They modeled the thing for ALL of the open sea being turned into bubbles.
It's not happening.

Geo-engineering is not the magic bullet.
Nor do we have it, the gun to fire it from, the target to shoot it at and on top of it all we don't know how to shoot the said gun nor on which side of the gun do bullets go in and on which side of it do they come out.

http://iagp.ac.uk/sites/defaul...

Nothing to see here. Move along.
Dropping a giant ice cube into the ocean is still more feasible.

You know... Police, Army, Navy, Air Force, NSA, CIA, FBI, NRA, bronies...
If they can't secure a fuckin mall for an afternoon... What are you paying them for?

Also, WHAT "rational cautions and plausible evidence"?
All the public got so far was some overdue candid insight into scheming of a mega-corporation and what it REALLY thinks about people it uses, hires and its customers.

If that's terrorism, seems to me there's a great demand for more of it.

He sees Asians doing "so well" and concludes that it must be some unfair racial advantage that is starting to backfire on them - so it is perfectly acceptable if they get deducted points for identifying as "Asian".
See... It's one of those "positive racial things"... Like all blacks having big cocks, all Asian women being sexy... Or was that Latinas? Indian women? Swedish? I get confused about that topic...

Anyway... It's not suffering but a GIFT OF NATURE.
Or Santa or whatever...

His cognitive dissonance is so deep in, he doesn't even realize that he's using an example of discrimination based on racial prejudice - as an example of how "well" a certain minority is doing.
"They are doing so well by simply being Asian, that schools are forced to discriminate against them."

See, if you're lucky enough to be born Asian - you're automagically gonna do SO WELL in school some handicaps will simply be fair, to make you more like everyone else.
I have this nagging feeling that he's also a fan of Harrison Bergeron, and that the irony of acceptable handicaps for perceived and prejudiced advantages is lost on him.

Cause apparently in his mind, it is "the system", not the people who make it, that is racist.
And there are "real racism" and "imaginary racism" and "pretend anti-racism" in that "system".
It's you know... like a plan. There are these rules about what is real, imaginary and pretend.
Secret rules of the "system". Which pretends about using one set of rules, but is actually using another.
A conspiracy, if you will.

But you gotta love that cognitive dissonance of his.

"incarcerated disproportionally more often than others" is imaginary racism - because failures of Blacks.

When it's BLACK people who are "incarcerated disproportionally more often than others" - it is imaginary racism, cause Blacks SIMPLY ARE MORE PRONE TO CRIME.
It's their failure as a race.

And can't you see that it's actually the whites who are discriminated?
Just look at that median household income sorted by race - where "White Hispanics" are a part of white Americans group, and "Asians" are generalizing "Chinese", "Filipino", "Indian", "Vietnamese", "Korean", "Japanese" and "other Asians" into one group.

So, whites become poor cause Mexicans and Puerto Ricans and Cubans etc. (all well below the "white" median) are bunched together with Russians and Brits, while Asians become all rich due to immigrants in the tech industry and A MUCH SMALLER SAMPLE.

White Americans are 77.7% of population.
Asians are about 5%.
While "African Americans" are some arbitrary subset of Black Americans (12.6%) who identify themselves as such and not actually by the particular country or region of origin - like the way others do.

The bigger the sample the closer the median is to THE AVERAGE.
Whites are getting averaged out with Puerto Ricans and Iraqis, while Asians are showing a median between Indians on the top of the list (just above South Africans) and Bhutanese at the very bottom.
Meanwhile, "African Americans" don't get to be counted with Algerians, South Africans, Egyptians, Sierra Leonean Americans... who are ALL ABOVE "African Americans" on the list.

So, surprise-surprise, a sample ("whites") much closer to the size of the population ends up having a median ($ 54,857) very close to the median of the population ($ 51,914).
While small samples deviate significantly - Asians to the right of the population median ($68,088) due to high wages of Indians in IT, and "African Americans" end up deviating to the left of the curve ($ 35,341).

Note how the same thing happens to "Pacific Islands Americans" ($ 58,859) - 0.5% of population, most of whom are from Hawaii.
Where median household income is $63,746.

But have no fear...
He'll soon dig up another source to "prove" how racism is just an imaginary ploy by feminazis and liberal Hitler-commies or something to rob the proud white man of his testicles and fruits thereof.
I wonder when he'll mention Jews and reptilians being in on it?

