many seem to think the fuel itself has to be cheap.  In your analogy, yes, water is everywhere.  *BUT*, the technology to use that water as a fuel is not, and whoever develops that technology stands to make a *LOT* of money, and win a lot of good will for helping develope 'greener' energy system.  We have to focus on the energy system as a whole, not just the fuel itself.

As for the price of gas, well, that's a complicated issue.  There's an old adage in economics and price valuation: "whatever the market will bear."  There is nothing evil or non-evil about an industry charging a 'fair' price for their product.  Now, you don't think it's fair because it is more than you paid six months ago.  But in an objective analysis, the higher price has not curbed use, so the product was underpriced before.  Only when a significant drop of consumption occurs can it be said the price is 'too high.'

That said, I don't think the oil companies themselves are to blame for the increase.  Really, there is a LOT of stuff going on here, and it is easy to blame 'big oil' only because that is fashionable.  I offer that federal and state taxes on gasoline (and other petroleum products) comprise well over 50% (in some areas, 60-65%) of the cost, and those taxes are slated to be raised (at least in this state; here, it keeps coming up to raise the gas tax, it keeps failing, but the politician way is to keep bringing it up until it passes).

Also, we buy our crude oil from out-of-country, at least a lot of it.  That means we are subject to global market prices on crude; why on the earth should 'big oil' absorb those rising costs (ie, not pass them to the consumer)?  Overhead in a big industry is an ever increasing, upward spiraling thing, in the form of employee benefits, employee taxes, etc.  My goodness, what industry could survive if it could respond to rising costs of raw materials?  That is not realistic at all.

Further, there is constant research in the petroleum industry to increase efficiency of production (and, for that matter, increasing efficiency on the consumer end), and to make things cleaner.  It is not the Sierra Club or some such that has sunk billions  of dollars into petroleum research to make gasoline burn with less pollution, and to make cars last longer and run more efficiently.  It's good old American big industry.  This research costs money (just like pharmaceutical research costs money, a lot of it, and we also attack the parm. ind. in a similar fashion as we do big oil).  To the oil companies, this research cost is an investment, one they recover in gaining market share in their industry.  Not by hosing the consumer, but by gaining consumer confidence in THEIR version of the product.  Some of the research is mandated, too, as regulated by environmental policy.

Our production facilities in the US are, and have been for many years, operating at maximum capacity.  We have had very few, if any, refineries constructed in the past ten years or so.  This means if demand goes up, cost *MUST* go up to TRY to keep supply and demand in balance.  I honestly don't know what folks expect Exxon, et al to do...snap their fingers and produce gasoline from oil?  The real world does not work that way.  Old refineries also mean decade (or older) technology and decade or older efficiency in refining.

Et cetera.

Okay, so in the end, we can all hold whatever view we want of 'big oil.'  I myself refuse to believe that Americans, who work for those companies and must buy the gas too, as well as the company as an industrial entity, would seek to undermine the very industry it server.  In my opinion, we have to look at it as 'energy industry,' not the more narrowly focused 'oil industry.'

To make this sorta On Topic to the board, I think we have all seen too many 'corporate America is bad' movies, and easily lose site of economic reality.

Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: Jay on May 10, 2004, 12:00:00 PM
I think we have all seen too many 'corporate America is bad' movies, and easily lose site of economic reality.

Here?  You think? :)
Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: odinn7 on May 10, 2004, 12:29:45 PM
I still see no reason why the price jumped 20 cents in two weeks...Someone must have needed a raise...

Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: Jay on May 10, 2004, 12:57:47 PM
*BUT*, the technology to use that water as a fuel is not, and whoever develops that technology stands to make a *LOT* of money,

Whomever comes up with a commercially viable alternative to fossil fuels and can patent the process and cut out reliance on OPEC and the middle east is going to be making buckets'o'cash all for themselves.  Any company with an existing clientelle and distribution infrastructure (such as a US big oil company) is *highly* motivated to make that happen because they are the ones that can best capitalize on it.


I still see no reason why the price jumped 20 cents in two weeks...Someone must have needed a raise...

