• Unpopular opinions! V2: I Don't like half life edition.
    17,782 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Lukeo;44185584]Please list these problems[/QUOTE] Which ones would you prefer? The common ones are typically cost, addiction, and impairment while under the influence.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;44186106]Which ones would you prefer? The common ones are typically cost, addiction, and impairment while under the influence.[/QUOTE] Can greatly enhance whatever you're doing for the cost and doesn't have to be a regular/daily thing, a good number of drugs aren't particularly addictive and if you take things in moderation you'll be perfectly fine, don't do things that require concentration when doing drugs. Next please.
[QUOTE=T.F.W.O.;44185908]Nuclear Power is not clean or efficient. Numerous resources are needed in the construction or a reactor and the mining or Uranium. Additional energy is required to run the cooling pumps in a reactor. Once a reactor is up and running, most of the potential energy is lost during distribution i.e. along power lines and transformers. Spent nuclear fuel has to be disposed of properly. Facilities like the Onkalo Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository won't be completed until around 2100, and will be consuming energy and resources until completion.[/QUOTE] Uh, there isn't only one type of nuclear power.
[QUOTE=T.F.W.O.;44185908]Nuclear Power is not clean or efficient. Numerous resources are needed in the construction or a reactor and the mining or Uranium. Additional energy is required to run the cooling pumps in a reactor. Once a reactor is up and running, most of the potential energy is lost during distribution i.e. along power lines and transformers. Spent nuclear fuel has to be disposed of properly. Facilities like the Onkalo Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository won't be completed until around 2100, and will be consuming energy and resources until completion.[/QUOTE] Uh I don't know a whole lot about nuclear power myself, but isn't this just not true? I've heard plenty of activists I trust talk about the cleanliness and longevity of nuclear power (debating against coal power). [editline]9th March 2014[/editline] Thanks though, I'll be stuck on wikipedia for the next two hours and end the session on something completely unrelated to nuclear power.
[QUOTE=Blazedol;44185029]So all wannabe badass 15-year-olds on the internet are sociopaths now?[/QUOTE]You're talking about killing people for money and acting like it's no big deal. [QUOTE=Teracotta;44173870]I want Ukraine to explode into WW3 so I can go into contracting and earn a shitton of money. [B]I want to feel bad about the loss of life[/B], but I put my personal finances in higher priority than someone I have never or probably will never meet.[/QUOTE]You want to but you can't because you're incapable of feeling empathy due to being a sociopath. No not really, you're probably not a sociopath but there's definitely something wrong with you in the head if you don't see what the big deal is in saying "I want Ukraine to explode into WW3 so I can go into contracting and earn a shitton of money" Just out of curiosity how old are you? 15?
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;44186549]Uh, there isn't only one type of nuclear power.[/QUOTE] What other kinds are there? I would like to know the different types that have been put into use, and how they are handled.
Fun fact, 80% of France's power comes from nuclear energy. That's goddamn awesome. Some of that even comes from dismantled nuclear weapons. Spending all of 15 minutes on the wikipedia page for Nuclear Power leads me to believe that what TFWO has to say about nuclear reactors is objectively false. They're dangerous, but they are efficient and sustainable by definition. [editline]9th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=T.F.W.O.;44186713]What other kinds are there? I would like to know the different types that have been put into use, and how they are handled.[/QUOTE] I don't actually know what he means by other types either unless he means to reference nuclear fusion, which, if we perfect, could be the future of energy production. Your broad term "nuclear energy" does include nuclear fusion.
[QUOTE=Mbbird;44186749]Fun fact, 80% of France's power comes from nuclear energy. That's goddamn awesome. Some of that even comes from dismantled nuclear weapons. Spending all of 15 minutes on the wikipedia page for Nuclear Power leads me to believe that what TFWO has to say about nuclear reactors is objectively false. They're dangerous, but they are efficient and sustainable by definition. [editline]9th March 2014[/editline] I don't actually know what he means by other types either unless he means to reference nuclear fusion, which, if we perfect, could be the future of energy production. Your broad term "nuclear energy" does include nuclear fusion.[/QUOTE] No. My definition of nuclear power does not include fusion for the reason that there are no fusion reactors in operation.