Is it about being able to sing?

You are either deliberately missing the point and arguing a metaphor - i.e. trolling; missing the point cause you lack the capacity - i.e. mental skills to tell the metaphor from the argument and both from the issue at hand; or... well... have other issues.

Either way, even my time is more valuable than that.

...from arguing a metaphor through various attempts at insults to having no clue about what you are talking (nope... that's not art) and steering off down that tangent road into the sunset of irrelevant conclusions and off topic.

Also, you're trolling.

So... Hey, you know what?

Wow! You really are riding that fallacy train.
I mean, you cover no true Scotsman, ignoratio elenchi, tu quoque AND you finish off with an ad hominem, per your custom. Nitwit.
You know what? You should sit down on the floor when talking.
That way, you won't fall down on your face as much. Cause your "arguments" don't have a leg to stand on.

I mean... It's not only that you ignore that the sentiment which led ALL crusades was religious hatred of "others".
You are trying to weasel out of Catholics putting Nazis to shame cause "pope and king condemned it"? Riiiiight...
Which is why the pogroms and crusades kept continuing and why Inquisition was established.
Totally unexpectedly. I know, right?

And I just LOVE... no...
I LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVEEEEEE!!!! how you've just justified jihad and terrorist activities and every single act of war or killing EVER because... let me get that in original stupid... "don't [they] wage war either?"
Beautiful! What it lacks in grarnrnar it makes up in stupid.

You know what?
You should print a large sandwich sign saying "NUKE NYC!" on one side and "BOMB USA!" on the other and parade with it in front of ground zero.
Followed by similar presentations at various war memorials and military bases.
Please record that for posterity when you do that.
There's never enough good laughs.

...to original poster's style of presenting an "argument".

Nope. Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses), Isa (Jesus) and others are all prophets in Islam.
Same god. Different language.

In fact, had the popes been a little less dumb and less prosecuting of all flavors of Christianity other than Catholic and inclusive of others instead of constantly starting crusades against them - Islam could have easily been absorbed into Christianity.
It's no different than Mormonism or all those Evangelic flavors that would have been crusaded out had they sprouted when Islam did.
Just ask Cathars. Oh... wait... you can't.

Same thing mustard does. Nothing.

Sympathize ain't empathize.
Also, under the assumption that you are not a dog, your sympathy or empathy just makes you human.

Which again, does nothing to the argument. Cause that is not what it is about.
I'm not the one arguing that sympathy, empathy or anthropomorphizing is wrong or bad.

My argument is about human empathy OF the audience, WITH characters on the screen which are revealed in a twist to ALL be just robots - being INVALIDATED by that twist.
It's Scott yelling at the audience "Your empathy is futile, silly human. There is nothing to empathize with here. You are merely anthropomorphizing a walking toaster. IT does not feel! It is programmed to appear to fell. HA-HAA! And the cake is a lie too. It's made of shit! And you thought it looked tasty and delicious! STUPID HUMANS! YOU ARE ALL STUPID!!! Oh... wait... I'm human too..."

And that is stupid as berating a rock for being a rock.

And the answer would be "never". You stupid audience member.

If Rachel's childhood memories are all fake implants, and Decker's dreams (unicorns) and desires (matchstick man with a hard-on) are all fake implants, they are no different than Leon pretending to be human by carrying around photos (i.e. memories) or Batty memorizing "attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion".
Machines imitating human actions, trying to merely survive.

Besides, it is not about "emotions". They all show plenty of fear and anger, even happiness.
It's about EMPATHY.

The book is all about how humans NEED to empathize.
The movie only works if audience empathizes with the characters.

IF there is humanity in those characters to empathize with - that emphasizes audience's humanity.
If there isn't any humanity, if it is all fake and they are all toasters - that's not emphasizing empathy but pointing a finger at the human cognitive flaw of anthropomorphizing the machines.
It's berating the audience for their human flaws. For being human.
And that is stupid. Particularly coming from another human.
Which makes it a bad movie with a messed up message.

