In a world full of technological advancements and exponentially growing populations, it’s no wonder the planet’s nonrenewable resources are being depleted at an alarming rate. This is especially true in the United States, where we consume at least 20 percent of the world’s total energy resources. Keep in mind, we only make up 5 percent of the entire world’s population, yet as a whole we use up so much more energy than necessary without thinking much about it.

To put it in a more straightforward perspective: Americans consume about four times more resources than necessary, significantly limiting the resources available to those in other countries. Several developing countries do not even have access to clean drinking water, let alone many other resources which we take for granted with our lavish lifestyles.

Fossil fuels (such as coal, oil and natural gas) are currently the most commonly used sources of energy, despite the fact that they are far more harmful to the environment than several other sources. They are a nonpoint source of pollution (runoff that moves through the ground via rainfall and snowmelt which carries pollutants into various bodies of water) and a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.

As hopefully all of you have noticed by now, there has been a significant spike in gas prices over this decade, and if we continue to rely on fossil fuels for every aspect of our energy use, the cost of gas will continue to climb. Eventually, the cost of retrieving fossil fuels will probably be too expensive for many of us to buy due to the rapid rate in which we’re using it; Provided we do not run out of these finite sources completely.

There have been success stories about vehicles powered by fuels such as water and electricity, but they are uncommon and have yet to be fully developed. In addition, the average American simply cannot afford to trade their current gas-guzzling cars for new energy efficient ones. For now, the limited resources necessary to power our vehicles should be used wisely and for things which do not have a decent alternative source of power available.

Luckily, over the years people have been coming up with new and exciting ways to harness renewable energy that is friendlier to humans and ecosystems alike.

One method, which has been a popular topic in the Iowa State U. news lately, is wind energy. As many of you have seen, a new, small wind turbine has been set up on the east side of campus. This project cost $250,000, but it can create enough electricity to power buildings like Catt Hall and East Hall for an entire year. In statistical terms, it can generate up to $18,000 (.12 percent) worth of Iowa State’s electrical needs annually, which is about 183,330-kilowatt hours. Iowa State also has partial ownership of a large wind turbine farm in northern Story County.

In Iowa, wind turbine farms have been increasing in popularity over the years and produce approximately twenty percent of the state’s electricity. There are nearly 3,000 utility-scale turbines in the state; enough to power over one million homes. Iowa is also rated No. 1 in wind energy related employment in the nation by offering at least 3,000 jobs, if not more.

Best of all, aside from the start up costs, wind energy is renewable and has less hazardous effects on the environment. There are several other types of similar renewable energy resources that would be better alternatives to fossil fuels, such as solar energy, hydropower and biomass energy. In addition, there are a few energy sources that have the potential to be useful but are not very cost-effective or easily acquired right now, such as geothermal energy, hydrogen and ocean energy.

Overall, it is in everyone’s best interest to be conscious of the energy they consume and where it comes from. Developing awareness of renewable energy is essential. If the human species continues on the current trajectory of heavy fossil fuel usage, the impacts it will have on our lives and the environment could be devastating in the near future.

If so, you’re in luck. There’s an app for that, one that TechCrunch has rated the “Douchebag App of the Year.” The Facebook of sexual encounters — “Share your romantic encounters with your closest friends,” it advertises before asking for a user’s email — it’s called Playbook, and it allows users to upload and rate pictures of their romantic conquests with their chums.

But not only can Playbook users rate their experiences, thereby rating the individuals with whom they shared them — which, we all know, is a natural thing to do with or without an app — they can also indicate how far they went with the significant (or insignificant) other (first base, etc.), consequently allowing any friends who follow your sexual progress to judge and publicly comment on your so-called “play.” Classy.

The main thing we’re asking is, “What’s the point?” You can already text your friends, Facebook message your friends — heck, you can talk to your friends in person and avoid the potentially destructive permanence that accompanies Internet-based communication — and more likely than not, you’re going to rate what you’re telling your friends about in the process as well. Why document this more than we already do? More specifically, why give a company (that is, the group of young developers who created Playbook) access to your sex life? Whatever you say will stay somewhere in cyberspace. Someone somewhere (a future employer, maybe?) will have access to your cheap romance and raunchy pictures. Your words could easily come back to haunt you.