[QUOTE=T.F.W.O.;44185908]Nuclear Power is not clean or efficient. Numerous resources are needed in the construction or a reactor and the mining or Uranium. Additional energy is required to run the cooling pumps in a reactor. Once a reactor is up and running, most of the potential energy is lost during distribution i.e. along power lines and transformers. Spent nuclear fuel has to be disposed of properly. Facilities like the Onkalo Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository won't be completed until around 2100, and will be consuming energy and resources until completion.[/QUOTE] Nuclear reactors are THE most efficient method of generating energy. "Numerous resources are required in the construction of reactors", because solar panels and wind turbines just pop out of the ground fully formed. Solar panels are also horrendously expensive to make and require far more time to become carbon neutral than a power plant. "Additional energy is required to run the cooling pumps", you do realise all the reactor does is produce energy? Plus most nuclear reactors have both passive and active cooling systems, which would be required in any other form of power plant. "Most of the potential energy is lost during distribution i.e. along power lines and transformers." First, not what potential energy is, second the energy is delivered the same way as every other form of power, if it's an issue with nuclear power then it's an issue with wind, solar, hydroelectric, and coal or oil based power. Nuclear power isn't magically less efficient at travelling through fucking copper cables. " Spent nuclear fuel has to be disposed of properly. Facilities like the Onkalo Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository won't be completed until around 2100, and will be consuming energy and resources until completion." Spent nuclear fuel is already stored in a number of facilities around the world, many reactors also store spent fuel on site. Not to mention that the Generation 4 nuclear reactors will be able to use current nuclear waste as fuel, meaning we theoretically wouldn't have to mine uranium for a thousand years once they're running because of the efficiency of the reactors and the quantity of nuclear waste we have stored. Even then, by the time the Gen 4 reactors have used up their fuel we'll probably be able to throw it into the next set of generators they invent. Nuclear power is the cleanest, most efficient, and safest form of energy production mankind has ever seen, and it's being held back by fearmongers and those who have been misinformed by oil companies. It doesn't help that alternative energy proponents have bought into the rhetoric and refuse to even discuss nuclear power.
[QUOTE=Killer900;44186628]You're talking about killing people for money and acting like it's no big deal. You want to but you can't because you're incapable of feeling empathy due to being a sociopath. No not really, you're probably not a sociopath but there's definitely something wrong with you in the head if you don't see what the big deal is in saying "I want Ukraine to explode into WW3 so I can go into contracting and earn a shitton of money" Just out of curiosity how old are you? 15?[/QUOTE] Turning 20 this year. As for fending for myself, the usual cool kid martial arts stuff. Been hunting since I was old enough to hold a bow or rifle. Father figure was a gov't spook and gave me plenty of tips. As for empathy, it's not whether or not I feel it. Does a lion feel empathy for the zebra it just took down? Sure there might be just some kid out there on the other side of a gun, but I have a job to do and so does he. We can't all hug it out like in the commercials. Someone has to be billy-badass and I've got the stones to do it. In the end, it's me and all my memories, friends, experience, and feelings versus the chance that this person I have never met before won't pull the trigger. I have a lot of things to live for as I'm sure they do. I just value my things more than theirs. Everyone on this forums owns a computer because at some point in their long family history, their ancestor brutally killed someone or something.
You're acting as though you were conscripted into an unavoidable war. That isn't what's happening. You are hoping for WW3, which would be the largest war in human history, and the suffering of hundreds of millions of people, just so you can make money by killing people. You aren't just and righteous, you're a fucking sociopath and I sincerely hope you're never allowed any position of power over another person's life.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;44187152]-snip-[/QUOTE] Well that is really unfortunate for you, because that is exactly what position I will be in come April, and that's already set in stone. Really though, I'm impressed people are getting so hurt over something in the Unpopular Opinions thread.
[QUOTE=Teracotta;44187083]Turning 20 this year. As for fending for myself, the usual cool kid martial arts stuff. Been hunting since I was old enough to hold a bow or rifle. Father figure was a gov't spook and gave me plenty of tips. As for empathy, it's not whether or not I feel it. Does a lion feel empathy for the zebra it just took down? Sure there might be just some kid out there on the other side of a gun, but I have a job to do and so does he. We can't all hug it out like in the commercials. Someone has to be billy-badass and I've got the stones to do it. In the end, it's me and all my memories, friends, experience, and feelings versus the chance that this person I have never met before won't pull the trigger. I have a lot of things to live for as I'm sure they do. I just value my things more than theirs. Everyone on this forums owns a computer because at some point in their long family history, their ancestor brutally killed someone or something.[/QUOTE] do you go around with a camera and tell cops how laws work
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;44187216]do you go around with a camera and tell cops how laws work[/QUOTE] Not a once. No profit in it.
