Re:Forgive me for feeling a bit defeatist...
on
Gaming Does Good
·
· Score: 1
I don't know what rock you live under, but metal and its derivatives have been big consistently for the last twenty years, and Dungeons and Dragons is bigger than it ever was in the eighties.
Huh, think you might just not be paying attention?
This kind of backlash only happens to "new" things. Over time people see that wow, most of the time people who play D and D don't kill people, and they realize there is no problem. Not the fanatics, but the moderates stop listening to the fanatics. If you came out today trying to insinuate D and D made kids crazy, with the number of people who have grown up playing it now, you plain couldn't be taken seriously.
The same thing will happen here.
Re:Forgive me for feeling a bit defeatist...
on
Gaming Does Good
·
· Score: 1
They'll give up man. Don't hear a lot about the evils of heavy metal or Dungeons and Dragons anymore, do you? Yet when I was a kid these were headlines over and over and over again.
Sooner or later the indefensibility of their stance will become so apparent that they will lose all credibility with moderates. And most people are moderates.
It's an assigned risk. Now tell me anything else in the world in which the assigned risk is rendering surrounding land uninhabitable for eons while also putting a very large number of people at risk and substantially raising dangerous pollutant levels quite a distance, perhaps even including the ocean.
For what. Cheap energy? Lay off the microwave and the AC.
right, lost productivity that would not exist without cars in the first place. nuclear energy is not the only form of energy.
You keep dancing around it, it's not volume. ONE nuclear accident here would be one too many, and I'm sorry, you have a lot of faith in people I guess, but I see it as inevitable that someday, someone will really fuck up.
well, there's an insightful analogy. An action that can hurt a few people vs one that can kill millions and cause untold billions of dollars of damage in one fell swoop. yes, they are about equal, aren't they.
1. Perhaps I should have said "works as advertised". I default to a point of skepticism until I am educated and do not make assumptions that things just work perfectly.
2. Half life of uranium is measured in millenia.
3. So a reactor could be detonated, then. I wasn't being literal with the roof comment. More generally, could it in theory be attacked? sounds like the answer is yes. There is a way to get a "radioactive cloud" or some other bit of nastiness out of these things that does not exist with other forms of energy. If your assumption of safety is that no one will ever try, then hey... go build skyscrapers that can't withstand a plane crash. who'd try that?
cool, if it works it would certainly be helpful. how long does the spent fuel stay radioactive, how much does it produce, and what would be the effect if terrorists knock the roof off?
Meltdown proof doesn't mean noxious radioactive cloud proof, does it?
This could be great; it's not answering all the questions though, is it.
You should be timid, they are called bleeding edge for a reason.
Things have started. I am simply saying, they have in all liklihood started too late, and they started too late because of attitudes like the parent of this thread had: oh, just keep using it, when it gets expensive we'll switch and go on dancing our happy little dances. It's simplistic.
oh, did we successfully transfer the world economy off of fossil fuels when I wasn't looking?
Nothing has been proven yet. Do you have any idea what it's going to take to make such a shift? We either need to have several years left of relatively cheap fossil fuels, minimum, or we should have started this shift years ago. This is not as simple as *poof* we're using green energy now because a price per kilowatt hit a magic number. Green energy isn't even ready to take over yet, nevermind the economics involved with the infrastructure shift.
We're in for a ride my friend. I don't know what industry you're in, but I've seen my manufacturers raise prices 2-4 times this year and our shipping costs are quickly climbing as well. There is a lag between rising energy and rising everything else, and we're just starting to get the effects of the first jump in price. I'm scared of what's going to happen *next year*, and there is no way green power is taking over that fast.
We're not necessarily doomed, but glibly saying "hey, keep using oil" shows a complete lack of respect for the factors at work here. We could very well be in big trouble here because we haven't been diligently working to prepare for a switch from a fossil-fueled economy. We certainly should be NOW, and we still are not. It's starting, but I seriously see it as too little, too late at this point. The math just isn't working out anymore, not with China and India in developement booms.
I was under the impression it was also used because it generated a higher power output, am I incorrect there?
If so, then this sounds like something worth researching, however it's not in the same vein as "nuclear power" that we all currently know. Which is good!
It shut down when I got old enough to do so, and because I'm not paranoid about it, I am pragmatic about it. The risk is small. The consequences of the risk, however, are not at all small.
Using LESS fossil fuels would be ok, in conjuction with other forms of energy, in my book. Much less, granted. But we don't have to have a complete moratorium on fossil fuel usage, we don't have to supply all the world's energy needs with only renewables in order to reach sustainability, and we could use much less energy then we are using today by being more efficient as well.
and also far more potentially dangerous. You can decide the risks are "worth it", but if you think the risks are "worth it", then IMHO you aren't really seriously considering the risk.