In most cases — though admittedly we rarely adhere to this wisdom — the dirty details of your life in the bed sheets are best not transcribed on the Internet. Remember when you thought SnapChat was safe? Remember to think twice.

So far the app caters to “bro” figures, but according to TechCrunch, Playbook’s creators are working to make the app more gender-neutral. Will the app be as appealing to females? Time will tell. And that’s not to say that all males find the app to be particularly luring. In fact, while it’s unkind to rate your piece of meat from the night before to your friends, it’s all the more worse to do so to the cyber public by downloading an app for it.

The Weinstein Company has asked the toy manufacturer NECA to cease distribution on a series of collectible dolls based on the characters from Quentin Tarantino’s latest film, “Django Unchained.” The decision comes after the Weinstein Company was approached by several civil rights groups claiming that the dolls were discriminatory and insensitive to the history of American slavery. Among these voices was Project Islamic Hope director, Najee Ali, who said the collectible dolls are “a slap in the face of our ancestors.”

“Django Unchained” explores the possible history of a fictional slave named Django who attempts to free his wife from the plantation of a wealthy slaveholder. In presentation, the film has been likened to spaghetti-westerns of the mid-1960s by Telegraph reviewer Jenny McCartney, and is punctuated by numerous scenes of extreme violence. Tarantino defends these moments, telling an audience at the British Academy of Film and Television Arts that the reality of American slavery was “incredibly shocking” and much worse than anything depicted on film.

“Unchained” has been nominated for five Academy Awards and received critical and commercial success, becoming Tarantino’s highest-grossing movie, with a box office rake of $130 million. It is this success which prompted NECA to take interest in making collectible dolls fashioned after prominent characters in the movie. Of the six-doll set, one depicts Candie, a cruel slave owner who forces his male slaves to fight one another to the death for sport. Another doll is Stephen, a house slave played by actor Samuel L. Jackson, who called his character “the most despised Negro in cinematic history.”

With news that NECA was discontinuing their line of “Unchained” collectibles, owners immediately began putting the dolls on market sites like Amazon and eBay, with prices often tripling their original value. Already, an “Unchained” doll which initially sold for $39.99 fetched over $400 in an eBay auction, while a complete set has sold for $2,000.

“I’m not surprised at all,” said Krystal Moore, an employee at The Great Escape, a comic and collectible store located on Bardstown Road that specializes in a wide variety of pop-culture items and memorabilia. “We had customers asking for them even before this. When people start hearing that items are rare, the prices will skyrocket.”

On Jan. 25, the dolls were pulled from eBay on the grounds that it violated their offensive-materials policy, which prohibits products that “promote or glorify hatred, violence, racial, sexual or religious intolerance, or promote organizations with such views.”

NECA has previously made collectible dolls for other Tarantino films, such as the 2009 World War II fantasy, “Inglorious Basterds.”

Hey, it’s (insert name here) and I never told you, but I think it’s really awesome you took my virginity!”

If my parents only knew about the weird texts I get on a regular basis, they probably wouldn’t want me on their family plan anymore. I received this one last Tuesday, and, in a state of shock, I dropped my coffee on the hardwood floor of my workplace. I spent the next three minutes frantically trying to get the iced cafe-latte mopped up before my boss saw the mess.

I racked my brain about why this person chose to tell me now and how the hell to respond to it. To girls, virginity is seen as a prize to give away, but to boys it’s a feat of accomplishment — the state prior to the actual sex is rather embarrassing. That being said, neither party usually knows what they’re doing, but has the expectation they will be good and enjoy it. I give them major props for trying, but it’s not that way for most virgins.

Every time I think of female virgins, I picture pouty blond girls with pigtails and wide eyes sucking on lollipops (maybe I watch too much porn). When I think of virginal guys, my shallow mind pictures Martin Short. Martin Short just looks like the kind of guy that doesn’t get much ass and probably needs his back waxed.