Think it through.  Prices at each point along the line are set by different people, starting with OPEC and ending with the local pump.  That's why at the beginning of the first Gulf War, some local stations got slapped because *they* decided to raise prices, before OPEC or the big companies had.  All those big companies are in competition.  If Shell raises prices and Texaco doesn't, then Shell gets cut out, so Shell can't do that unless it's more expensive for them to get the oil in the first place  and they have no choice.  But if the price goes up at *every* pump in an area, then it's either a) collusion/price fixing (which is illegal) or b) something upstream from the oil companies, like OPEC or shipping costs, or possibly some reaction to the commodities market or whever oil and oli futures are traded (just a WAG on that one)

Which as much as the Bushes have been linked to Big Oil of some sort or another, if a) was even possible, the Dems would have been raising a stink to high heaven over the last decade and a half about it.  

Ockahm's Razor says otherwise.
Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: wickednick on May 10, 2004, 03:43:55 PM
I'll admit I know very little about economics (I probably misspelled the word) but the way I understand the the raise in oil prices over the years is this.
One of the big reasons are oil prices are higher now than 30 years ago is inflation.The dollar is just not worth what it was 30 years ago and the oil companys have had to adjust the price of gas to match that.
Anouther reason why we pay more is because we earn more money now than we did 30 years ago. Today I believe minimum wage is 5.75 an hour. Back when my dad was growing up getting payed 5.75 an hour was considered a decent wage.
There are lots of reasons the price of oil has jumped up so high in the past few weeks. One of them is supply and demand, anouther is the war in Iraq. The prices will hopefully go down in a few weeks and life will be back to normal.
Now corect me if im wrong please and don't call me stupid if I made some invalid points, these are just my opinions.

Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: raj on May 10, 2004, 03:55:08 PM
You did forget that China is becoming a large consumer of oil; we're starting to compete with a billion Chinese, and they aren't riding bicycles anymore.  Gasoline prices in this country, when you take into account inflation and purchasing power have been pretty flat (except for when Saddam invaded Kuwait)
Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: ulthar on May 10, 2004, 04:49:31 PM
wyckednick wrote:

> One of the big reasons are oil prices are higher now than 30
> years ago is inflation.The dollar is just not worth what it was
> 30 years ago and the oil companys have had to adjust the price
> of gas to match that.

> Anouther reason why we pay more is because we earn more money
> now than we did 30 years ago. Today I believe minimum wage is
> 5.75 an hour. Back when my dad was growing up getting payed
> 5.75 an hour was considered a decent wage.

I think these are the same thing...we earn more now because of inflation.  If not exactly the same thing, they are certainly closely related.

Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: Gecko Brothers on May 11, 2004, 06:57:09 PM
Give it a rest this was mostly a point to show how stupid some people can be!
Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: R.Kupo on May 12, 2004, 04:34:14 AM
Ummmm, the thing with Texas Chainsaw Massacre, it happened for real. How am I sure? I'm from Texas!!
Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: odinn7 on May 12, 2004, 09:21:13 AM
"Ummmm, the thing with Texas Chainsaw Massacre, it happened for real. How am I sure? I'm from Texas!!"

Sure, sure...I remember reading about it in the National Enquirer...right...
It is fitting that you posted this under this subject.

Title: Re: Are we that stupid?
Post by: Writer on May 14, 2004, 04:12:42 PM
Well, judging by responses so far, I'd say no, people on this board, at least, are not that stupid.

Let's face it: post-apocalyptic stories are fun, especially if they're about the guy who just happens to have a lot of stored goods and a ravishingly beautiful female on hand. That most of the stories are based on junk science doesn't much get in the way of people's enjoyment.

A somewhat more believable story involving global warming was AI: Artificial Intelligence. Notably, this movie was not post-apocalyptic but dystopian, being more a story about humans doing themselves in gradually through mindless pursuit of pleasure than about any sudden catastrophe. The only thing that struck me odd about it was that near the end, an ice age had apparently overtaken the world. Roasting followed by freezing? What's up with THAT?