|
Dell_Zincht posted:I've only just gotten round to watching Misfits on 4oD. Where are you upto?
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 01:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
ibroxmassive posted:Where are you upto? Episode 4 of the second series.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 01:53
|
|
|
I just bought Bruce Parry's Tribe on DVD from Amazon for £9.99. I saw quite a few of them but not all of them so am looking forward to watching it again. It's easily one of the best things that's been on in years. He's so much like Louis Theroux - they seem to want to get him involved in everything and he just smiles, nods and then drinks cow's blood or turns his foreskin inside out. It's amazing. The best one is when he's in Gabon and he takes part in a religious festival from the local Bwiti religion. He takes a plant called an Iboga which "makes you relive past guilts through the eyes of the person you hurt". It really was fascinating hearing him talk about it. The things drugs can do! Incidentally Sky launches Sky Atlantic on the 1st of February. It's going to have tons of stuff from HBO (Six Feet Under and suchlike) and any of their new shows. That includes Game of Thrones which I honestly can't wait for! If you've got Sky it's going to be free until August 31st. If you have Sky Anytime+ HBO shows will also all pop up on there for you to watch at your leisure, which makes it useful in the same way as 4OD for the first time ever. As someone who works for Sky I'm actually pretty interested in Sky Atlantic. HBO makes a lot of good stuff and the DVD sets cost a loving fortune.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 04:49
|
|
|
What i think is funny is that the Jeremy Kyle show is like Eastenders in Real life. I wouldn't be surprised if the writers tuned into that to steal ideas for the show.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 09:57
|
|
|
Dell_Zincht posted:I've only just gotten round to watching Misfits on 4oD. This man speaks the truth. If you are reading this post and you've not watched Misfits, you should really go and watch Misfits. And then tell your friends to watch it. Then tell strangers to watch it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 10:03
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:This man speaks the truth. If you are reading this post and you've not watched Misfits, you should really go and watch Misfits. And then tell your friends to watch it. Then tell strangers to watch it. I second this, my friend told me about it and after watching the first 2 episodes I marathon-ed the rest in one sitting.  Maybe misfits deserves its own thread!?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 12:35
|
|
|
Razor Ramon posted:I second this, my friend told me about it and after watching the first 2 episodes I marathon-ed the rest in one sitting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 12:50
|
|
|
I don't watch any soaps, but these Hollyoaks/Eastender's plot lines make me think you guys are making poo poo up. Hugging a scare crow whilst mourning the loss of your cot-death child. Really?!? Ezzie fucked around with this message at 13:39 on Jan 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 13:35
|
|
|
Ezzie posted:I don't watch any soaps, but these Hollyoaks/Eastender's plot lines make me think you guys are making poo poo up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 13:50
|
|
|
I think it was a reference to Kat Moons scary makeup.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 13:56
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:I think it was a reference to Kat Moons scary makeup. She looked like something from that star trek film that was on over the holidays. One of those people with their faces stretched all over the place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 14:30
|
|
|
She gets to do lots of face acting at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 14:39
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:I think it was a reference to Kat Moons scary makeup.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 15:27
|
|
|
Ezzie posted:I don't watch any soaps, but these Hollyoaks/Eastender's plot lines make me think you guys are making poo poo up. in the last episode of Hollyoaks I watched, a girl who wants to be a boy jumped in front of a car that her ex boyfriend was joy riding. Hollyoaks owns
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 15:31
|
|
|
Did anyone watch Hugh's big fish fight last night? I thought that trawlers were finding Cod hard to find with all that's been said on the subject, I didn't know they were having to throw away so much perfectly good (now dead) fish due to idiotic rulings. Not to mention the meagre 12kg per day quota for smaller fishing boats. Hopefully this series does for fish what the Chicken out campaign did for the public view of chicken. Preferably with less crying middle aged men.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 15:50
|
|
|
It was on in the background and I wasn't really paying attention, but did they ever explain why, if they were getting so much more fish than they were allowed, why they didn't just... fish... less?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 15:54
|
|
|
Fish have an annoying tendency to swim next to fish of other species, and not always where you expect them to be, making it very difficult to target a specific species for fishing. The amount of dead fish thrown back into the see because of quotas is disgusting, totally wasteful, and something that really needs to change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 15:57
|
|
|
Squalitude posted:It was on in the background and I wasn't really paying attention, but did they ever explain why, if they were getting so much more fish than they were allowed, why they didn't just... fish... less? I did enjoy Hugh making that minister look like an idiot, even if it wasn't really fair (he doesn't need to know different types of fish by sight to do his job.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 16:06
|
|
|
Akuma posted:I did enjoy Hugh making that minister look like an idiot, even if it wasn't really fair (he doesn't need to know different types of fish by sight to do his job.) I get the feeling that was more of a tongue in cheek attempt to add some levity to the programme, than anything else. He even says at the end of the segment something along the lines of not knowing his Hake from his Haddock, but having his political sights set right. The fact that trawlers are allowed to eat fish they catch but are over quota for gave me an idea for a cruise trawler, serving up fish it can't bring back to a hundred hungry guests. It's a nice idea that could only ever work on paper.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 16:10
|
|
FractionMan posted:The fact that trawlers are allowed to eat fish they catch but are over quota for gave me an idea for a cruise trawler, serving up fish it can't bring back to a hundred hungry guests. It's a nice idea that could only ever work on paper. Sounds like a pretty cool idea and better than just pointless throwing dead fish back which is distressing as hell. I can't stand food waste  .