[QUOTE=T.F.W.O.;44186883]No. My definition of nuclear power does not include fusion for the reason that there are no fusion reactors in operation.[/QUOTE] Yeah well sorry it does include that.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;44186904]Nuclear reactors are THE most efficient method of generating energy. "Numerous resources are required in the construction of reactors", because solar panels and wind turbines just pop out of the ground fully formed. Solar panels are also horrendously expensive to make and require far more time to become carbon neutral than a power plant. "Additional energy is required to run the cooling pumps", you do realise all the reactor does is produce energy? Plus most nuclear reactors have both passive and active cooling systems, which would be required in any other form of power plant. "Most of the potential energy is lost during distribution i.e. along power lines and transformers." First, not what potential energy is, second the energy is delivered the same way as every other form of power, if it's an issue with nuclear power then it's an issue with wind, solar, hydroelectric, and coal or oil based power. Nuclear power isn't magically less efficient at travelling through fucking copper cables. " Spent nuclear fuel has to be disposed of properly. Facilities like the Onkalo Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository won't be completed until around 2100, and will be consuming energy and resources until completion." Spent nuclear fuel is already stored in a number of facilities around the world, many reactors also store spent fuel on site. Not to mention that the Generation 4 nuclear reactors will be able to use current nuclear waste as fuel, meaning we theoretically wouldn't have to mine uranium for a thousand years once they're running because of the efficiency of the reactors and the quantity of nuclear waste we have stored. Even then, by the time the Gen 4 reactors have used up their fuel we'll probably be able to throw it into the next set of generators they invent. Nuclear power is the cleanest, most efficient, and safest form of energy production mankind has ever seen, and it's being held back by fearmongers and those who have been misinformed by oil companies. It doesn't help that alternative energy proponents have bought into the rhetoric and refuse to even discuss nuclear power.[/QUOTE] If you agree with me that nuclear power plants would suffer the same inefficiencies that fossil fuel or hydroelectric plants then doesn't that make them NOT the most efficient means of energy production? Using the power generated by a reactor to power the cooling pumps will not make it a closed system. It would still have to follow the second law of thermodynamics. Unrelated to the efficiency of nuclear reactors, but highly radioactive materiel IS dangerous. They will cause cancer or immediate death. There's no denying that.
it's not clean or efficient, it's just clean[I]er[/I] and [I]more[/I] efficient when compared to other common energy sources - they suffer the same problem with inefficiency [I]but to a lesser extent[/I]. you seem to be making these weird binary comparisons
I was rated dumb. I may take this issue to /r/changemyview or something, but until then I will remain on the fence about nuclear power.
[QUOTE=Lukeo;44185584]Please list these problems[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/CFpO5RX.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=T.F.W.O.;44187241]If you agree with me that nuclear power plants would suffer the same inefficiencies that fossil fuel or hydroelectric plants then doesn't that make them NOT the most efficient means of energy production? Using the power generated by a reactor to power the cooling pumps will not make it a closed system. It would still have to follow the second law of thermodynamics. Unrelated to the efficiency of nuclear reactors, but highly radioactive materiel IS dangerous. They will cause cancer or immediate death. There's no denying that.[/QUOTE] Okay first off, ALL forms of power lose efficiency due to the cabling and such, it is not an argument against nuclear power when every form of power production and distribution has the same fucking problem. Nuclear power is efficient in the power generation layer, the distribution layer is a problem for all systems of power generation. Second, I didn't say anything about a closed system. Using the nuclear reactor to power it's own cooling system is just to mitigate heat generation, it has nothing to do with creating more power. Most of the water is from a lake or a river which pulls the heat away, the generator just needs to power turbines to pull the water in and send it back out. Third, uranium is a dangerous material, handling it can cause serious cases of radiation sickness and even death. Guess what. They don't fucking pick it up with their bare hands. Nuclear material is moved in specialised containers by people in protective suits. If we're going to shut down power production because of concerns for danger then we'll need to shut down all coal mines, all oil rigs, and stop setting up wind farms because they have all caused more death and injuries than nuclear power has ever caused.
heck with the scrutinized safety measures of nuclear power, I wouldn't be surprised if it were practically safer than coal / oil
[QUOTE=Teracotta;44187083]Turning 20 this year. As for fending for myself, the usual cool kid martial arts stuff. Been hunting since I was old enough to hold a bow or rifle. Father figure was a gov't spook and gave me plenty of tips. As for empathy, it's not whether or not I feel it. Does a lion feel empathy for the zebra it just took down? Sure there might be just some kid out there on the other side of a gun, but I have a job to do and so does he. We can't all hug it out like in the commercials. Someone has to be billy-badass and I've got the stones to do it. In the end, it's me and all my memories, friends, experience, and feelings versus the chance that this person I have never met before won't pull the trigger. I have a lot of things to live for as I'm sure they do. I just value my things more than theirs. Everyone on this forums owns a computer because at some point in their long family history, their ancestor brutally killed someone or something.[/QUOTE] Do you even have any concept that humans are exactly the same fucking thing and the only thing that truly separates us is uniform and flag color?
