Best Use of a billboard EVER
 

To actually bring relief to people in need, this is Lima, Peru:

http://www.upworthy.com/omg-best-use...-ever-seen?g=2

This thread is useless without pics

That's actually pretty damned cool.

It was until that asshole kid at the end dumped the drinking water over his head.

I love this place.

:D

Seriously..."That's enough water for hundreds of families...oh, well...minus one family because of that kid."

:clap:

I was thinking the same thing.

WTF, kid? You think we can just produce this water out of thin air?


Oh wait, I guess we can.

ROFL

So....it's a big de-humidifier. And this is revolutionary how? I got one in my basement.

Jeez, why didn't you think to do this?

Did you think of using a big !@#$ing humidifier to create a renewable source of potable water in a community that's lacking same?

Just about every invention on the planet right now comes from someone taking an existing technology and either improving on it or re-tasking it.

That things is cool as hell.

The problem is that you couldn't use it in many of the war torn regions in some of these third world countries because you'd immediately have warlords standing armed guards around it and killing anyone that didn't pay their warlord tax that month.

Still a very neat idea that could be put to great use in many communities, however.

How many deserts have 98% humidity?

Yeah, it's a smart thing to do, but technologically speaking, not exactly earth-shattering.

They need some kind of guards to keep kids from bathing in it.

I don't believe anyone claimed it was a massive leap forward in technology. Just that it was a novel implementation of an existing technology.

Besides, very few people actually live in deserts. There are a lot of people that live in areas that have water but are sorely lacking drinkable water.

Well, you know how it is once people start getting something for free from somebody else...pretty soon they'll be bitching there aren't more of these and they have a right to purified drinking water.

Ban de- humidifiers

I hate big billboard....

:facepalm: They do.

Made me want to strap a bomb collar to his neck.

A need isn't a right...especially if that "right" is at the expense of others. Getting these people clean water may be the "right" thing to do, but that doesn't make it one...

Who gives a shit? Obviously providing this need is helping this company, or they probably wouldn't be doing it. It also doesn't seem to be fantastically expensive when weighed against the incredible benefit to the people living there. But, please, go ahead and preemptively vilify people in need. Great world view.

:facepalm:

Douche.....

Just wow...

Shallow thinking like this is what results in the truth described by his original statement.

Feel free to add any specifics to this so I even know what you're taking issue with, thanks.

Your disregard of the distinction between needs and rights.

You don't have a right to food. You need it to survive, sure, but it's not a right. Nobody owes it to you. It's incumbent upon you to go out there and secure the means to get your own food.

For someone to point out that not all needs are rights and for you to respond "who gives a shit!?" is, in fact, extremely shallow thinking.

People whose thoughts are dominated by emotion rather than intellect are more likely to take advantage of a generous gesture like this and demand that it be provided on a large scale (by someone else, of course).

That, and his criticism of fan4ever's "world view" as if fan4ever is out to prevent people from getting drinking water or something.

I more meant the aspect of his "world view" that the first thought he has regarding something like this is people will inherently go from being grateful to bitchily demanding something as if it is a right. Never accused him of anything you suggest. Sorry if unclear.

Ah, well he kinda went off the rails there at the end so I probably skipped his throwaway sentence.

He lost me at "vilify people in need..."

I feel like that's the kind of thing you tend to argue when you're at the front of an unruly mob, as opposed to when you're actually trying to substantively discuss something.

So yeah, your comment about decision-making from emotion strikes pretty true there. I'm not exactly sure where fan4ever vilified anybody, but when one has a soapbox and the majority behind him, he tends to get rolling and generally stop making sense.

Where did I do that? Did I state that people have a right to this service? He didn't just point out that all needs are not rights (which is pretty obvious to most and not exactly deep, not that he claimed it was). He too it to what he assumed was a logical conclusion that this would soon become demanded as a right and people would be angry they weren't receiving it.

In fairness, pretty much the whole of human history suggests that he's right.

Yeah, cause a comment about automatic entitlement isn't pandering to a crowd on Chiefsplanet. My couple of lines in response was clearly soapbox grandstanding.

How do you know that was his first thought? Maybe he had a lot of the same thoughts as the people who posted before him, but he didn't feel the need to repeat what was already said. Instead, he made a thoughtful point that hadn't been made already.

Anyway, I just think you and a couple of others reacted negatively to a guy who didn't say anything that deserved it.

And while we're throwing out broad historical claims that are virtually impossible to back up without writing a term paper, I'd counter with most people who have made a substantially positive impact on the people around them operate on the assumption he's wrong.

Fair point. It was his first post in the thread so I admittedly assumed. If I misconstrued his intentions, then I apologize. I just routinely see this kind of response around here and it grates on me. That's not his fault.

There's a difference between something being provided for you and something denied you...

When he pointed out the distinction and you responded "who gives a shit", it certainly reads as though you're disregarding said distinction. Especially when you go on to criticize his worldview.

In the end, this is dangerously close to taking a DC turn, but I will say that the unfortunate truth is that he's largely correct. Many places in the world can't have this technology precisely because humans lack the nobility to allow it to serve its intended purposes (like I said, warlords and armed guards). And getting beyond that, you sure have a sunny outlook on humanity if you think that people gratefully accept a routine charity and never start to shift their baselines.

I'm sorry, but I think his concern is a real one. History tells us that people simply lack the capacity for long-term gratitude. Charity becomes right extremely quickly.

Sure, but this isn't state sponsored charity. This is private. I don't see the connection. I also don't see the argument against this unless one is against charity in any form at any time on general principle.

Most people who have made a substantially positive impact on the people around them haven't done it through providing charity. They've done it through teaching them or curing diseases; things that allow them to better their station independently.

"Teach a man to fish", so to speak.

Again, at the risk of steering this thing directly into DC, take a look at the difference in people that are on foodstamps now who complain about the stigma of food stamps and demand they get cards that look like credit cards, vs. the people that were initially grateful for any assistance they could get.

It doesn't take more than a generation or so for kindness to become right.

It's not at all. In fact it's a perfect example what you would consider 'industrious' charity.

In fact, my very first comment was that this thing is really cool and could be put to great use in a ton of different places.

But that doesn't mean you should just ignore the potential downside of it. He made an interesting point, one that surely seems rooted in human nature, and you jumped his ass for it. That seems worth calling out.

Well I suppose I thought his point was just as trite as you and patteu seemed to think my point was. I didn't see it as relevant to the conversation as much as a knee jerk anti-entitlement jab. I did however, admit to my emotional bias in my harsh reaction. I could have misconstrued his intentions every bit as much as you and pat did mine. Good you called it out, though, since it gave me an opportunity to clarify.

So much of what we all really need to survive and/or thrive surrounds us everyday. Yet there are those will do whatever they can to keep us from utilizing those treasures because they can't control it. Windmills becoming illegal. Prosecution for rain water when it lands on your own property.

I've been out and about and it's interesting to return and see so many could see what I was saying (or not saying as well) while so many others couldn't. Thanks for setting them straight(er).

In other technological advancements involving advertisements, airplane banners from the Save Our Chiefs movement produced a lovely Spring Breeze scent that showered over Arrowhead on gamedays, masking the rancid shit that was covering the field.