The guy who texted me on Tuesday — I’ll call him “Sean” — is around my age, and the incident took place prior to my moving to Reno about three years ago. It was an awkward encounter at first, and when panties finally dropped, Flo-Rida sang about Apple Bottoms jeans. Sean seemed to be trying awfully hard to match the tempo as he thrust with zeal. Since he was only my second chosen partner, you can probably imagine the sex wasn’t amazing, and it lasted less time than the song itself. When it was over, he blurted out an oddly-timed “I love you,” and I shamefully rushed home to the comfort of my childhood bed. A night of chafing and questioning whether I had a G-spot followed.

The first time and the second time, even when they’re with the same person, are nothing like the movies. I didn’t start having G-spot orgasms until about five months ago, when mine finally decided to develop. Before then, I was all about oral and vibrating bullets, but even masturbating isn’t great until you practice.

Because of the culture of our high-sex media, it’s very easy for us to panic when sex isn’t fireworks and rainbows every time. When you generally enjoy your first time, it leaves you with fond memories. Sean obviously had the sort of positive experience he was looking for, even if I didn’t necessarily scream and moan with ecstasy.

Having the obligation of pleasing your partner can be scary, and when you find out you didn’t meet that standard, it can cause you to feel a bit hurt. Virginal guys can feel like they’re alone with cluelessness on how to satisfy a woman, but, in all actuality, even Kanye was once in their shoes, fretting over how short he should cut his fingernails.

The truth is: The first time isn’t usually that great. The second time is usually a bit weird and even after the third time, you may not be at the porn star level. But damn, you can get there. After all, practice does make perfect. When it comes to first times with any sexual encounter, the most important thing is honesty about what you want and appreciation for their trying to please you. If someone says they’re glad you were their first, say “you’re welcome” and leave it at that. Let them enjoy whatever fond memories they took from it. Sometimes in this world, that’s all we have.

CHAMPAIGN — Forget about the No. 1 ranking for a second.

Forget about everything you think it means to be labeled as the top team in the nation during the middle of the college basketball season. Forget about all of the supposed glory and bragging rights that come with it for just one moment.

Because for all the hype and hoopla that will be made about the rankings following Michigan’s 74-60 victory against Illinois on Sunday — and there is a very good chance that the Wolverines will assume the No. 1 ranking when the polls are released Monday — what the Wolverines did Sunday is far more important than anything that will happen the next day. What they did on Sunday was show growth and maturation. They showed that they are a continually improving team, whether or not their ranking shows it.

Two weeks ago, Michigan couldn’t handle the pressure. Then, the second-ranked Wolverines walked into Value City Arena in Columbus with that coveted top spot within reach. On that Sunday, just three days after then-No. 1 Duke faltered against North Carolina State, they were almost assured of becoming the top-ranked team in the country with a victory.

But Michigan came out flat, lacking energy in the first half against the Buckeyes, fizzling under the pressure. The freshmen showed nerves and inexperience. The Wolverines tumbled their way to a 21-point deficit in the early going of that contest, only to have a failed late-game comeback.

Fast-forward to two weeks later. After a quick re-scrambling of the top-ranked teams in the national polls, Michigan found itself in the same exact position on Sunday, trailing only Duke in the rankings. And with Duke’s loss earlier last week, the Wolverines were offered another opportunity to seize that desired top ranking.

Only Michigan did more than that with its victory. The Wolverines demonstrated that they could handle the hype, that the target on their back hadn’t gotten too big. They played like a much-improved team from two weeks ago.

Michigan came out with life on Sunday. The guards pushed the ball, and the bigs played the aggressors on the glass. And most important of all, the freshmen rose to the occasion.

Swingman Nik Stauskas led the team with nine early points, and together with forwards Glenn Robinson III and Mitch McGary, the first-year players accounted for more than half of the team’s 35 first-half points. The difference between two weeks ago and Sunday was apparent to sophomore guard Trey Burke.

“I think the freshmen did a good job of stepping up and not playing out of control,” Burke said. “They stayed poised.”

