Is Nuclear Power designed to be a viable corp? (Little Upsilon)

As its Saturday
I chose that one for the animal noises. But for the best version of the song you have to watch this one:

Saturday night mix up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c_577EbdcQ

I looked up my desirless thread 'Desireless (Kebir Blue) 364 4/22 03:24pm' and found this quote from me:

'To the SC community.
I have used this game to try and get over to you that we can no longer wait for evidence. For if the evidence turns up it will mean that it is already to late.
I am sorry for doing that. This is a game and I should have respected that. I do the same down the pubs, friends houses, parties ect ect.'

Its made me wonder if I have done it again, and with the date of the start of the desireless thread being 1 year ago nearly to the day, I'm wondering if its a spring thing? But Trahx did start with the insults towards those who will do without to ensure the future has everything.

I gave Crafty the option to say it was just a flippant comment a year ago. I give you Trahx the same option. Retract the promotion of Anti-environmentalism as an option in life and retract the insult environmentalists are Nutjobs (even though I might not be doing the cause much good with me being me) and I'll stand down. Thats all I ask. The rest we can discuss as I need to work on my angles anyway. I think I'm getting a bit rusty.

Just had a thought
This is why green technology never gets invested in. Theres always the counter argument of 'prove it' that gets in the way. You cant prove something that has'nt happened yet, regardless of how much you want too. The point is faith. Faith in your own instincts for the survival of your future generations. Only you know what is right and what is wrong. No Other. And only you will walk down the path of your life. Only you make your choise. But is your first thought about the futures survival? or is it for your own survival?

And if your gonna run a business its got to be about your own survival.

The problem is that you are effectively preaching something that must be accepted on faith. We are expecting to immediately accept your propositions as true in absence of evidence.
In addition, most environmentalists speak from a perspective of sore misinformation. Therefore, they propose ridiculous and even detrimental (from an environmental and/or socio-economic perspective) proposals to save the environment.
For example, the preservation of the rainforest: this is not the best alternative for absorbing C02 emissions because old growth forest absorbs much less CO2 than new, growing forest. The logical alternative is to have logging farms which would provide both profit and growing forest to absorb CO2.
Another example, the environment is constantly changing. Somewhere around the year 1400, there was a 'mini ice-age' that froze over Greenland and caused massive famines in Europe. This was before any industrialization. I'd wager that average temperatures are still below those before this event. The environment and global temperature are decidedly not stagnant forces. A summation of pervading views on the environment of the time could be seen in some French river planning commission of some sort that was reported as turning down river projects on the basis that God didn't will for the river to be that way.
As it stands, green technology is a joke. Ethanol is entirely impractical as there is not enough cropland. Wind and solar power aren't cost-effective without the government subsidizing them (don't even say green tech isn't invested in). Nuclear power, capable of cheaply producing enough power for everyone, is ignored. Hydro-electric power is protested as destroying rivers. Hydrogen power needs to burn coal to create the hydrogen in the first place.
"Going green," with the goal of reducing paper consumption is a bad idea because you eliminate the possibility for aforementioned logging farms which filter out more CO2 than old growth forest AND creates profitable industry. Not to mention, all the hate for killing trees has created a society that is dependent upon far-less environmentally safe plastic products.

The whole environmental movement is an amalgamation of disparate groups bent upon glorifying Mother Nature as something greater than humanity, but this is the summary of the entire group: people against CO2 aren't necessarily against clubbing seals or factory farms or paper usage or GM foods or owl habitats. Who is correct? If the group at large is uncompromising, making propositions without regard to the actual evidence, and making propositions that could never be realistically be followed through without human death on a massive scale... I'm against it.
Consider: who is really hurt by world-wide environmental regulations? The third world. They cannot afford to make the technological leap required. They cannot afford to lose the cropland needed to FEED the populace. Let's impose draconian environmental regulation and watch the people drop like flies.
Don't forget the whole organic movement's hate of genetically-modified foods (which decrease the need for pesticides, yield more food per acre, etc.). So... using inefficient procedures that require more cropland are better for the environment? Free-roaming, non-hormone-treated cattle may sound nice, but this takes up far more land area. Wait! that land area is being used to preserve some obscure species of fly. I believe something like is effecting the central valley in California causing tomato shortages. It's unnatural! However practical it may be, this matters little.

tl;dr
Humans > Everything else
Environmentalism is terribly misinformed and contradictory.

Hi Scarlet. It's not just about the tree's. Its also about the Bio-diversity and the whole ecosystem that lives in, under and around them. Each life playing its role in the up keep of the forest. And sure, natural climate change happens. And most of the time it happens at a rate that life can keep up with (march of the trees) but add man made climate change into the mix and we might not be giving life enough time to adapt.

