|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Kain Darkwind wrote:
Um, no. His quote was "far less misleading". Otherwise it wouldn't have been a problem.
Exactly. There should be one standard, and you're first criticizing me for blaming the environmental lobby, which is not okay according to you. Then you blame the nuclear lobby, which is A-OK. So, let's keep it to ONE standard, yes?
Gaberlunzie: The referendum was a sham, and put in effect a ban which went above and beyond what was voted for. And if you claim the "nuclear lobby" removed it, please explain what the "nuclear lobby" actually did, who did it, and who makes up the "nuclear lobby". I would say it is far more correct to say that the ban was removed through our normal democratic process. I mean, claiming the "nuclear lobby" actively pushed through the removal of a ban they have yet to use the removal of, years later, that is pretty odd.
Gaberlunzie: There was a referendum in 1980, yes. None of the alternatives was "let's keep and further develop it". Just that is enough to disqualify the vote. Further, none of the alternatives suggested a ban on research. Generally, it was the worst kind of farce. And it was certainly instated formally by the parliament, as you say. Do you claim the "Kärnkraft nej tack!" campaign wasn't environmentally motivated?
Sooo, unless I can find a group of people who both want to take risks for the environment and are willing to pay large amounts of money, AND don't want nuclear power, there is no double standard?
Seriously, is it controversial to you that the environmental lobby is willing to take risks for the planet's environment, and want us to spend money to solve the climate crisis?
Well, since you're just attacking every single word I say, there really is no point in discussing anything with you. Give yourselves a pat on the back. You just managed to drive off the Evil, Wicked, Horrible person who was Probably paid by Big Oil, and who Dared suggest nuclear could be a good idea. Congratulations.
It is boring to try to discuss generally, then get demands for examples, then having the examples attacked in absurdum, then if something IS an example, get "well the environmental lobby doesn't think that anyway", then if an example is given of this, it gets attacked, then claimed "to be among the lunatic fringe anyway". It does provide for an easy tool to destroy discussion, which is usually desired by people who can't really stand up for their viewpoint because they are too insecure or haven't understood it. Cheers.
So what? I already added: The current discussion is to ban private cars from city centers.
Oh, I am? No, I am saying: There are all kinds of insane risks discussed with an aim to pushing them through, in the name of saving the planet, because the threat is so large that risks need to be taken. Also, costs are irrelevant because climate change.
But when another solution is suggested, every step of the process needs to be economically feasible. I.e. a double standard.
Also, for suggesting that ANY costs are accepted in this solution, I am advocating socialism. Yeah, because no capitalist government or system EVER paid for something. Like, I dunno, monstrous amounts of nuclear weapons.
Here is a page about lenses in space, specifically the part advocated by Roger Angel, done for the express purpose of solving the climate crisis. At a pretty awesome cost, one might add.
Here is one about covering glaciers.
Here is a petition to the UK government to ban private cars. For precisely the right reasons. Admittedly, this one is not a big one. The current discussion goal is to ban cars in city centers. Mr McGlade is just ahead of the curve.
So if various parts of the environmental lobby have advocated all these things, and I don't see any particular squabble among them about any of it, I can't claim any of it is true?
Get over yourself.
Fact remains, the environmentalist lobby is quite willing to take very big risks, and make us all pay huge sums, to save the world from climate change.
Or, I suppose they aren't, either, ZN?
It is very interesting that ANY sort of argument about what the environmentalist lobby is trying to do gets shot down by "that's not at all what they want, and if they do, it's just a small group".
So... if we are going to save the world from the evil CO2 according to the environmental lobby's plan, it's okay to spend uncountable billions of dollars on it, change our entire standard and way of life, and so on. No cost is too high, no idea too risky. These are the guys who actively advocate sending lenses into space that will substantially reduce the levels of incoming sunlight, cover the glaciers over huge areas, outlaw private transportation, and so on.
But, if we are actually trying to speak for nuclear power, then every little step along the way has to be economically feasible RIGHT NOW or else it is useless?
And, even suggesting those costs be accepted as part of the solution to the climate crisis, that is socialism?
Orfamay Quest wrote:
We are not talking about nukes, but nuclear power plants. There is a difference. And besides, no nukes ever have "gone wrong". They did what they were supposed to do just as their owning government intended.
All right! NOW we're cooking! We just need ninety-nine times the wind turbines we have today! And according to the article, the majority will be in places like the Gobi and Sahara deserts, necessitating power lines that make the TAPI pipeline look like a geopolitical hug party. I dunno. This calculation looks a lot like the completely correct claim that solar power could give us ALL the energy we could ever need. Oh, yes. All we would have to do is build a Dyson sphere to catch it all.
Sweden has had a ban on developing new nuclear technology for ages, only recently removed, instated by the environmental lobby. We have shut down our decently modern plants, instead... OPTING TO BUY NUCLEAR POWER ELECTRICITY FROM HORROR STORY PLANTS IN THE FORMER EASTERN BLOC! AND OF COURSE, COAL ELECTICITY FROM GERMANY!!! YAAAAAY!!!