[QUOTE=Juniez;44187348]heck with the scrutinized safety measures of nuclear power, I wouldn't be surprised if it were practically safer than coal / oil[/QUOTE] Nuclear power is FAR safer than coal or oil. The average deaths per year by coal are around 161*, and oil is around 36, the average deaths by nuclear power per year are 0.04. In 50 years coal would kill about 8,050 people, oil would kill 1,800 people and nuclear power would kill 2 people. *This number is inflated due to China having a crazy high death rate for coal production. taking the US average of 15 would mean 50 years of production would kill 750 people, however the other statistics are global. Thank China for fucking that one up. [editline]10th March 2014[/editline] And just so you know I'm not bullshitting, here's a link to a comparison of the Fukushima incident by [url=http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/191326/deaths-nuclear-energy-compared-other-causes]Willem Post[/url], where he compares the death and injury rates of nuclear power to other methods of energy production, as well as other factors such as smoking.
Maybe it's because I'm a big dumdum but I have a hard time understanding why people who consider themselves to be critical thinkers believe that the Appeal to Popularity is a logical fallacy. A skill that people consider to be essential to critical thinking seems to be the ability to disabuse yourself of the notion that you are smarter than everyone else, so if we take that to mean that most people should roughly be on the same level of understanding for most subjects, it would follow that - in the aggregate - a view that the majority holds would probably be correct, since ad populum arguments by nature are based on large numbers and it's easier to find patterns in large numbers. Conversely, one could say that ad populum arguments could also refer to a consensus existing within groups that contain small numbers of people, but I like to think that an individual's knowledge of their particular domain is inversely related to the size of the group that he or she belongs to, so it kinda balances itself out.
I don't like strategy games. i don't hate them, they're just not my thing... at all, except for dota 2 which counts, i guess, and i've only been enjoying that because i've basically had a support group encouraging me and helping me figure out what buttons to press. I've bought (or been gifted) and played dawn of war 1 and 2, every age of empires including the HD one, several command and conquer games, civ 4 and 5, and a ton of others but i've never really enjoyed any of them. they just get disorienting for me because i have a tough time trying to manage resources and move all my units around in a logical way. i'm pretty good at videogames but my friends who barely play games manage to kick my ass no matter what i do.
[QUOTE=bdd458;44187379]Do you even have any concept that humans are exactly the same fucking thing and the only thing that truly separates us is uniform and flag color?[/QUOTE] Yeah?
Vanilla cake is better than chocolate cake.
[QUOTE=Teracotta;44187083]Turning 20 this year. As for fending for myself, the usual cool kid martial arts stuff. Been hunting since I was old enough to hold a bow or rifle. Father figure was a gov't spook and gave me plenty of tips. As for empathy, it's not whether or not I feel it. Does a lion feel empathy for the zebra it just took down? Sure there might be just some kid out there on the other side of a gun, but I have a job to do and so does he. We can't all hug it out like in the commercials. Someone has to be billy-badass and I've got the stones to do it. In the end, it's me and all my memories, friends, experience, and feelings versus the chance that this person I have never met before won't pull the trigger. I have a lot of things to live for as I'm sure they do. I just value my things more than theirs. Everyone on this forums owns a computer because at some point in their long family history, their ancestor brutally killed someone or something.[/QUOTE]Even if WW3 did happen you know there's a very good chance that money will end up being practically useless right?
[QUOTE=Killer900;44188404]Even if WW3 did happen you know there's a very good chance that money will end up being practically useless right?[/QUOTE] Depends on how the war goes. If it's just some end all nuke-em-up like people always tell you it will be, sure. If it turns into a glorious meat grinder or drone beat-em-up I'll have plenty of chances to spend that well earned cash.
[QUOTE=Teracotta;44187542]Yeah?[/QUOTE] Judging by your comments you're a little shithead with no concept of this nice little thing called 'humanity'. Killing people for money is retarded, and killing people in general is retarded. War is to be abhorred, and unless truly necessary (IE something like WW2 goes down) should be avoided at all costs.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.