Login or register
Login or register
Stay logged in
Log in/Sign up using Facebook.
Log in/Sign up using Gmail/Google+.
CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT
Email is optional and is used for password recovery purposes.
Rank #7002 on Subscribers
Level 315 Comments: Wizard
Send mail to RageRambo
Invite RageRambo to be your friend
Last status update:
Date Signed Up:
Wherever I feel like
Highest Content Rank:
Highest Comment Rank:
Content Level Progress:
Level 174 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 175 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Comment Level Progress:
Level 315 Comments: Wizard → Level 316 Comments: Wizard
Times Content Favorited:
Total Comments Made:
How many ways can you kill a man with his own liver?
What people say about RageRambo
latest user's comments
- Not with that attitude.
There is some thing wrong
- Suddenly Prototype 2 makes alot more sense... And the Reapers …
A fake revolution.
I couldn't even stomach playing Prototype 2 because of the redundant and horrific MC. I saw the game play and completely agreed with Mercer and liked what he was trying to do.
I've always seen Wesker as a villain but I like him just because.
I have to say that the "evil" ending to Infamous 2 is probably my favorite amongst video games.
But isn't it funny? Even in games, the "true ends" and "good ends" all reset everything back to the status quo. At least in infamous I was given the choice, and I have to say (without getting into too many spoilers) the results of that choice and impact on the overall story were just amazing.
But these are games, and we're stuck reality.
I agree, both endings of Infamous are morally sound choices. It's like that moral dilemma where there's a street car heading toward five people, but you can redirect to only kill one person. Sure, you'd save four people, but you're consciously deciding that that person's life is the most expendable in this scenario.
- Mom is from the south: Soda. Dad is from the no…
Where at in Texas? We call it soda here.
I literally just made a comment abouts this twenty seconds ago
And he managed to type this up and post this after reading your post in 20 seconds? impressive.
- GTA and Mass Effect. I can imagine it already... Trevor ******…
- Sure thing. What did you have in mind?
- Japan: Built on a fault line+Tsunami. Russia: Held t…
Maybe there should be an international agency that approves build sites and keeps standards up to date? Companies cannot regulate themselves effectively.
And usa probably forgot to glue Three Mile Island and Davis-Besse together, Right?
Three mile island was operator fault, and only happened because they went against operator regulation.
At least in chernobyl there were educated workers.
Chernobyl was not just operator fault, but also reactor design. They were educated, and their supervisor demanded they put the reactor into a state which was very unstable. They knew the risk, but they had to do it.
cause you know, commie stuff.
I do actually know what happened, kiev required more power , So they put the reactor into an unstable condition, to transfer more power to kiev.
And then left 1, 2, and 3 running until the 90's even though most of them had fires or partial meltdowns and shit.
my jimjams got rustled when i heard about that
No they didnt forget the glue, but they were horribly run and no one gave a flying shit about safety.
But the problem with nuclear energy isn't the power plants. The process itself is pretty safe unless something truly unexpected happens.
However, the wastes aren't. They are radioactive shit that have a long life and that's a big problem.
If we had a way to get rid of them safely, I'd agree with you.
The energy itself is pretty safe.
But there are some points against nuclear plants:
1. They produce waste we can't handle
2. If an accident happens (there is always a minimal chance) it can fuck up a region for decades
3. They are pretty easy targets for terrorism as Greenpeace showed with a french one
has deleted their comment.
People who want to save the planet and are against nuclear power plants emits this wonderful aura of irony.
And that big terrible nuclear meltdown happened long ago, on an older model. The more they protest nuclear power, the smaller are the chances of people building newer and safer plants
The reactors in the chernobyl plant were a better design than the ones in fukusima in terms of wihtstanding natural disasters. The graphite bars were upheld by electricity, so any equipment or power failure would automaticaly insert them. I'm not denying the flaws that the reactor it had, but its nowhere near something "held together with gum and paper clips".
I dunno, it was pretty terrible. The casing around the reactor is meant to be about 20m in total, in Chernobyl it was about 1m.
There were many other bits of it built against regulations, but thats one of the more extreme
I agree, but (pardon my ignorance) what about the nuclear waste we get from this? Or is that, as the content implies, one of the reasons we make atomic bombs?
false. thec couldn't afford the paper clips so they prayed instead + they intentionally drove it beyond the safety limit
> if you aren't retarded
and that's exactly why the french nuclear plants scare the living fuck out of me
It might be very safe, but the problem is that if somethings goes wrong it often becomes in catastrophic results. Like in Japan, you cant always predict that something goes wrong, like a tsunami. I'm actually for nuclear reactors but i see what the problem is and why countries are concerned about building them.
But anyone could have predicted a tsunami to hit an eastern (Pacific Ocean) facing, nuclear powerplant on the edge of one of the most tectonically active areas in the world.
Point is they didn't and there will always be things we can't predict will happen, might not be a tsunami next time.
But the point is, anyone with any sense could have told you putting one there is a big no-no. They knew it, they took a risk and paid for it. That's the thing with the Pacific rim, you know what's coming. Tsunamis, earthquakes & volcanoes
which all hit the eastern coast of Japan regularly. There are certain areas where they shouldn't be and certain areas where they should.
All nuclear disasters are planning errors or lack of safety
Wow, you racist dick. Russia had at least some duct tape in there, too.
Soviet Russia, anyway.
It was in the Ukraine
Pretty much. Nations and countries that have tectonically inert and landlocked areas far inland could put up reactors and sell the excess energy to nations that don't have that luxury. Japan is pretty much the worst place imaginable to have one, and Russia, while a perfect candidate for a nuclear power supplier, failed because the reactor itself was shoddily built and poorly maintained.
We should be sticking these things in places like the Russian tundra, or northern Alberta and Saskatchewan, where they're thousands of miles away from hurricanes, earthquakes, and anything that could possibly be irreparably damaged if they did somehow go off, which they wouldn't, because we wouldn't maintain them with spit and horse glue.
Something bad that was preventable and arguably quite predictable happens, and suddenly it's an unchained wolf that cannot be trusted.
Oh so you say, if Japan had become completely reliant on some other countries energy-output AND had poured massive amounts of money into building power lines big enough to transport the electricity to them, that the crisis could have been avoided?
That's Brilliant...oh no, wait it's not...it's fucking retarded!
You see, that's the point of building power plants on your own. To not have to rely on anybody else's, so that if for any reason the diplomatic relationships with whatever country get worse, you don't get suddenly buttfucked cause you sit there in the dark.
Also, some electricity is lost for every bit of the power lines. They still have an electrical resistance. That's the reason for about any country bigger then Luxemburg having their power plants spread across its area. To cut the loses, to generate the energy close to where it's needed.
As for the topic of maintenance....you don't realy believe that, do you? People are lazy fucks. Energy providers want to save money. They would substitute glue with spit, and lead with paper-walls if they were allowed to and could take the hit on their image.
You see...the problem isn't the nuclear power plant. The problem are the people that built it, that maintain it and that manage it. Those guys WILL make errors. Some of them might even be as shortsighted as your post makes you look like. And that is the reason why Nuclear fission should be avoided as a power-source.... we are just to fucking lazy to safely use it.
- Awe **** man... I'm getting all emotional now... You might jus…
Happy Halloween FJ
- Battlefront 2 runs just fine. Couldn't say for the others. …
Video Games | Official GTA...
- The goodie bags stop appearing from enemies but you can still …
Video Games | Official GTA...
- It's murder time!
Show Comments (986)