I find it odd that breed reactors are discounted because of economic reasons when the point is to make more fissile materials, to make the fissile materials we do have give us more energy, not make money. It is also relevant to point out that the environmental lobby has quite a serious price tag written out for the stuff they want us all to pay to save the environment. You are free to explain this, CBDunkerson, of course.
I would also be fascinated to see the calculations for wind or solar replacing ALL our energy needs.
Even so, there is a marked difference. Nuclear has the capacity to replace coal. Solar and wind do not, whether you or anyone like it or not. Also, the environmental lobby has been a major reason we do not have more nuclear power, so "it takes time to build nuclear plants" is a pretty useless argument, no? And the other problems, well, the waste can be reused if you build the breed reactors, and the risks could be well mitigated if you ACTUALLY STOPPED RELYING ON TECHNOLOGY FROM THE SEVENTIES!!!
They do. That said, military stints have raised PTSD to an art form. The reason I believe this is the problem is because it is exactly the kind of blind spot the military would have. "Find the reason for PTSD, given the exact same recruitment, training and culture we have now!" "Sorry, nothing comes up..."
So, if we have all this temperature rise, and nuclear energy doesn't emit CO2, why is the environmental lobby against nuclear power? Aren't we at the point where we need to grasp every single straw available to us? Considering that we could extend the fissile cycle extremely far into the future through the use of breed reactors. It just seems extremely counterintuitive, is all.
The military and their deindividualization programs... Seriously. When you end up in a horrible situation, one that scars you, the things that make you an individual are what keep you sane. The collective instead sends the useless piece of itself, discarding it for new recruits. True story, the military in the US has spent uncountable billions trying to find out what separates those who get PTSD from those who do not. With absolutely no answer in sight. Maybe, duh, you should let people remain individuals? Or, failing that, I dunno, pay them a decent pension if you scar them for life?
I would play Kyria, mother of magic, ruler of the sky, the winged tyrant, etc etc etc. Lawful Evil, though not proud of it, she sees the wind and the wide open sky as a weapon, a way to coerce, force and compel the pitiful masses into a semblance of order and decent lives. Hers is the way of conquest, with shadows of flying islands and warships darkening the lives of her new subjects. She delves deeply into magic, but only of useful kinds like battlefield magic, air elementalism, and magic to control. And at the core, she wishes the world would stop forcing her to intercede on the behalf of people who don't know what is best for them, letting her explore and finally relax.
Her estate is a multi-level construct of flying cities, built in white marble and decorated with gold, but full of people who live in misery despite her best efforts to teach them the rules, discipline and control they need for an efficient life.
Kyria's favoured weapon is the composite longbow. Her domains are Magic, Air, Rulership, and Law. Her symbol is a crowned angel with large white wings. Her worshipers are winged elves, nobles, wizards, and would-be conquerors.
Conversion rates between coins of various metals were really an insane headache through history. True, the powers that be did not understand it well at the time, but the principles of supply and demand still worked. Different coins were used for different things, and the different classes got different coins as payment, the value of each shifted dramatically with say, new mines, and a fixed conversion rate was a distant dream.
Focusing on defense means you are as relevant as a rock on the battlemat. And if you want to prevent people going after your healer, either make sure they can't see him, make sure they can't because the way is blocked, or mind control the enemies. Killing the healer is sort of the kind of tactical option you would need mind control to remove.
See what people wrote above? Yeah. GET PROFESSIONAL HELP. A prescription for after-patent drugs (like most antidepressants) is actually dirt cheap. And the question you ask is the wrong one. No dad means kids who will always have to deal with that. ALWAYS. The relevant question is whether a depressed dad is better or worse than one who was depressed but got better and is now healthy. You know the answer to that one, don't you?
Trust is something people expect too much. In a somewhat complex world, the people the heroes meet will have differing motivations. This may be taken by some to mean they are all untrustworthy. However, there is a deeper issue here. If you make a shades of gray world, you really need a different plot than "you need to save the world from the Evil Dark Lord of Dark Darkness and Eternal Darkness". I mean, obviously every vaguely sensible person would be prepared to sacrifice quite a lot to prevent that guy from taking over. If they do not (due to inscrutable motives) they will quite rightly be seen as untrustworthy. Don't make betrayals massive and unexpected, and absolutely do not deny the heroes their entire victory because of betrayal, such a setting is random and mainly one-up-manship. Be satisfied with little betrayals, and if you aim for bigger ones, give warning. By the same token, make some NPCs fight unexpectedly hard for the heroes, give them victories enough to keep fighting.
Everyone says Leadership is so overpowered. I have not found it so. Sure, you can make a healer. Or a buffer. Big whoop. Fights last three rounds, leaving little time for buffing to be all that effective, and wands of CLW have superseded most combat healing. The fact of the matter is that the cohort will always be at least two levels weaker than the leader. Those two levels MATTER. And if the campaign goes mythic, Leadership is just a useless feat. The problem with Leadership is that it takes time. Then again, so do animal companions.
iTunes has a pretty awesome EULA. A number of years ago it was 75 pages of thick legalese.
What you also want to do is make sure there are thousands of references throughout the text. Defining terms differently in different parts of the agreement is good. Conditional phrases are good, because if you can deny their condition, the rest doesn't mean squat.