Bad things can happen. Gross negligence and user error occur all the time. A higher cost of energy is worth avoiding the risk of killing millions of people and leaving, say, NYC to CT uninhabitable for centuries.
There is nothing paranoid, I understand it's "unlikely" to happen. I've lived less than ten miles from a nuclear plant most of my life. However, it IS a risk, and I don't feel it's one worth taking. Especially not given we do have enemies in this world and figuring out how to set off a nuclear meltdown at one of our plants would be a nice, fat target for them, hmmm?
You're welcome. Now pull your knee jerk reaction back and read the fricking piece and you'd understand why it's not a problem. However you just stop at seeing the words and freak out.
Immature, hypersensitive, or stupid, I guess you can take your pick.
hardly, as your arguement assumes that rampantly burning gasoline and oil has no negative side effects in the meantime, that the economic tipping point will be reached before those side effects are felt, and that the tipping point will be reached slowly enough that an infrastructure change can occur relatively painlessly.
More realistically, pollution is a problem, and a shift away from oil will be a massive shock to a world economy dependant on the stuff, and we're doing precious little to prepare for it.
I think that's what was so brilliant about Wilder's version of the character. He seemed so happy and harmless but you kept getting those glimpses of the "so much more" going on behind the grin... it was great. I never thought much of wilder until I saw that movie and came away convinced he did in fact have genius.
Judging by the trailer, and "Big Fish", I think Burton is branching out from dark and gloomy.
Which makes me sad, but Big Fish was fucking brilliant, and I'll swallow my skepticism (and love of Gene wilder as Willy Wonka the Dark and Crazy) and give this a shot. I was skeptical about Big Fish too, but he pulled that off beautifully without letting it get cheesy.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know what rock you live under, but metal and its derivatives have been big consistently for the last twenty years, and Dungeons and Dragons is bigger than it ever was in the eighties.
Huh, think you might just not be paying attention?
This kind of backlash only happens to "new" things. Over time people see that wow, most of the time people who play D and D don't kill people, and they realize there is no problem. Not the fanatics, but the moderates stop listening to the fanatics. If you came out today trying to insinuate D and D made kids crazy, with the number of people who have grown up playing it now, you plain couldn't be taken seriously.
The same thing will happen here.
They'll give up man. Don't hear a lot about the evils of heavy metal or Dungeons and Dragons anymore, do you? Yet when I was a kid these were headlines over and over and over again.
Sooner or later the indefensibility of their stance will become so apparent that they will lose all credibility with moderates. And most people are moderates.
It's an assigned risk. Now tell me anything else in the world in which the assigned risk is rendering surrounding land uninhabitable for eons while also putting a very large number of people at risk and substantially raising dangerous pollutant levels quite a distance, perhaps even including the ocean.
For what. Cheap energy? Lay off the microwave and the AC.
right, lost productivity that would not exist without cars in the first place. nuclear energy is not the only form of energy.
You keep dancing around it, it's not volume. ONE nuclear accident here would be one too many, and I'm sorry, you have a lot of faith in people I guess, but I see it as inevitable that someday, someone will really fuck up.
well, there's an insightful analogy. An action that can hurt a few people vs one that can kill millions and cause untold billions of dollars of damage in one fell swoop. yes, they are about equal, aren't they.
but, but, that would be *reasonable*!!!!
and then the daddy of this thread would be wrong. and apparently we can't have that.
1. Perhaps I should have said "works as advertised". I default to a point of skepticism until I am educated and do not make assumptions that things just work perfectly.
2. Half life of uranium is measured in millenia.
3. So a reactor could be detonated, then. I wasn't being literal with the roof comment. More generally, could it in theory be attacked? sounds like the answer is yes. There is a way to get a "radioactive cloud" or some other bit of nastiness out of these things that does not exist with other forms of energy. If your assumption of safety is that no one will ever try, then hey... go build skyscrapers that can't withstand a plane crash. who'd try that?
Chernobyl is a really thriving fucking agricultural center, isn't it?
cool, if it works it would certainly be helpful. how long does the spent fuel stay radioactive, how much does it produce, and what would be the effect if terrorists knock the roof off?
Meltdown proof doesn't mean noxious radioactive cloud proof, does it?
This could be great; it's not answering all the questions though, is it.
You should be timid, they are called bleeding edge for a reason.
Things have started. I am simply saying, they have in all liklihood started too late, and they started too late because of attitudes like the parent of this thread had: oh, just keep using it, when it gets expensive we'll switch and go on dancing our happy little dances. It's simplistic.