But that wasn’t all. When redshirt junior forward Jordan Morgan exited with a sprained ankle just minutes into the game, the reserve forwards came off the bench to play a huge role in his absence. McGary, redshirt sophomore forward Jon Horford and redshirt freshman forward Max Bielfeldt combined for 17 points and 14 rebounds, including eight boards on the offensive end.

This should have been a tightly contested matchup, and yet, Michigan turned in another double-digit victory.

Sure, Illinois is no Ohio State (mind you, Illinois did beat the Buckeyes by 19 points three weeks ago), but a road win in the Big Ten is a road win in the Big Ten, especially when you have a large target on your back and a possible No. 1 ranking in your sights.

But to the Wolverines, it isn’t about the rankings. It’s not about where they stand now, but about where they’ll stand come March. It’s about winning on the road and growing as a team.

Beilein might have said that best following Sunday’s victory.

“It’s Jan. 27 and not one of you in here can remember who was No. 1 last Jan. (27),” he said. “So to our team, that (ranking) really does not make a big difference. I’m sure to a lot of our fans at water coolers and in coffee shops, and to people who love Michigan and hate Michigan, it’s probably something that they hate or they love right now.”

Yes, it’s coach-speak, cliché to the max. But it’s true. The rankings mean nothing. The Wolverines showed they are continually improving, and that’s a scary thought for the rest of the country.

So don’t get hung up on that number, the new digit that will assuredly loom large likely positioned next to Michigan’s name come Monday.

Try to forget about that No. 1 ranking — because the Wolverines certainly have.

“You’ll Never Leave Harlan Alive.” This, the title of a featured song by country singer−songwriter Darrell Scott, captures the gripping excellence that is “Justified.”

As is suggested in the song, Harlan, Ky. — the main setting of FX’s exceptional modern−day Western epic — is a very dangerous place to be. It also happens to be the home of some of the best−written characters on television. To name a few, the show’s fourth season alone brings a young snake−handling preacher and his mysterious sister, an upstart constable, a former soldier beginning a career as a hitman and a hulking ex−con mixed martial arts fighter. Remarkably, this show about a deputy U.S. marshal who returns home to police the criminals he knows and grew up with is as spellbinding as ever.

Having just come out of last season’s thrilling grudge match with the Dixie Mafia, the protagonist of “Justified,” Timothy Olyphant’s brilliantly portrayed, Stetson−donning Deputy U.S. Marshal Raylan Givens, finds himself taking seemingly straightforward off−the−record side jobs in order to provide for his now−pregnant ex−girlfriend. However, Raylan again finds that there is no such thing as easy money in Harlan County, especially when he is surrounded by people willing to do whatever it takes to succeed. In fact, one of the main themes permeating this season seems to be the far−reaching consequences of betrayal and the toll it can have on one’s resolve.

That said, this theme does not bog “Justified” down — in fact, the show is energized by it. This season, wickedly humorous banter and breakneck tension continue to flow effortlessly within the framework of the story. Viewers will once again find themselves gleefully absorbed by both the action and the dialogue that is exchanged as the season progresses.

Cleverly foregoing previous seasons’ truly magnificent “Big Bad” antagonists, this season instead focuses on developing an overarching mystery spanning decades. It all begins with the curious death of a man who fell from an airplane in 1983 whose passing has puzzled law enforcement officials for years. By chance, a crucial, unexpected clue falls into Raylan’s lap and inadvertently connects him with modern−day criminals, one of whom is Raylan’s own geriatric convict father, Arlo. Arlo, portrayed by Raymond J. Barry, hid the clue from Raylan long ago and refuses to divulge the meaning behind it. Arlo is so anxious to keep the truth hidden that he is willing to kill in order to preserve the mystery. This plotline is crucial to the series, but ironic family dynamics are only some of the many darkly humorous aspects of “Justified.”

Also returning in fine form is fan−favorite Boyd Crowder (Walton Goggins), the quick−witted crime boss who pulls the strings behind every criminal outfit in Harlan. When his drug business begins to take off commercially, Boyd unexpectedly crosses paths with a religious congregation led by a youthful preacher who proves his unfaltering faith in the almighty by handling live snakes in the middle of services. The showdown between these two men already provides a season highlight that is sure to stay with the viewers.

