gaggle64 Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 So box office revenue = costs? That's interesting. (Avatar's official budget was actually $237 million. People should really check this before they make/post shit.) I say the point still stands, because both are figures of public expenditure (which I think is the intention). Plenty of people complain about the price of space exploration but this shows we could have collectively paid for a second mission (or doubled the budget) with the money spent watching a single movie about the racial superiority of the white man.
MoogleViper Posted August 30, 2012 Author Posted August 30, 2012 I say the point still stands, because both are figures of public expenditure (which I think is the intention). Plenty of people complain about the price of space exploration but this shows we could have collectively paid for a second mission (or doubled the budget) with the money spent watching a single movie about the racial superiority of the white man. But it's still a stupid argument. People chose to pay to watch Avatar. People didn't choose to pay for the curiosity operation. It's similar to when people use the "nurses/soldiers etc. should get footballers wages". It completely goes against capitalism. Yet these same people probably claim that communism is evil. In the end people just like to bitch and whine and quote mundane "facts" to try and make themselves seem clever/insightful.
bob Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 If I have to choose between watching Avatar, or watching Curiosity trundle around Mars for three hours, i'd choose Avatar. If I had to choose between watching Avatar or getting to go Mars for three hours, i'd choose Mars. If i had to choose between going to Mars for three hours or going to Pandora, i'd choose Pandora. Mars may be an amzing accomplishment, but it's kind of dull as prolonged entertainment.
MoogleViper Posted August 30, 2012 Author Posted August 30, 2012 If i had to choose between going to Mars for three hours or going to Pandora, i'd choose Pandora. You just want to fuck the na'vi don't you? It's ok, @ReZourceman made a facebook group for us.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 But it's still a stupid argument. People chose to pay to watch Avatar. People didn't choose to pay for the curiosity operation. It's similar to when people use the "nurses/soldiers etc. should get footballers wages". It completely goes against capitalism. Yet these same people probably claim that communism is evil. In the end people just like to bitch and whine and quote mundane "facts" to try and make themselves seem clever/insightful. The argument itself may have failed, but I still think it gets the point across nicely: that the people who complain about the costs of the Mars expedition are painfully unaware of how cheap it actually was relative to plenty of other projects in the modern world.
bob Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 Maybe NASA should set up a Kickstarter, and raise some money for the next one. If people really want to help with the funding, they'll do it themselves.
MoogleViper Posted August 30, 2012 Author Posted August 30, 2012 The argument itself may have failed, but I still think it gets the point across nicely: that the people who complain about the costs of the Mars expedition are painfully unaware of how cheap it actually was relative to plenty of other projects in the modern world. But it's still not cheap though. It's similar to the highest grossing film in world, ever. Much higher than the second highest (Titanic ~$2.1). $2.5bn is a very high amount of money. That's 4% of Bill Gates' (the second richest man in the world) entire wealth. There are less than 500 people in the world who could afford to pay for that (and that's assuming they sold every asset they own at the current estimated value). It's a very, very large amount of money. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the Curiosity expedition (or Mars expeditions in general), far from it. It just annoys me when people use bullshit, idiotic arguments and then act as if they've said something revolutionary and proven their commitment to science.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 But it's still not cheap though. It's similar to the highest grossing film in world, ever. Much higher than the second highest (Titanic ~$2.1). $2.5bn is a very high amount of money. That's 4% of Bill Gates' (the second richest man in the world) entire wealth. There are less than 500 people in the world who could afford to pay for that (and that's assuming they sold every asset they own at the current estimated value). It's a very, very large amount of money. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the Curiosity expedition (or Mars expeditions in general), far from it. It just annoys me when people use bullshit, idiotic arguments and then act as if they've said something revolutionary and proven their commitment to science. It's still very little compared to other expenditures of the United States, for example the military budget.
Retro_Link Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 So...back to aweosme stuff Mmm... Altair/Ezio was kind of annoyingly lame just forward rolling around the pavements!And fat Nathan Drake. But I liked all the retro stuff in there! Who was that meant to be at the end? Leon?... it didn't really look like anyone!
Jonnas Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 Leon, most likely. And am I the only one who thought Lara Croft shouldn't be there? She's not exactly a prominent character nowadays, I mean, her franchise needed to get a full-blown revival (and even that hasn't happened yet).
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 She felt a bit misplaced, yeah, but for me it's because she goes so far back that I consider her old school.