In my book, "potentially risking the lives of millions" is a bit harsher than "not perfect".
oh, did we successfully transfer the world economy off of fossil fuels when I wasn't looking?
Nothing has been proven yet. Do you have any idea what it's going to take to make such a shift? We either need to have several years left of relatively cheap fossil fuels, minimum, or we should have started this shift years ago. This is not as simple as *poof* we're using green energy now because a price per kilowatt hit a magic number. Green energy isn't even ready to take over yet, nevermind the economics involved with the infrastructure shift.
We're in for a ride my friend. I don't know what industry you're in, but I've seen my manufacturers raise prices 2-4 times this year and our shipping costs are quickly climbing as well. There is a lag between rising energy and rising everything else, and we're just starting to get the effects of the first jump in price. I'm scared of what's going to happen *next year*, and there is no way green power is taking over that fast.
We're not necessarily doomed, but glibly saying "hey, keep using oil" shows a complete lack of respect for the factors at work here. We could very well be in big trouble here because we haven't been diligently working to prepare for a switch from a fossil-fueled economy. We certainly should be NOW, and we still are not. It's starting, but I seriously see it as too little, too late at this point. The math just isn't working out anymore, not with China and India in developement booms.
I was under the impression it was also used because it generated a higher power output, am I incorrect there?
If so, then this sounds like something worth researching, however it's not in the same vein as "nuclear power" that we all currently know. Which is good!
----- -- Level of my sarcasm
----- --- Level of your head.
I know you can do it. Reread and try again!
calling something inappropriate without even looking into the context is indeed a knee jerk reaction, certainly irrational, and entirely stupid.
Suck it up. You were dumb. Move on.
It shut down when I got old enough to do so, and because I'm not paranoid about it, I am pragmatic about it. The risk is small. The consequences of the risk, however, are not at all small.
Using LESS fossil fuels would be ok, in conjuction with other forms of energy, in my book. Much less, granted. But we don't have to have a complete moratorium on fossil fuel usage, we don't have to supply all the world's energy needs with only renewables in order to reach sustainability, and we could use much less energy then we are using today by being more efficient as well.
Nuclear is not the silver bullet.
and also far more potentially dangerous. You can decide the risks are "worth it", but if you think the risks are "worth it", then IMHO you aren't really seriously considering the risk.
Bad things can happen. Gross negligence and user error occur all the time. A higher cost of energy is worth avoiding the risk of killing millions of people and leaving, say, NYC to CT uninhabitable for centuries.
There is nothing paranoid, I understand it's "unlikely" to happen. I've lived less than ten miles from a nuclear plant most of my life. However, it IS a risk, and I don't feel it's one worth taking. Especially not given we do have enemies in this world and figuring out how to set off a nuclear meltdown at one of our plants would be a nice, fat target for them, hmmm?
and exactly how are you proposing to get all the strontium-90 we'd need to run those little fellows without massive risk?
You're welcome. Now pull your knee jerk reaction back and read the fricking piece and you'd understand why it's not a problem. However you just stop at seeing the words and freak out.
Immature, hypersensitive, or stupid, I guess you can take your pick.
Gee, maybe because a broken solar panel doesn't decimate the land for hundreds of miles and render it uninhabitable for hundreds of years?
Maybe?
Maybe because when the sun goes down, you don't have a pile of lethal garbage that can kill you for thousands of years left over?
Maybe?
Naaaaaah. fucking hippies, they just don't get it, do they.
hardly, as your arguement assumes that rampantly burning gasoline and oil has no negative side effects in the meantime, that the economic tipping point will be reached before those side effects are felt, and that the tipping point will be reached slowly enough that an infrastructure change can occur relatively painlessly.
More realistically, pollution is a problem, and a shift away from oil will be a massive shock to a world economy dependant on the stuff, and we're doing precious little to prepare for it.
yes, you are. grow up and read the piece.
I think that's what was so brilliant about Wilder's version of the character. He seemed so happy and harmless but you kept getting those glimpses of the "so much more" going on behind the grin... it was great. I never thought much of wilder until I saw that movie and came away convinced he did in fact have genius.
Why did he want that? He watched the manson video where he's actually dressed up like willy wonka on the boat ride for a song off their first album?
It would be crazy, but this sounds a bit like a rumour started from someone's half remembered video clips. Or, Burton watches a lot of videos.
Judging by the trailer, and "Big Fish", I think Burton is branching out from dark and gloomy.
Which makes me sad, but Big Fish was fucking brilliant, and I'll swallow my skepticism (and love of Gene wilder as Willy Wonka the Dark and Crazy) and give this a shot. I was skeptical about Big Fish too, but he pulled that off beautifully without letting it get cheesy.