166
Rants and Stuff / Re: I would like to announce!
« on: July 02, 2009, 01:59:30 PM »
thats just..... awesome... and something like that would have a ripple effect of securing the power grid as well.
News:
"Magic is what makes fantasy fantastic," someone says, "you can't apply rules to them or else it loses wonder!" I respond, "Sure, but if you want to write them you will certainly want to know how they work." Writing is all about execution, and I find applying some basic laws of physics to magic systems make them more understandable and realistic. Here, I'm going to outline my basic method for developing a magic system.
Column by Chaos2651
Discuss it in our forums.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
167
Rants and Stuff / Re: I would like to announce!
« on: July 02, 2009, 12:32:00 PM »
Kaz: that is a grand misconception. We had a "scare" at 3 Mile Island, but it never actually had an accident, all the failsafes acted properly and nothing happened. The facility was not even evacuated! So far, Chernobyl is the only nuclear accident the world has ever had. France powers it's entire country with nuclear power, and Russia uses it for quite a bit as well. Here in the US, we currently have around 30 nuclear plants still operating, and about 100 that got too old and were decommissioned instead of being upgraded (because of the silly "nuclear fear"). I lived near a plant in NJ and never felt in any danger. There is no waste or pollution other than the spent fuel, which is stored on site. Each plant produces about a half a barrel of spent rods per year.
168
Rants and Stuff / Re: I would like to announce!
« on: July 02, 2009, 03:17:58 AM »
I am talking about, mostly, the ridiculous carbon credits and carbon capture technology which will cost several trillion dollars per year, all paid by, guess who? You and me. And it will mean exactly jack-squat.
More efficient use of energy is nessecary from an economic standpoint as well, so doing that will benefit us all. And both sides agree on better efficiency and reduction of imported oil fuels. The phase out of coal plants is nessecary because of the devastation it has wrought on the landscape and the pollution in cities, although the new "clean coal" plants are quite spectacularly pollution free, except for carbon dioxide, which is not a pollutant, but a naturally occurring substance.
My biggest complaint about the energy issues is that both sides seem to be going about it the wrong way. They completely ignore the cleanest source of energy and lowest environmental impact source: nuclear. solar and wind both need huge swaths of land to even make a minor impact, while nuclear plants can provide all the energy the entire country needs on a total land area the size of Rhode Island. Whereas wind and solar would require the land area of CANADA to produce the same amount.
More efficient use of energy is nessecary from an economic standpoint as well, so doing that will benefit us all. And both sides agree on better efficiency and reduction of imported oil fuels. The phase out of coal plants is nessecary because of the devastation it has wrought on the landscape and the pollution in cities, although the new "clean coal" plants are quite spectacularly pollution free, except for carbon dioxide, which is not a pollutant, but a naturally occurring substance.
My biggest complaint about the energy issues is that both sides seem to be going about it the wrong way. They completely ignore the cleanest source of energy and lowest environmental impact source: nuclear. solar and wind both need huge swaths of land to even make a minor impact, while nuclear plants can provide all the energy the entire country needs on a total land area the size of Rhode Island. Whereas wind and solar would require the land area of CANADA to produce the same amount.
169
Rants and Stuff / Re: I would like to announce!
« on: July 01, 2009, 11:26:59 AM »
no, I dont reject it, I require more than a few studies to reach the same results with varied criteria. Smoking is bad for you, greasy foods make you fat, and the earth revolves around the sun.
You can look at the whole "global warming" or "climate change" science and see how flawed science often makes it's way into mainstream thought. The climate models used to determine the results are so flawed that they can ONLY come up with one result. Many scientists have debunked the model, many scientists have spoken out against the findings, yet the governments of the world have grabbed the ball and are running with it anyway, even though they have essentially been told to go the wrong way. And it is going to cost us trillions of dollars for nothing.
You can look at the whole "global warming" or "climate change" science and see how flawed science often makes it's way into mainstream thought. The climate models used to determine the results are so flawed that they can ONLY come up with one result. Many scientists have debunked the model, many scientists have spoken out against the findings, yet the governments of the world have grabbed the ball and are running with it anyway, even though they have essentially been told to go the wrong way. And it is going to cost us trillions of dollars for nothing.