By consistently reinventing the show, executive producer Graham Yost and the show’s writers have provided colorful characters with engrossing storylines that are, somehow, firmly grounded in reality. The creative forces behind “Justified” continue to surprise with twisty writing, sometimes bleak but always genuinely laugh−out−loud humor and clever dialogue between its rich characters, setting it apart from other network dramas. A show that continues to get better with every riveting season, “Justified” has indicated that this year Raylan and company are showing no signs of slowing down. Simply put, “Justified” is one of the best shows on television, and you should be watching.

Argo is a movie about three things. Argo is a movie about why we love movies. Argo is a movie about what movies are supposed to be. Argo is, lastly, a movie about the redemption of Ben Affleck.

Argo tells the story of a CIA rescue operation carried out during the Iran hostage crisis in which, to rescue six Americans who had found their way out of the burning embassy and were hiding in the house of the Canadian ambassador, the CIA created a fake movie agency and smuggled them outside of the country as foreign filmmakers.

Affleck plays the lead role, CIA extraction expert Tony Mendez, an affable character who expertly straddles the line between emotion and professionalism. The audience is quickly introduced to Mendez in his office, where he is tasked with rescuing the agents and struggles to find an idea to do so. The agency throws around cover stories—in one memorable exchange, Mendez addresses a fellow official and asks him if he truly expects the hostages to bike hundreds of miles through the desert across the border to another country—but is stuck.

While home and talking to his child on the phone, Mendez is hit with a bolt of inspiration. Affleck gets the ear of his superior, played by Bryan Cranston, and begins describing the idea: using a fake movie production of a ­sci-fi script called Argo as cover to extract the hostages. After getting support—Cranston pitches it to the organization as “the best bad idea we’ve got”—Affleck goes to Hollywood and works with a Hollywood makeup artist (John Goodman) and longtime producer (Alan Arkin) to make the fake film.

***

The movie is a testament to the evolution of Ben Affleck as a director. A brilliantly directed opening sequence in Tehran, where quickly moving shots capture the raging incoherence of mob protest, conveys the dystopia faced by the fleeing diplomatic corps. Forced to be the faces of a President harboring the shah, a detested despot in Iran, the group of six is a picture of frayed nerves the entire time, fearing for their lives. Chris Terrio’s brilliant script moves fluidly back across the Atlantic Ocean, first to Washington and then to California, where the Hollywood personas of Goodman and Arkin give the movie its true comedic delight.

Affleck and Terrio strike a balance between humor and gravity in the movie; the Arkin and Goodman characters provide a balance of levity and urgency in their approaches to the rescue. As they sort through bad scripts, Arkin rejects idea after idea, asserting facetiously “if I make a fake movie, it’s going to be a fake hit!” In the town of Hollywood glitz and glamor, Arkin and Goodman introduce Mendez to how to get things done, a comedic process that involves preying on Arkin’s inside knowledge of everyone’s personal lives to coerce them into paying him back favor after favor. The entire “this is so crazy is might work” motif hangs over the middle section of the film, as scrambling executives move to make the agency in less than a week to satisfy Mendez’s superiors back at the CIA, who threaten to “move ahead with the bikes” if the idea doesn’t work.

During this time, flashbacks to Tehran keep the movie grounded in reality and cuts to the embassy—where rebels are putting together images that had been put through the paper shredder in order to try and account for all the hostages—maintain a dramatic undertone to the oft-whimsical proceedings in California.

The voyage of Mendez to Tehran is the weakest part of the film. The drama is slightly overplayed, with the images of child workers putting together paper strips to identify the missing six slightly ridiculous. When interviewed about the movie, Mendez mentioned that the airport extraction went without a hitch but, with the typical Hollywood flair that turns the mundane in each story into the dramatic, it is nearly a thirty minute process that culminates with the plane taking off with Iranian security officials chasing it down the runway.

