There's a thing called "Robert's Rules of Order" that lays out a framework for how a group of people with different views can make decisions in an orderly way. It's very widely used in the US - wikipedia says "church groups, county commissions, homeowners' associations, nonprofit associations, professional societies, school boards, trade unions, and college fraternities and sororities".
If you've ever heard a line like "Mr Chair, I make a motion to X the Y" and then someone pipes up from a different part of the room "I second the motion!" and then someone important-looking says "A motion has been made and seconded, you may have the floor" - They're doing Robert's Rules.
And that's most of what I knew about Robert's Rules a minute ago, until I looked up the distinction GP was making above:
Point of Order: When a member thinks that the rules of the assembly are being violated,
s/he can make a Point of Order (or "raise a question of order," as it is sometimes
expressed), thereby calling upon the chair for a ruling and an enforcement of the regular
rules.
Point of Information: a request for information on a specific question, either about
process or about the content of a motion. A point of information does not give the
speaker the privilege to provide information. If you have information for the body, raise
your hand to be put on the speakers list.
That's right. You can also introduce or correct information with a point-of-information, at least as I was taught them.
Other types of interjection are point of personal privilege (eg seat is uncomfortable) and point of inquiry (clarification).
I came across them in the debating world. Point of information can be pretty effective if you're able to make a statement of fact contradicting something the other side declared.
No sci fi effect has ever given me the same sense of wonder that I got from the shot of the camera slowly travelling over the gigantic ship in the Season 1/2 intro.
Btw: @dang : Grant was the co-creator, alongside Doug Naylor, who is still kicking
The intro was actually strangely eerie/bleak. I felt sorry for Lister (I think it is) out there painting the ship. There was kind of a sadness because he had lost pretty much all his friends and you could feel the vastness of space.
I've said elsewhere on the "Babylon 5" discussion that Kubrick's "2001" has aged better in many ways than Hyams' "2010" which came out many years later. In the same vein, CGI has a nasty habit of aging more quickly than practical effects. There is stuff from the nineties which looks worse than the seventies as a result.
In the case of "Red Dwarf", the genius was in having the ship be an ugly industrial environment in the vein of "Dark Star", "Alien", "Outland" etc. That allowed for sets to be built easily and cheaply. I think some of it was even filmed in a BBC canteen/cafeteria.
I think the main issue with CGI is that it makes it easy to have big space battles, so everything is.
You see this with TNG v DS9. TNG would have one alien ship in an episode at best. It forces you to write story. Come DS9 and you can have 50 bajillion ships on screen so they write a story to make that happen. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, DS9 and B5 are good shows, but I miss the days when Captain Picard would mull over the implications of the prime directive with a cup of tea.
Oh yes. I remember them talking about the script and how low budget everything was. Like even the script was written to try to convince BBC it wouldn't cost much money. I think (paraphrasing) things like:
"We open on the corridor of a space ship. Space Odyssey this is not, no high tech serenity here. No, the is very much an ordinary, boring corridor. It could even have been a corridor in a TV studio..."
Related question, unanswerable except maybe as a rough estimate: how much will it cost, in accountant/bookkeeper time, to do all the administrivia required to process all these refunds?
> To be counted as proven reserve, you need to show that the mineral is economically extractable at market prices. Specifically, by starting to extract them.
You don't need to be actually mining the stuff for it to be considered a reserve, at least in the Canadian (CIM) definitions. You do need at least a pre-feasibility study, and details on market prices & contracts.
The general point is right though, "mineral resources" means there's metal in the ground, "mineral reserves" means there's metal in the ground that can be economically mined, with consideration of the mining methods, infrastructure, legal title, environmental impact, metallurgy, market contracts, etc.
Nobody’s going to pay for a feasibility study in a regulatory climate with sufficient barriers to mining. Canada might have less of that thanks to its resource-extraction economy but it’s a huge problem in the US.
https://openinframap.org/
reply