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 16:36
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Sounds like a pretty cool idea and better than just pointless throwing dead fish back which is distressing as hell. I liked my idea until I realised people probably don't like eating on a boat in a force 9 gale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 16:38
|
|
FractionMan posted:I liked my idea until I realised people probably don't like eating on a boat in a force 9 gale. Hey, it could work if you pull in the thrill seekers who enjoy bare rock climbing, bungee jumping and bear wresting. Just add some spicey food to the menu too.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 16:52
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Fish have an annoying tendency to swim next to fish of other species, and not always where you expect them to be, making it very difficult to target a specific species for fishing. The amount of dead fish thrown back into the see because of quotas is disgusting, totally wasteful, and something that really needs to change. This may be steering things a little off topic from TV but is there a good reason why fish farms haven't been developed to breed and then harvest fish much in the same way as it's been done for chicken? I mean if there's such an outrage and worry over dwindling stocks and all of those crazy nutbars on the traulers are going on about how tough it is. Then set up a bunch of those farms and give those nut bars the jobs involved with running them. This would: Leave natural reserves alone; Not kill off any unneeded fish; Keep us provided with tasty tasty cod/whatever your choice of fish is; Keep those fishermen employed with an income. Prevent TV from being flooded with "another camera crew on a boat" shows.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 17:00
|
|
|
Kin posted:This may be steering things a little off topic from TV but is there a good reason why fish farms haven't been developed to breed and then harvest fish much in the same way as it's been done for chicken? I mean if there's such an outrage and worry over dwindling stocks and all of those crazy nutbars on the traulers are going on about how tough it is. Then set up a bunch of those farms and give those nut bars the jobs involved with running them. I'm a Marine Biology undergrad, and this is a pretty hot topic. The problem with fish farms is that the type of fish used, like salmon are predatory, feeding on smaller fish. The salmon consume way more fish than they themselves produce, making overfishing more prominent on prey species like sardines. Say for instance you get 1 kilo of salmon, you have to feed them 4 kilos of sardines, its just not ecologically viable. Also the environmental damage these fish farms cause is astounding, just by the amount of fecal matter they produce. I liked Hugh's fish fight, although it seemed a little bit biased against scientists. They spent a lot of time talking to the fishermen about how the scientists don't know what they're talking about with cod stocks, some saying they haven't seen this many for 40 years. Well 40 years isn't a long time, scientists doing this kind of research have data that go back 2 centuries. They did get a scientist on to explain why, but it was for like 2 minutes. Aphex- fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Jan 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 17:33
|
|
|
We've got plenty of crap cities that can easily be replaced by fish farms. I won't name some.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 17:35
|
|
|
As always, it would just be easier to kill a few billion people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 17:53
|
|
|
goatface posted:As always, it would just be easier to kill a few billion people. Ah, I think we've found the name that Ra's Al Ghul uses to post on these forums. It was -as all these programmes tend to be- deeply uncomfortable viewing, with no easy answers. I suppose the best an average person like me can do is stop eating cod and try to find some ethically sourced monkfish? That, or turn vegetarian.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 18:58
|
|
|
Irisi posted:Ah, I think we've found the name that Ra's Al Ghul uses to post on these forums. Yeah, but unfortunately most people don't change. They will forever go for cod and chips even if there's a tastier alternative. Don't even get me started on bluefin tuna..
