In some cities the city employs all its own inspectors. If just one of those inspectors can be bribed, does that really mean the organization (city) is not serious about the codes being followed? That seems a stretch.

It means that the inspector that can be bribed doesn't place much importance on what they are being bribed to ignore... I was assuming, perhaps erroneously, that any agency which is supposedly acting on behalf of the government in granting filming permits would also act in accordance with the governments own rules.

I personally know people who've purchased film permits from cities before and there's a whole crap-ton of paperwork that apparently goes to different departments of the government if the area you want to film in happens to be an ecologically sensitive area... and I think it would take more a whole lot more luck than money to push actually questionable activities through (it's not ever been a problem for the people that I know who do it because they are such a small film crew, and do not have any large equipment that they must bring in large trucks, so they do not generally pose any kind of environmental threat, and have never had any real problem getting filming rights to a location unless the monetary costs for the location are too high)

Anyways, assuming that everbody's playing on the up-and-up, however, I'd be genuinely surprised if anything that is deemed genuinely harmful to the area actually is likely to happen there... I'd be no less surprised, though, if the permits were awarded in the first place when they really shouldn't have been. If they were bribed into awarding the permits when they shouldn't have, the penalty is liable to be pretty damn high. Being fired from their job would be the least of their worries. Again, one would think that a person in that position would realize that their chances of getting away with this kind of thing are not that good, and wouldn't want to do it in the first place.

I'm not sure I follow your analogy... if somebody is willing to ignore what might be seen as legitimate environmental concerns in exchange for money, then the organization that is accepting that money is not giving due consideration to the environmental impact that might arise... this would usally be because thee environment wasn't important enough to them in the first place. It may arise simply because they have not adequately assessed the enviromental risks involved, but that still reflects an underlying lack of importance. If some corrupt organization granted the filming permits when they weren't supposed to, the government can always revoke them anyways.

I somehow would think that being ignorant of what the underlying problem might be would generally preclude a solution being particularly obvious to them, except in retrospect.

Fair point... more accurately, it would be a means of coping with China's air pollution than an actual solution to the underlying problem.

Not to sound like a mastercard commercial, but in this world there really are things that absolutely no amount of money can buy.

The only reason money would ever be able to buy ignoring legitimate environmental concerns is because somebody isn't actually realizing how important the environment (or that aspect of the environment) might be in the first place, or perhaps putting it another way, they have simply not accurately assessed the environmental risks which may be involved.

If the organizations that grant such permission are corrupt enough to accept a fee in exchange for ignoring the environment, then again., as I said, the environment isn't actually that important to them to begin with. Certainly the groups that would be concerned about the environmental impact at that location ought to know whether or not they really have any government backing behind their concerns. If they don't actually know, then there's no reason for them to think that the Irish government would have ever had any reason to object to the filming in the first place, so the idea that they should expect some sort of answer from the government about this is almost laughable. If, however, they know that the government has an obligation to their concerns about the environment, then it stands to reason that the permits should have never really been given in the first place, which was my original point. *IF* it turns out that their concerns are legitimately backed by the government, then the government would have the authority to revoke the permits anyways, pending a review of what environmental effects the presence of the cast and film crew, any equipment or vehicles that they bring with them, and their activites would have on the area. The permit fee would, of course, have to be refunded if it was determined that they determined that they could not film there (although if there were a separate permit application fee applicable that must be paid whether or not the permit is actually granted, then that fee would not have to be refunded).

So the fact that you don't live in China was preventing you from seeing this as an obvious solution to the problem in China.

Which is my point.

Somebody had to think of the idea first... cut the guy some slack.

If it was so obvious to you, then why didn't you suggest it before he did?

That you know how it works doesn't change the fact that you didn't actually implement it as a solution for China's air pollution before he did.

Perhaps you didn't read the entire sentence that you only quoted the question from. If money can buy permission to destroy an environment, then the environment isn't really that important in the first place.

... but I don't see anybody else saying that *they* actually thought of it before this guy did as a means of solving the problem of China's air pollution.

A lot of ideas are obvious once somebody announces what the idea actually is. Honestly, I think that people who would criticize the inventor simply because of the idea's apparent simplicity or obviousness are being rather snobbish, if you ask me.

But hey.... some might find it comforting to think that such values, which might otherwise seem outdated in today's word, are still alive and thriving in our society.

Right there in the summary:

...getting comparable particulate count results

If there was really such a major conservationalist issue with them filming there at this time, how did they get the permits to film there in the first place?

If it was just as a result of miscommunication, then it would seem that the permits should probably be revoked (and fees for them refunded, obviously), unless those making the movie can show that film crew's activities will not introduce things to the environment there which may damage the ecosystem.

I'm as big a Star Wars fan as anybody else that I know, but it's still just a movie, for chissakes. It's not worth harming wildlife over, even if it's only accidentally.

You suggest that I don't understand how computers work because I call pointers an implementation detail, then you go and cite examples where pointers are supposed to be getting used under the hood, and yet those very examples only illustrate the point that it is an implementation detail, and not actually foundational to programming.

One of the definitive works with which I am familiar on the subject of computer science as it pertains to programming, by Knuth doesn't even dedicate a whole chapter to a concept that you seem to think is so fundamental to knowing how to program. Of course, I know that an argument from authority doesn't make one right.

But then neither does an argument from ignorance.

Money is quantifiable,

So is time spent doing what you enjoy. And the only correlation between the two that can be made is by people who can't see past the notion that you need to have a lot of money to be happy.

Plus of course, if you excel at what you enjoy doing, you can probably find people that will pay you for it.