At its core, however, Argo’s distinguishing characteristic is its stark simplicity. Affleck makes no attempt to get the audience emotionally attached to any one character and leaves no onerous subplots to drag the film astray. The movie attempts to do no more than tell a story and insofar as it achieves its goal, it is, perhaps, the best move of the year. Slight satirizing of Hollywood only brings to the forefront the idea of Argo as a throwback to previous, utopian cinematic times. Nowhere do computer-generated images dominate action and reduce the onus on the human actors to, well, act. Nowhere are scantily clad women (or men, looking at you Steven Soderberg) used to attract denizens to the theater for their beauty instead of their performance.

The financial motives that form a significant motif in Arkin and Goodman’s interactions with Hollywood mainstays are as much an indicator as any about what moves images on scripts to the big screens now: profitability, not ingenuity. In the words of Katey Rich, “Argo is a spy thriller of a buttoned-up old school variety; we’re not given a lot of emotional attachments to these characters, and the reward for a job well done is a pay on the back, not an explosion of grateful tears.” Argo is a movie that aims to entertain and use the cinema as a medium of storytelling instead of embellishment and creation. The drama is rarely burdensome, the attention to detail in casting and costuming meticulous, and the emotion of the moment captured without being oversaturated. There are no side plots, and the movie’s happy endings and overarching motifs (international cooperation and goodwill, the power of innovation, etc.) are benign without being intrusive (à la Tarantino’s attempts at forced catharsis). It is, inauspiciously, a movie that tries to be no more. It is a throwback to the novel conception of movies and is in its simplicity, simply beautiful.

***

The story of Ben Affleck begins here in Cambridge. Not with the set of Good Will Hunting but when he, at the age of eight, met a 10-year old Matt Damon. The two are tenth cousins and went to the same schools together before going off to different colleges. When their education was over, they teamed up for Hunting, a movie with Damon in the lead and Affleck as his big brother, hidden in the shadow but notable nonetheless. The two shared an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay that year and the next three years Affleck starred in three Hollywood blockbusters (Armageddon, Forces of Nature, and Pearl Harbor). At this point in his career, he was reportedly earning $15 million dollars a year and was one of Hollywood’s rising young stars. A handsome thirty-something, Affleck was dating Jennifer Lopez—another young Los Angles starlet—and looked to be heading to the top of the film world. The utopian career peak was never realized, however. In fact, it was never close.

After starring in several box office successes and critically lauded films, Affleck struggled to find a script that he didn’t like during the mid-2000s. Producing films like Daredevil, Surviving Christmas, and Gigli—the last film had him nominated for ‘Worst Actor’ for his role by an independent comic organization—Affleck’s career went sour. In the meantime, his tabloid recognition eclipsed his mediocre work. He broke up with Lopez as he was caught getting lap dances while they were engaged. They called off the wedding, citing both personal reasons and excessive media attention. This occurred right before the premiere of Gigli, where Lopez and Affleck starred together in a film that IMDB summarized as “the violent story about how a criminal lesbian, a tough-guy hit-man with a heart of gold, and a retarded man came to be best friends through a hostage.”

Since his nadir, Affleck has struggled to turn it around in front of the camera. While he was nominated for a Golden Globe for his role in Hollywoodland, he was featured in a number of forgetful romantic comedies and continued a worrisome trend after the promising beginning to a career. However, Affleck—who did a lot of the work for Good Will Hunting that went on behind the scenes—transitioned to work as a director and immediately demonstrated talent considerably more vast than his as an actor. Gone Baby Gone and The Town, his first two features, were tremendous and received a lot of media attention for his directing. Argo is the culmination of this transition and while it is, coincidentally, Ben Affleck’s best job in front of the camera, it is also an epitome of his renaissance.

Affleck’s most notable facial expression is the slight smirk, the look of confidence that comes from inner belief among a torrent of media slander. From Good Will Hunting to Dazed and Confused, the superior look that simultaneously manages to appear self-satisfied and strained is an iconic Affleck expression. He flashes it early in Argo, a quiet acknowledgement of the film that should shut up his critics for good. While not quite an “Argo f— yourself,” a comedic mantra used over and over in the movie, Affleck’s look at the audience is an indication of something deceivingly simple: he’s back, and he knows it.