A movie with human Decker has a human witnessing something much like humanity in the machines he destroys, tries to save or is saved by.
The question of "at what point" is his and it is a valid one cause he, as a human, does not have that answer.
He does however, being human and not a machine, have free will and the ability to choose to try and save Rachel DESPITE everything and everyone telling him it will be a futile endeavor.
Not having a precise answer he makes a choice based on intuition and feelings and answers the question with "Now. At this point."

And there is no "sin" in audience feeling the same - cause we are all humans and there is nothing wrong with that. No shame. No sin. Just us. Humans.
It is a better AND more positive movie with a clear message.

Which is why they started off with massacres of Jews. Nitwit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

Same reason, Muslim invasion, started later crusades up north, against "pagans" (Prussians, Slavs, Estonians... basically non-catholics). Nitwit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

Or those against Cathars in France. Muslims. Again. Nitwit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

It's almost as if religious goals were then, just as they are now, a pretext for validation of religious hatred against "them" and a carte blanche for looting.

You know... them. Others. Minorities. Those who are different.
Be they Jews, heretics, pagans, Muslims, black, Asian, gays, communists...
Nitwit.

Sure, sure... That's why they just shine a flashlight into someone's eyes to see if they are a replicant.

Phew... And here I feared there'd have to use some kind of a complicated multi-hour psychobabble test about empathy, memories and baby spiders.
A test, during which, a camera shines a bright red light into their eyes.
A test, during which, they pull the shades down as it is too bright in the room to do the test.
Which shades out the light from the Sun - which just happens to shine in the owl's ONE red glowing eye.
Which is funny, and must be some kind of error in the filming, a goof if you will, cause when the owl turns around NOW IT'S THE OTHER EYE THAT IS GLOWING.
And as we " know " that the red glow is actually an indicator of replicantness and NOT just the light of the Sun reflecting - it must be a goof by a well known hackfraud Ridley Scott.

But the most hilarious bit in these discussions about Deckard being a replicant is that should we accept those arguments to be true (regardless of logic or veracity) - they make BR into a shitty movie and reveal Scott to be a crappy director. And the whole thing is pushed by none other than him.

Why is that a shitty movie?
Cause human Decard showing empathy for toasters (which is what replicants are after all - just a machine with a timer which tells them what to do and when) emphasizes his HUMANITY.
Deckard's reluctance to return to the job, him falling for Rachel, him being afraid of Batty and then sharing in his final moment - it's all a show of his humanity.
And, the audience being human, it recognizes its own humanity in his.

A toaster pretending to be reluctant (it has no feelings - it's just a preprogrammed toaster) chasing a toaster, who does not want to be a toaster and wants to be a real boy/girl, pretending to fall for a toaster who thinks it's a real girl but finds out it is only a toaster, then pretends to be afraid, pretending to understand a toaster having a pretend moment... there is EXPLICITLY nothing to relate to in such a story.
Further more, it's an equivalent of a movie where the director shows the audience a man eating a juicy cake - and then tells the audience after credits that the cake is actually made of feces.

It is a movie which implies that the audience is stupid for assuming that what they are seeing is true.

Only, when that truth is empathy and humanity, Scott is actually trying to berate the audience for BEING HUMAN.
Either way, he comes of as an idiot. A George Lucas without all the toys.

He has issues. His brother CLEARLY had issues as well, maybe it runs in the family.
But Ridley's are more along the lines of some obsessive compulsive disorder combined with confidence issues.
He keeps second guessing his own work and taking any criticism at face value and as absolute judgment of quality.
Which is why so many of his movies end up with half the footage on the cutting floor.

The making of featurette of The Legend is very revealing of his flaws.
It's not that he will cut up the movie cause he heard some potheads snickering in the audience - it's how he will plunge openminded into any nonsense anyone suggests. Cause it will work in his mind at the moment.
"At the moment" being the operative term - as a single question later he will throw it out.
Though a moment ago he was all into scrapping half the movie and starting it over with lizard men.

He will take any suggestion, internalize it, visualize it and unless someone stops him - he will try to implement it in the movie.
ANY suggestion.

When there IS someone there to rationally explain how that is a bad idea, we get a flawed movie that could have been a masterpiece - like The Legend.
When there is no one to do that, so he hires and listens to a talentless hack - we get Prometheus.

Only thing Nazis experiments on Jews in death camps could be good for is using them as an example of CONFIRMATION BIAS.
And possibly for weeding out racists and holocaust deniers from the academia.