MoogleViper Posted August 31, 2012 Author Posted August 31, 2012 It's still very little compared to other expenditures of the United States, for example the military budget. Then they should have used that as a comparison. "x amount more to kill some foreigners than to find some aliens."
bob Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 Really, they should have just looked at this: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/the-billion-dollar-gram/ Pretty much puts it all into perspective. On that chart, Avatar and the Mars rover combined are about the same as the amount spent on Erectile Disfunction (per year i assume).
MoogleViper Posted August 31, 2012 Author Posted August 31, 2012 Really, they should have just looked at this: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/the-billion-dollar-gram/ Pretty much puts it all into perspective. On that chart, Avatar and the Mars rover combined are about the same as the amount spent on Erectile Disfunction (per year i assume). I like the miniature earth/village of 100 concept. That's not the best version but I can't find the one I wanted. The most shocking (shocking as in disgusting more than surprising) statistic is that 6% of people own 59% of the world's wealth.
arab_freak Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 http://www.cracked.com/article_19987_the-6-craziest-ways-creators-hid-themselves-in-video-games.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=fanpage&utm_campaign=new+article&wa_ibsrc=fanpage
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted September 1, 2012 Posted September 1, 2012 I like the miniature earth/village of 100 concept. That's not the best version but I can't find the one I wanted. The most shocking (shocking as in disgusting more than surprising) statistic is that 6% of people own 59% of the world's wealth. Yeah, I've seen these statistics before. It's quite shocking. Though why do they differentiate between atheists and non-religious? http://www.cracked.com/article_19987_the-6-craziest-ways-creators-hid-themselves-in-video-games.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=fanpage&utm_campaign=new+article&wa_ibsrc=fanpage I found the message from Iwata rather quickly. It's simply the same code you enter at the beginning. I didn't know there was a message from Miyamoto as well, though.
Rummy Posted September 1, 2012 Posted September 1, 2012 Leon, most likely. And am I the only one who thought Lara Croft shouldn't be there? She's not exactly a prominent character nowadays, I mean, her franchise needed to get a full-blown revival (and even that hasn't happened yet). I did wonder too, but then I thought maybe she was put in to represent a turning point in the style of games? I mean, I was never really a Tomb Raider, but it was a hugely successful franchise that was a bit more 'mature', which a lot of 'successful' games these days are? Though why do they differentiate between atheists and non-religious? That's a bit of a silly question. They're not the same. I didn't think I'd like this...but then I did. Brilliant.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted September 1, 2012 Posted September 1, 2012 That's a bit of a silly question. They're not the same. How are they different? I know there are lots of unclear and hard-to-define forms of belief or lack thereof (agnosticism should probably have its own category), but I can't see the difference between being atheist and non-religious specifically. Especially not in a simplified statistic such as this.
The Peeps Posted September 1, 2012 Posted September 1, 2012 non-religious people simply don't believe in any religion, or not to an extent they'd care to mention, or perhaps have unrepresented beliefs. Atheists actively do not believe in a god of any kind. An atheist believes in the fact of there being no god. I think.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted September 1, 2012 Posted September 1, 2012 I think I see what you're getting at, but "non-religious" still seems like the wrong label to me. It carries different connotations in my mind. Those you mention seem like they'd be "spiritual" or "undecided" or perhaps simply "other".
Rummy Posted September 1, 2012 Posted September 1, 2012 I'd say it's like a null value, but I guess it isn't. What's agnostic? Isn't that non-religious? Yet it is neither religious, nor athiest. As Peeps said, athiesm is actively NOT believing in God, it doesn't account for anyone who doesn't really hold an opinion on the matter or doesn't care either way. There may be people with belief systems that aren't really religious, either.
Diageo Posted September 1, 2012 Posted September 1, 2012 Atheism is the absence of belief in a deity. Hence the a-(without) theism (belief in god).
Rummy Posted September 1, 2012 Posted September 1, 2012 (edited) You know, that's a fair point. I can see how Danny came to his conclusion. I think the word is often misused from its etymological roots to mean a direct contrast to theism, ending up often used instead to mean a belief in no god. However, non-religious will still encompass agnostics and similar whereas atheism will not. In addition that though, Buddhism is a religion; yet it mostly does not have a belief in god iirc, so that poses another issue. Edited September 1, 2012 by Rummy
Recommended Posts