Comments on: Why I moved away from San Francisco

By: of lunar exploration and irate astrologers | weird things

of lunar exploration and irate astrologers | weird things — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 05:58:31 +0000

[...] of the headlines. Astrologers, it seems, can be a source of immense and unexpected amusement as shown by Phil Plait. Though amusement may not be the right word in this case. In her post for the National Examiner, [...]

By: Neony

Neony — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:37:09 +0000

“Astrologers are all nuts by definition.”…

Hey, normally I wouldn’t go around promoting generalizations, or stereotypes.

But astrologers who anthropomorphize the emotional state of the
inorganic moon, imposing their own personal “sexual issues” upon it,
make me quite eager to dismiss all astronomers as nuts.

I wish that some New Age Dingbat somewhere would say something nice about
the masculine gender role, just for once, or get the F out of town. I have no
tolerance for sexist bliss-ninnies who live out the helpless female script: to
complain, blame, shame, and be so weak and fearfully sympathetic that people
automatically support the infant-like whining girl, saving the pretty female
from having to take real responsibility in the world.

The more a woman blames, the less of an adult she is.
.

By: tom

tom — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 03:08:15 +0000

It’s the Examiner. C’mon, it’s a free paper. They can’t GIVE those things away. And if they stuck with astrology or just moved Moonbeam to her beloved moon they’d be ok, but they don’t, they venture into politics too.

By: rhmxghem

rhmxghem — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:24:18 +0000

@Dan: “New Age Dingbat Ratio” would be a great name for a rock band.

By: Charles

Charles — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:09:26 +0000

I can’t believe there are people on here seriously attempting to defend littering. It doesn’t matter if snails do it – dogs crap in parks, does that mean it’s okay to leave it there (or do the same yourself)? Part of being an adult is learning to clean up after yourself. And it doesn’t matter if “space is really big” since the parts affected are the same small parts we travel through – orbital space debris is already a serious problem and is only going to get worse. That argument is no different from the old “Easter Island is covered with trees, so it doesn’t matter how many we chop down” argument, which lead quite predictably to cannibalism and mass starvation. Minimizing your impact on the universe is just good sense.

And as for the original post, um, she’s an *astrologer*. Astrologers are all nuts by definition. Nothing to do with San Francisco.

By: Ask the moon?

Ask the moon? — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:35:06 +0000

Ask. The. Moon.
The. Moon.

Ask the moon?

I give up. Wibble.

By: Robert Carnegie

Robert Carnegie — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:36:20 +0000

Getting a banner advert here, I guess Flash or something, for Shell’s carbon capture efforts. I am a carbon capture sceptic, but the ad is cute. I guess it uses Flash or something. Little CO2s floating around in the air, and your mouse becomes a butterfly net to catch them all. Then the ad progresses to the next frame.

This is exactly not how carbon capture will work. Once CO2 is in the open air, you can’t get it back, unless you plant a forest or sow algae in the ocean or something. (Those methods aren’t quite working either.) Or only use biofuel. Even carbonated drinks, I think I’ve read, have the CO2 manufactured on purpose to put into them, not reclaimed from the atmosphere… maybe I need to switch to still. There’s only a very small proportion of CO2 in air even now, but it has a big effect.

The fossil fuel industry is all about converting carbon compounds to CO2, I don’t hear about that being changed. It’s like cocaine dealers adopting ethical business practices but they still sell cocaine. (Except I hear cocaine really isn’t as bad as they say, not that I want to try it, and CO2 is.)

CO2 being a gas, it would be nice if we could catch it in chimneys and bury it underground so it never comes out, but I do not believe it is going to happen. And if we want the Carbotastrophe not only deferred but never to happen (and let’s face it, does the human race -want- to survive in a world with no more gasoline, which is only decades away at most), then how long do we need the stuff to not leak into the atmosphere anyway? Hundreds of years? Thousands?

Offtopic, except here is where I saw the ad.