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 19:01
|
|
|
Awww, Amazon just told me they were out of copies of McGraths Bloody Britain. Does any of the SKY Documentary channels still run it? I'm comforting myself with the Hornblower Boxset.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 21:45
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Fish have an annoying tendency to swim next to fish of other species, and not always where you expect them to be, making it very difficult to target a specific species for fishing. The amount of dead fish thrown back into the see because of quotas is disgusting, totally wasteful, and something that really needs to change. I didn't watch the program myself, because I received spam from these guys to sign their petition and they wouldn't answer this question (it may well have been answered in the show, which is why I ask here): What is the alternative? If you allow boats to land over-quote fish, what happens to the fish and to the people who have caught too many fish? Do the crews get paid for them? if so, does this not discourage fishing within your quotas? I'm all for avoiding food waste, but if you don't throw over quota fish back, you have to find some way to use them which does not encourage the boats to fish over their quotas. That basically means the fish can't benefit anyone at any stage, or there will be potential for corruption (even if they get given away for free, the people they get given to now have an interest in maintaining over-quota catches). It's the same reason seized ivory is burnt and not sold to provide food aid or medicine or whatever. Really the answer is extremely strict regulation and massive reduction in take to allow stocks to return to their pre-exploitation levels (I read that even "healthy" fish stocks can be as low as 10% of their original numbers before industrialised fishing). LARGE zero-take areas, Maximum as well as minimum allowed sizes (many fish grow throughout their lives, a large female fish may produce dozens of times more eggs than a small one so letting a large fish go is better than letting 10 "just undersized" ones go), and a general fall in fishing pressure. No one in Europe needs to eat fish to live, we are not subsistence fishermen like some of the developing world and no one is going to starve without cod. In the UK/Europe the fishing industry employs relatively few people, it's like 12000 directly in the UK and lets say the same in processing, markets etc. I would be happy for my taxes to fund paying fishermen to just not fish ANYTHING for 20 years to allow the stocks to start to recover. It's a drat site better way to spend money than a banking bailout. quote:It was -as all these programmes tend to be- deeply uncomfortable viewing, with no easy answers. I suppose the best an average person like me can do is stop eating cod and try to find some ethically sourced monkfish? That, or turn vegetarian. Pretty much. Or just don't eat any fish. There is an easy answer: no more fishing. It's not a NICE answer, but it's drat easy. Reduce quotas to zero (at least for a few years), put together generous retraining/redundancy packages for people in the industry. Times change, industries become non viable and people have to move with it. Protecting an environmentally harmful industry to maintain a relatively small number of jobs is ridiculous. quote:I liked Hugh's fish fight, although it seemed a little bit biased against scientists. They spent a lot of time talking to the fishermen about how the scientists don't know what they're talking about with cod stocks, some saying they haven't seen this many for 40 years. Well 40 years isn't a long time, scientists doing this kind of research have data that go back 2 centuries. They did get a scientist on to explain why, but it was for like 2 minutes. uuugh, glad I didn't watch it now, I'd have been throwing poo poo at the screen. I HATE when extractive industries act like the scientists studying their impact don't know their poo poo. Guess what, they KNOW you are catching more fish recently, and they know more about the complexities of their life history than you do and if they say that populations are not recovering and increased catches are due to other reasons, you should drat well listen to them! http://www.thefishsite.com/articles/898/cod-stocks-in-the-north-sea here is a very brief article on cod stocks and quotas. Landings? KNOWN. Recuritment, age profiles, mortality, all this poo poo is studied by the scientists and factors into their calculations. Recommendations? ZERO CATCH of north sea cod for at least the next two years (this, by the way, has been recommended in the annual fisheries report every year since 2001 and roundly ignored). Cod isn't mature and breeding at full capacity till it's 80cm long at about 4 years old; current regs allow the capture of 35cm fish! most of those poor fuckers haven't even spawned once, and those that have have produced gently caress all eggs compared to an actual adult. So either change the nets (ALL nets, not just cod targeting nets) to only catch very large fish that have definitely spawned 2-3 times, or stop fishing in cod areas long enough for some to actually mature. Given the recent falls in population, if cod were properly regulated, they'd be loving CITES protected endangered species and killing one deliberately would be punishable by law. But because they're tasty (apparently, always seemed like cardboard to me), they sell them on every loving street in the country. Fatkraken fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Jan 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 22:16
|
|
|
Fatkraken posted:What is the alternative? The fishermen on the trawlers themselves had an answer for this. Give a quota of days to fish, not a quota of fish. That way there's a maximum amount they can catch and a huge decrease in the discard. It's not a perfect solution, but it sure beats the current system or your stupid idea of "no one gets to eat any more fish ever"