Listen trahx. When I first started on SC 2 years ago, anyone who brought up environmental issues was insulted, threatened or belittle. I've fought hard with words and wars to ensure that pro-environmental words can be written without fear of reprisals through words or wars. And I'm not gonna let it slip now.

A friend of mine says 'I see parts of his argument, since the fact that there is a massive amount of corruption in the world of the climatologist is true'.
I think thats something I need to look into. The argument before was always that it would never happen. Now it seems to be whos lying about whats happening and whos not. And until we know who we can trust, we are not going to do anything about it.

BC,

You are right but its also time for a mea culpa. I'm not here to play the game but to analyze it. The only part remaining was the war engine and it sure was easy to get a war, which should be concluded in a few days.

The only comment I can pass along is that this game has a serious community problem and that hurts the success rate of any MMOG, whether RPG or S&T (ecowar). Every game has its nix and pscho-honey types, but in RPGs they end up as lepers. In S&Ts, more drastic measures are required.

There are 398 players on line as I write on a Saturday night. That's pretty dismal for a MMOG with 5 worlds, no down-load required and a fairly low monthly rate. The reason and answer should be clear, and it isn't because the game is difficult; it's not.

Well, I have to see what the defense looks like to finish my work and pass some things on to a few n00bs. Good luck and it truly was a pleasure to meet some of the people here. Special thanks to BC, CC, DK and Blue. And you too BA for the help you gave me getting started.

(PS: There really is a nix in every game and they are easy to bait. I should know, I get paid to do it.)

omy, little nazi screamer is already screaming goodbye.

You and you 6 virtual machines are lepers, and you have ended up as one. Silly rabbit.

Now, keep going, trash the game becuase you don't know where you should place some restraint. Let us blame everyone but ourselves for our own faults. You can have any opinion of me if you want. I really don't care. Whine do whatever, but seriously quit talking while you are ahead. You aren't the first person to walk into a war because you didn't obey CC's ten commandos, or commandments. I was actually on your side as far as getting a fight with nix, but I draw the line when you start calling someone a nazi,leftist, fascist, its all BS. What do you think this is America?

THIS IS .... SPARTA!! *cough* SIMCOUNTRY *cough*

*CONSPIRACY!!!*

@Trahx: hmph. Hey, how come you chose LU, not FB?

And,

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

The reason and answer should be clear, and it isn't because the game is difficult; it's not.<!-/Quote-!>

Not clear to me, could you spell it out?

@Wendy: arggh, please read his posts.

@nix: Please give him a good demonstration of how the war game is played. It's one of the better features of the game, after all.

@ whiteboy,

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

I don't know what it is about this country but we have so much trouble accepting scientific facts...<!-/Quote-!>

I finally found something online that explains the details of the criticism of Mann's Hockey Stick graph of 1998 & 99. McIntyre is the more famous one, but his descriptions stop short of the nuts and bolts, as do all explanations I've previously seen. But McKitrick, his partner, spells out the statistical errors they found, very cogently.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

The paper that presented the hockey stick graph included lots of mistakes, in methods and in using questionable data. Worst of all, the whole hockey-stick shape of the graph was based on one egregious statistical mistake.

Instead of admit the mistakes Mann obfuscated, denied, and made stuff up.

The hockey stick graph was a key feature of the anthropomorphic global warming theory, supposedly showing that 20th century warming was unprecedented. But, it was completely fabricated. By itself that doesn't prove that global warming is a complete hoax, but it does take us pretty far in that direction.

Hi Jojo. I'll say what I gotta say to Trahx first so the end of my post will be about what your saying.

Trahx.....Thats what I said to a mate of mine last night while we where standing out side having a smoke. I said to him "I recon Trahx is doing a Crafty" Didn't make much sense though due to the way you went about it......unless you had already gone through the forum and seen how I would react? Clever little Trahx. I can see why you get paid for it.
Now what the hell do you know about the community. Walk into a pub do you and make your mind up straight away do you? Maybe thats why you do what you do?
What the hell do you know about the game? This is like planting a seed. Time is what its all about. You dont spend hours a day sitting next to the plant pot waiting for something to happen. You get on with your day while every now and then making sure the pots watered and safe. To understand this game and community you would have to be here for a year at-least.
I bet your boss would'nt be happy if he knew how little you work for your money.

If you had also spent a bit more time you would have noticed that the number of people online constantly changes. Some log on for 2 mins to water and leaves. And some will log on and chat to their mates. Its a constant flow of people. In an hour there were probably 6x the number of people that have played. Not just the 398 you talk of.

