Letters to the Editor
shannonr
Published Letters: 281 Editor's Choice: 80
-
Duelling Websites!
[Read the article: Blood-and-guts politics]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Camille offers climatedebatedaily.com as an example of a Paglia-approved web resource on "the climate debate".
Naturally, almost all of the 'dissenting voices' from the right-hand column of that website are convincingly eviscerated here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
a website dedicated to debunking the same-old same-old objections (It's the Sun! Climate's changed before!) of the debunkers. The rest of the 'dissenting voices' appear to be personal attacks on Al Gore, so it's apparent why Camille approves.
So I'll see your "balance" website and I'll raise you (unsurprisingly, considering the subject matter) yet more science.
Please, Camille, watch one less film on Netflix -- it seems a small sacrifice -- and read just one more actual science website. The link above will do.
-
Review != Synopsis
[Read the article: "Jumper"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's a rookie mistake.
In this age of the blog you see it everywhere -- so it's unfortunately easy to come to the conclusion that it's "the thing to do" -- but the fact remains: a review is NOT a synopsis, and a review cannot contain a synopsis.
The only things about the plot you are permitted to "give away" in a review are the bits of information anyone could learn from watching the film's official preview.
Anything more, and you are simply disrespecting the people you are intending to serve.
It doesn't matter if you think the film is trash, and so convince yourself you are providing a service by including a summary. It doesn't matter if even the best professional reviewers occasionally cannot stop themselves including spoilers.
Also not permitted is a "retelling" of the film's setup or "first act". Despite the fact that this, too, is common; again, it is simply disrespect. By doing this, you can make it impossible for a potential audience member to react to the film on their own terms, a sin tantamount to talking on your mobile phone in the cinema.
It's an easy line to cross -- but no-one ever said a worthwhile and useful review was an easy thing to write.
Good luck!
-
@brightstar65
[Read the article: Blood-and-guts politics]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Earlier, I advised Paglia that most of the "debunking" positions on the right of the "climate debate" website she linked to (the ones that weren't personal attacks on Al Gore) are simply the same old tired objections that have been stripped bare time and time again, by the process of peer review.
A website which summarizes the "usual suspects" when it comes to climate change debunker debunking -- and, notably, all of the positions you've espoused here -- is reachable by the link below:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
I've linked directly to their "Arguments" page so you can quickly get to the peer-reviewed science on each of your "objections" to global warming.
"Enjoy" sounds snarky, so I'll simply say, in scientific terms, "Bring the debate!" That's what science is all about. Unfortunately for the global warming deniers, their top "objections" (and all of yours) simply don't make the cut.
But if you've got something original (and, needless to say, peer-reviewed) to add to the debate, again, bring it.
-
Your next TV will be HD
[Read the article: V-DVD Day: Sony's Blu-ray wins the format war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I happened to be in a big box retailer this afternoon, and make no mistake -- your next TV will be HD. It will also be widescreen.
Not because that's what you'll want. But simply because that's all there is to buy.
And the first time you play one of your "regular" DVDs on it -- and see the big black bars at the sides (because it isn't widescreen) and see how grainy the image looks (because your new flat screen has at least 10 more inches than your old TV did) -- you'll want High Definition.
480p is _barely acceptable_ on any screen bigger than 40 inches.
Now, if you actually decide to get a _good_ new screen -- 45+ inches and 1080p -- then HD will knock your socks off.
People who say they "can't tell the difference" are either sitting too far away from a CRT, or putting both SD and HD signals through a projector that's not capable of displaying the higher resolution.
Your new TV will be flat. It will be widescreen. It will almost certainly be 40+ inches. And you WILL be able to see the difference.
-
Good summary -- but some jarring notes.
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In general, a good primer on the subject. I look forward to next week's addition.
But two sentences jumped out. Firstly:
Commercial buildings emit a far higher percentage of climate-changing pollutants than commercial planes, yet there is little outcry and few organized movements to green them up.
The last half of that is just not true at all. For people interested in buildings, engineering, and architecture, the last decade has seen an incredibly productive debate develop, resulting in awesome advances like low-emissivity ("low-e") glass for office towers. Many stunning examples of "green" proof-of-concept buildings were built in the late 90s -- and much of that technology is now filtering down, even into cheaply built identikit "glass brick" style commercial buildings. It's simple economics: business owners want to save on costs, and saving on warming and cooling is simply too easy, precisely because there was an "outcry" and because organized movements in the appropriate industries stepped in.
With cars it's similar. Americans have staggeringly gluttonous driving habits, yet only rarely are we made to feel guilty about them.
Again, the last half of that is just not true. I'm in my 30s, I read the automotive press, and I can't remember reading a "review" of a new car in any magazine or newspaper that didn't include "mileage" somewhere in the "good, bad, ugly" summary, depending on the car's performance in that area. Even for out-and-out sports cars, I can't remember a review that didn't at the very least state: "Of course, you'll bleed money at the pump." In the last decade most have gone on to make the environmental connection as well.