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 23:46
|
|
|
FractionMan posted:The fishermen on the trawlers themselves had an answer for this. Give a quota of days to fish, not a quota of fish. That way there's a maximum amount they can catch and a huge decrease in the discard. It's not a perfect solution, but it sure beats the current system or your stupid idea of "no one gets to eat any more fish ever" What if they catch more on those specific days than is sustainable? It definitely sounds like a plan in principle, but setting the number of catch days is going to be fraught with difficulty; you can calculate the tonnage of a species that is sustainable, but estimating the number of catch days for a whole fleet that will make EVERY target and non target species sustainable is going to be no small thing, especially when daily catch is extremely variable Yes, "no more fish ever" is hyperbole, but with some stocks the way they are zero-catch in very large areas for at least a few years may be literally the only way to save certain fisheries from complete collapse. As I said, scientists have been recommending zero take for cod for the best part of a decade, and given that bycatch is inevitable, how else can you get zero catch of cod except by enforcing zero catch of all species in cod areas? I agree that the quotas seem to have some pretty bad unintended consequences and a new solution needs to be found, but it needs to be found using sound science. It might be that the best solution ends up being something like limited catch days, larger holed nets AND very large zero catch areas. These might not have to be "marine reserves" or whatever, they could even change year on year or even week to week depending on population dynamics. But commercial fishing would be banned in these areas, every boat would be tracked via GPS (really not that expensive these days) and if it strayed into an off limits area outside of emergencies, the entire catch would be confiscated or some equally strong penalty. It's draconian and hard arsed, but I think people underestimate just how bad of a state the European fish stocks are in. Fatkraken fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Jan 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2011 00:01
|
|
|
Industrial fishing is a great evil and entirely unsustainable, but the capitalist system compels those who work in fishing to go through great hardship for relative pittance to serve the concerns of the moneyed population. Even when my grandfather sold his fish to market, he did it to firstly, feed himself and his family, and secondly to provide the bare means of sustenance for his lifestyle. The only solution is to advocate subsistence fishing that serves its locality rather than the interests of an ever-greedy need for profit. You fish for what you need rather than what you want and nobody on this Earth needs to be rich. End our fetishisation of the markets and our national observance at the altar of greed and let us seek to improve ourselves for ourselves and feed ourselves for ourselves. The only alternative is the decimation of the world that we rely on and the ecosystems that we excavate for ever-diminishing returns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2011 04:59
|
|
|
FractionMan posted:The fishermen on the trawlers themselves had an answer for this. Give a quota of days to fish, not a quota of fish. That way there's a maximum amount they can catch and a huge decrease in the discard. It's not a perfect solution, but it sure beats the current system or your stupid idea of "no one gets to eat any more fish ever" I don't see why that's a stupid idea at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2011 06:47
|
|
|
Taear posted:I don't see why that's a stupid idea at all. Noone needs essential fatty acids
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2011 11:40
|
|
|
FractionMan posted:The fact that trawlers are allowed to eat fish they catch but are over quota for gave me an idea for a cruise trawler, serving up fish it can't bring back to a hundred hungry guests. It's a nice idea that could only ever work on paper. Smelliest cruise ship ever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2011 13:53
|
|
|
ibroxmassive posted:Noone needs essential fatty acids It doesn't all come from fish you know. There's plenty of other sources.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2011 15:01
|
|
|
I wasn't allowed to eat fish as a child as my dad thought that they give you cancer. And I'm as healthy as the next person, probably. Plus the price of tuna has gone up loads since 2009, it's not that great.quote:I just bought Bruce Parry's Tribe on DVD from Amazon for £9.99. I saw quite a few of them but not all of them so am looking forward to watching it again. It's easily one of the best things that's been on in years. If you enjoyed the one where he takes drugs, there's another one where he takes a different drug. I can't remember the details, though one's in Africa and has him sat in a hut having a bit of a rough time and the other is in Indonesia or something and doing some tribal drumming and dancing. Both are pretty interesting if you're at all interested in shamanism, tribes, drugs or bruce parry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2011 19:17
|
|
|
how about trying to minimise the amount of fish killed in the process of catching them? Like, being quicker sorting them and sending the fish back, different nets? Or what john said but y'know...capitalism. The show was too focused on getting angry about fish quotas
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2011 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
ibroxmassive posted:Noone needs essential fatty acids Literally every vegetarian is dead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2011 03:52
|
|