170
Rants and Stuff / Re: I would like to announce!
« on: July 01, 2009, 05:00:51 AM »
many studies have shown that a MAJORITY, not a "large minority" of people have at least some homosexual tendencies or feelings. I cant say whether it is genetic or not, but what I can say is that it is not right to judge others for who or what they are, be it a choice or not. Unless their behavoir in some way harms you, leave well enough alone.
There have also been studies pointing to homosexuality as a deviant choice, but in some cases, the people who came to this conclusion also did studies on atheism too, and found the atheists in their study to be mentally deficient.
bottom line, a study will almost always produce the results that the researcher wants or expects, even if it is subconscious. The researchers bias will always skew the results because they will skew the criteria for the study, whether it is a study on eggs causing cancer, the "cause" of homosexuality, or whether there was once life on Mars. We see it all the time, the big difference is that organized religion does not publish the studies on eggs and use them as proof that eggs are an abomination.
There have also been studies pointing to homosexuality as a deviant choice, but in some cases, the people who came to this conclusion also did studies on atheism too, and found the atheists in their study to be mentally deficient.
bottom line, a study will almost always produce the results that the researcher wants or expects, even if it is subconscious. The researchers bias will always skew the results because they will skew the criteria for the study, whether it is a study on eggs causing cancer, the "cause" of homosexuality, or whether there was once life on Mars. We see it all the time, the big difference is that organized religion does not publish the studies on eggs and use them as proof that eggs are an abomination.
171
Rants and Stuff / Re: I would like to announce!
« on: June 30, 2009, 12:28:11 PM »How am i supposed to believe it isn't a choice if they can't pin point the gene...
I feel exactly this same way about stupid people.
172
Books / Re: Favorite author
« on: June 25, 2009, 12:31:41 PM »
Corporate purchases alone would push the bible into "at all times" territory.
173
Books / Re: My readthrough of WoT (**Spoilers**)
« on: June 24, 2009, 11:02:29 PM »
has the genre really changed that much in 10-15 years that Authors who wrote in the 90s are now passe?
174
Books / Re: Favorite author
« on: June 24, 2009, 11:00:29 PM »
I find it hard to believe they are tracking 2 million titles and put her in first place... i mean, noone teacks the best selling book of all time any more? LOL (its the Bible, for those that didnt know)
175
Books / Re: Favorite author
« on: June 24, 2009, 09:51:16 PM »
ok, 2 million volumes... 2 million different volumes? 2 million titles?
176
Books / Re: Favorite author
« on: June 24, 2009, 08:20:05 PM »
key phrase in the USA Today article - 16% of all book sales tracked by the list
so, out of how many different books are they tracking? 50? 500? 5 million?
so, out of how many different books are they tracking? 50? 500? 5 million?
177
Books / Re: My Read Through of Malazan Books of the Fallen
« on: June 23, 2009, 10:49:34 PM »
I tried to be as contrite as I could, and think I succeeded. Mostly, it wont make much sense to you until you actually get that far. I would think.
178
Books / Re: Favorite author
« on: June 23, 2009, 09:52:26 PM »
maybe someone forgot a zero or two.
1 in 60 could be believable. 1 in 6? no way. that assumes that 1 in 6 readers like Vampire Novels.. and ones aimed at 12 year olds at that. I would bet Janet Evanovich has sold more that her.
1 in 60 could be believable. 1 in 6? no way. that assumes that 1 in 6 readers like Vampire Novels.. and ones aimed at 12 year olds at that. I would bet Janet Evanovich has sold more that her.
179
Books / Re: Malazan Book of the Fallen
« on: June 23, 2009, 09:49:52 PM »
I guess, before saying "yes or no" we should ask how long it normally takes you to read a book? The Malazan series clocks out at 700+ pages per book (hard cover) or over 1000 softcover. If youread slowly, then I would say bookstore guy may be right. I read the whole series in about 6 weeks, so I have a long wait now. I wish I had know, i would have waited and read something else instead. Something finished lol
180
Books / Re: Sci-Fi key authors
« on: June 23, 2009, 12:17:10 PM »
hmm, just goes to show how differently people view different books or author styles, even people who like the same genre. I found myself unable to finish the Amber series because I thought he moved painfully slow in story setup and never quite got to teh point.