You know nothing of anything or anyone. If you were to have played for real and got into trouble wendy (pscho-honey) would have been there for you.

Thinking about it.......I am surprised you do get paid for this. Maybe your not a critter? Maybe your trying to promote those other games you talk of? Either way, what I'll do is just keep on declaring on you so you cant test the defence program. Looks like your gonna be hanging around a bit longer ;)



Helloa Jojo. Hope all is well.

I'm thinking that the reason the books have been cooked is because if we let the data become real then its too late. Like say, me telling my Bro on a windy day that he should take the extra time to put on his safety harness when climbing his ladders. He says it would take longer to put them on than it would do for him to do the job and that its not that windy. I say that if we have a strong gust of wind it might blow him off. Now if he asked me to prove it and with my research I found that today we are due 40mph gusts from a Northerly wind. Which by my calculations would, if he was holding on with one hand, blow him off. But due to the gust being from the North, the house would shelter him, reducing the impact, which in turn might not blow him of the ladder. Do I just tell him that we are due 40mph gusts and hope that that will scare him enough to put on his harness? Or do tell him all the known facts, knowing that he'll take the risk and not put on his harness?

Its funny when you think about it. Time after time our bankers, business leaders etc have shown us they can't be trusted. But yet we still entrust them with our hard earned wealth and trust them to do the right thing by us, like nothing ever happened. Yet when someone who's only flaw is caring too much about us, we all cry fowl and don't trust any of them again.

There's a difference between making predictions and stating a fact, Nix.

It's one thing to predict that there's a 70% chance of it raining frogs tomorrow. It's another thing entirely to say that there will rain frogs.

Prediction based upon facts is one thing. Prediction when those "facts" have been proven to be heavily doctored is another entirely.

What you are suggesting - as you always do - is that we take action because something may happen, because you believe that it will happen, and that anybody who doesn't accept your beliefs is wrong and out to destroy the world. In turn, you threaten people with war in-game for "insulting" your beliefs.

You want to declare a personal Jihad on anybody who doesn't agree with you, that is fine by me. But do not be surprised when people who have a greater appreciation for free speech, scientific debate and logical reasoning take a stand against you.

The fact-base from which you have drawn your conclusions has been proven to have been doctored. At best, this makes the factual base underpinning your theory malformed and incomplete. At worst, it makes it downright wrong.

Now, having analysed a wealth data, information and theory available from a variety of sources, my own conclusions are somewhat contrary to your own.

I do not accept that man-made global warming is a major cause for global climate change. Data shows that naturally occurring phenomenon account - annually - for more greenhouse gas pollution than humanity is capable of generating, in terms of CO2, CH4 and H20 - arguably the "major" greenhouse gasses. The warming/cooling trends of the past twenty to thirty millennia show variation more closely correlated to volcanic output, with more minor fluctuations comparable to various known solar cycles - especially when noting global weather phenomenon, such as river-flow patterns and the like. These processes can clearly and demonstrably be seen to alter and effect climates and ecosystems on a global scale.

That being said, it is fair to conclude that humanity has contributed significantly to a certain degree of pollution. The polluting of rivers, for example, and things such as the vast swathes of rubbish which flow around the Pacific ocean. On a more local level, industry can be seen contributing particulate pollutants to the atmosphere. The list does go on. Do these activities "harm" the environment? Without a shadow of a doubt - if you are human. Nobody likes breathing in smog. Nobody enjoys seeing old buildings eroded over decades by carbonic acid (rain). Nobody likes swimming in raw sewage.

But what if you are not human? Well, no. There are plenty of species who benefit from human activity - from so-called "pollution". Bacterium which benefit from human refuse. Species which have prospered due to human agricultural activities - numerous species of grass, for example, with which we are all no-doubt familliar; wheat, barley, rice, etc - as well as domesticated animals - pets and foodstuffs. Common animals which you see in your garden every day - robins, stalins, magpies, pigeons, gulls, wrens, tits, finches, blackbirds, etc, and all their predators. Species of algae in the oceans which feed off detergeants - the base of many oceanic ecosystems. There are many more.

Species become extinct on a regular basis - fossil records show that this has always been the case. Sure, humans have a direct hand in some cases. The dodo, for example. But some are driven to extinction by other factors too - just go search for "extinct species" and you'll see what I mean. The list is endless.

What is important is not biodiversity, but biostability. The natural world is a very fluid thing, and humanity is just along for the ride. Like every species, we have evolved to fill a particular biological niche. Unlike most animals, we are adaptive enough to survive as part of others - our technology has seen to that. I would choose a future for my children in which they are free from oppressive regimes, and people telling them what to do and how to think. My legacy to them would be a world in which they are free to rise to the challenges presented to them, no matter the source. What I do not want for them is a dystopia in which they are forced to conform to ideas which are forged into a scientific taboo by the political elite and the ill-informed mass of blind "believers".

Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter. The world is a changeable place. It always has been. It always will be. And, until I see evidence which suggests that humanity is the cause of this fluidity, I will continue to accept the conclusions that I have drawn from current valid evidence.

From experience, I know this discussion will be cyclic and that no progress will be made. But that is the nature of belief without proof. It's all just so much speculation. I am not even convinced that you will take anything away from this and really think about the issues at hand. Your mind was made up long ago, and it is not my place to tell you how or what to think. But I can and will point out that your logic is fallacious and flawed. That's called scientific debate. It is what fuels progress.

I disagree with you nix. And I think that you are an unreasonable man, moreso for warring with people who simply do not agree with you. But then, that just makes you petty. And I know that you're only doing this out of frustration. People do tend to get angry when their beliefs are dismissed or disproved. It's just human nature. I forgive you that much.

I find your facts objectionable. I find you reason devoid of logic. And I find your conclusions unfounded.

Will you bring your Jihad to me next? I have no need to say more.

Hi DK.
You said: 'What you are suggesting - as you always do - is that we take action because something may happen, because you believe that it will happen'
I say: "did the American people not go to war because they believed something may happen?"

Plus you said: 'But do not be surprised when people who have a greater appreciation for free speech, scientific debate and logical reasoning take a stand against you.'

Trust DK. They have been standing against me for the past 16 years. I'm used to it and wouldn't expect anything less. I have to say though, over the past 5 years there hasn't been as many as there use to be.

As for everything else, I'm gonna have to go through it later and take in what your saying. Its been a busy 4 days and the sun is shinning. It would be criminal of me to waste it and not get my seeds planted for my allotment. When it goes down I'll read it more thoroughly.

Peace&Hardcore..............Nix001
MNA

Ok first off I would like to remind you that it was due to Trahx still calling Environmentalists 'Nutjobs' after I told him I found it offencive that started me off. And now we know why he carried on(I thought I have been quite restrained compared to how I've been).
It wasnt his point of view on the subject. Infact his point of view on the subject has made me see that there is a new reasons why people aren't so keen to believe the people who are warning us. Trust.

Second............#me thinks about the rest of what your saying outside with a smoke#

#'Like every species, we have evolved to fill a particular biological niche. Unlike most animals, we are adaptive enough to survive as part of others'#

Did you know that when an animal in a Forest dies out or moves on, another animal will mimic the sound it made to keep the harmony of the Forest?

#'That being said, it is fair to conclude that humanity has contributed significantly to a certain degree of pollution'#

Considering how no-one seems to trust any-one, every one seems to trust the data the businessman are giving concerning their ways of disposing waste during this time of cost cutting. Rich Nations become cleaner, poorer nations dirtier. Why? because of the cost cutting by big business. We have no idea whats been done under the cover of darkness. So how do you know that mans significant contribution is nothing worth worrying about, when you don't know whats been/being done by man?

But then you say 'Do these activities "harm" the environment? Without a shadow of a doubt - if you are human'

Ok, I see where your going. Regardless of what man does and what dies, there will always be Mother Nature on Earth?

Natural Climate Change, Natural species extinctions and Nature migration happens every second of every day. Sometimes an event makes the changes and extensions greater or smaller, but it happens regardless. I get that. Its not like anyone is saying that nothing was happening and now something is. The problem they have is that the changes are happening alot quicker than they have done before. Which could have all kinds of crazy concequences.
Is it man? Maybe, there is compelling evidence that mans want and destruction has had some effect on the Environment. The full effect of man will never be known as its just part of the mix. Is it down the New celestial age? Maybe, as it is just around the corner.
But we cannot rule ourselves out.

You stated: 'What is important is not biodiversity, but biostability'

Biodiversity looks after its self. Biostability needs something to look after it for that stability to exist. Therefore I can only see Biostability on a long term process becoming less stable than a Biodiverse area.

Just to add another thought to this thread. India & China are racing into the space program to get to the moon to start farming the rich H3 which is the only known (stable) source of COLD FUSION since it is not available on earth. USA is canning shuttles in order to get ready for this space race back to moon as well (funny the press missed this one lol & G. Bush planned for it - did something right) Anyway - why not create a "Moon" out there on SIM & we can space race all the worlds to get there & farm H 3. If U dont know what it is just google it! It would be an interesting twist to the game & would be a 3rd energy source. Also competion as LU could battle FB etc. for limited space up there - probably the way we (USA/NATO) will be fighting with real world China & India/Japan in about 30 years.