Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on October 24, 2014, 06:52:12 PM

Quote from: Flee on October 24, 2014, 06:21:20 PM

Is this video going to take 35 minutes just to say that Bungie messed up miserably by clearly cutting finished content from the game to sell as DLC?

Yes. Just detailing the specific areas and some ideas of why it happened. It's nothing that you haven't already heard if you've been even vaguely following it.

A few other complaints too, but nothing amazing. Just complaints about some pointless gear in the game that indicates much was cut.

Ah, not gonna watch all of it then. Thanks.

If you're fervently interested in how Destiny went wrong, it's kinda interesting so far. But it doesn't accomplish much, and it's kind of depressing to keep hearing about how cool this game could've been.

"Guys, it's not porn. See that little black bar on the dude's dick? That means it's not a dick anymore."

>Anything Harlow and Jay

Hulkbuster!!

>Not wanting to take a ride on this grade-A turkey sausage

Like I said, I'm not stuck on a Ford or any model, it's just the one I have been considering.

Quote from: Mega Sceptile on October 19, 2014, 10:03:06 PM

Quote from: Lord Commissar on October 19, 2014, 09:30:28 PM

Meh, I'm around level 25 and I've enjoyed it so far. However I also treat it like its a single player game for the most part and pretend it's non canon.

Thought about maybe making a sep7 guild just to get a Guild base and capital ship for people that just want to hang around and play with other people from this place.

  ToR isn't canon, did you SEE how badly they butcher Revan's character in the next expansion?

Nope, I've heard it's some guy pretending to be Revan but I don't know how true it is. That and since KOTOR is no longer canon I don't really give a shit about what happens in TOR. It's all just a giant what if story now and I'm fine with that. Means they can do more shit too since they're no longer constrained by canon.

To be fair, KOTOR isn't canon either. None of it matters, but I would say the LucasArts team considers TOR the continuation of Revan's story, no matter how unhappy most of the fanbase is with his treatment.

I'll just leave this here.

Gonna be a no-shit, bill-paying adult in a couple months working a real job with a wife and my own health insurance and car payments. This is in serious because I don't want the typical flood nonsense, but I understand if it has to be moved.

I'm looking to buy a car towards the end of the year to take advantage of sales on 2014 models. I don't really have any particular desires other than the typical ones: decent fuel economy, reliability in terms of maintenance frequency, and affordability. My salary will be roughly $55k for the first year, though I'm not sure what budget that entails. When I posted this thread a while ago on B.Net, I specified that I do want a hatchback but I'm open to any suggestions.

1. What budget should I shoot for?

2. Any manufacturers that I should avoid?

3. Lease vs. buying?

Other than that, just post recommendations. Thanks, Sept.

WE EXIST TOGETHER AND NOW WHAT TWO CORPSES, IN ONE GRAVE

Is this purposefully misquoted?

Quote from: E̲n̲g̲a̲g̲e̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y̲ on October 18, 2014, 05:19:29 PM

Quote from: SmellyWontonNoodles on October 18, 2014, 02:51:25 PM

Electric-powered cars, along with numerous recharging stations, are only feasible in urban/suburban areas. Gas-powered cars will never be fully eclipsed by electric-powered ones, predominantly because consumers enjoy a variety of goods in the market. However, I can see what you're describing occurring on the small-scale, like in big cities perhaps

This was the same thought when gas-powered cars came around. There wouldn't be enough fueling stations, fuel is abundant enough, it's too expensive, etc. But we're seeing those changes happening now, and in a very short amount of time electric cars will be feasible throughout all but the most isolated areas.

How about charging times, though? What is roughly the fastest?

The standard model that Tesla is going with is that at night you'll trickle-charge for several hours. They already have a device that can fully charge the car in 30 minutes, and they're working on a charger that will charge the entire battery in only a few minutes, comparable to filling a tank of gas.

I was not asking you to Google it, I'm asking you which organizations are you getting this information from.

Department of the Navy.

You can't block radiation with steel and concrete.

You sure can. Explain how those living on a nuclear submarine, who always wear a dosimeter, consistently report radiation levels lower than what you'd get from a day at the beach or on a cross-country flight.

I wonder if you even read your source, as it repeatedly refutes that statement you use to cite it:

"For all ages combined, there were no significantly increased SRR's for leukaemia after start-up for any individual facility or for all facilities combined. The SRR's for cancers other than leukaemia among children did not vary significantly from 1.00. Similarly, the SRR's for breast cancer or thyroid cancer (all ages) did not vary significantly from 1.00 after start-up.

"If conventional estimates of the cancer risks attributed to radiation are accepted, exposure from the monitored emissions from nuclear facilities in the United States...were too small to result in detectable harm."

"The fact that significant differences were found in our survey for the period before facilities went into service illustrates the need for caution before interpreting all differences after start-up as evidence of adverse health effects attributable to operation of the facilities."

"No significantly statistical significant increases in deaths from childhood leukaemia were found."

"In combined data for all facilities, the RR of mortality from childhood leukaemia after plant start-up was 1.03, while before start-ip it was larger, 1.08. For leukaemia mortality at all ages, the RR's were .98 after start-up and 1.02 before."

"Thus, this survey did not detect any general association between residence in a county with a nuclear facility and death attributable to leukaemia or, in fact, any other form of cancer."

"We cannot conclude that nuclear facilities have not caused any cancer deaths in persons living near them. It can be concluded, however, that if nuclear facilities posed a risk to neighbouring populations, that risk was too small to be detected by a survey such as this one.

Here is the Wikipedia article on gamma radiation shielding. You'll notice that it does in fact list dirt and concrete as appropriate shielding sources.

Here's how a nuclear submarine's reactor is disposed of: they literally take the entire compartment out of the sub, encase it in concrete, then bury it in a pit. The reactor is heavily lined in lead so the concrete and dirt is pretty much entirely unnecessary, but they're very concerned about the public's view of the program so they go above and beyond what's necessary. These extra steps are due to ignorance and fear on the part of the public. The truth is that coal-burning plants and oil rigs are far more dangerous to the environment and to surrounding areas than nuclear facilities.

There's no need for all the added patronization.

I haven't been patronizing you.

"I don't cawe about PC gamews going 'oh but we have sawes on caw a duty aw the time"

2. What you said was just inherently wrong. There's countless nuclear waste spills across the country. Read up.

You're right, I misspoke. I meant to say "there hasn't been an incident of theft, leakage, or loss of spent fuel rods in America in-transit to disposal since modern regulations (the past 30ish years) were implemented." I was addressing a common fear that it's dangerous to truck nuclear fuel away from a power plant, or that it's susceptible to theft by terrorist or otherwise criminal organizations. I used a shorthand that normally works for the people I talk with about this that would understand what I meant, and I should have been more clear.

3. I'm not an expert on nuclear physics, meaning there comes a point where I have to choose which source I'm going to listen to. In the sense that garbage incineration isn't actually an environmentally safe procedure as it's often claimed to be, the same generally goes for nuclear power. And seeing as all you've done is ramble about how safe it is without providing any sources to your information, and seeing part of your knowledge on nuclear power and nuclear waste is wrong, I can't simply take your word without knowing which organizations you get your information from.

What do you want a citation for? That spent fuel rods are encased in steel or concrete then buried? Okay, here you go, just pick one:

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=how%20is%20nuclear%20waste%20disposed%20of

I didn't read any of this on the internet; I don't have sources bookmarked for every statement I make.

Or rather, nuclear waste is only easy to dispose of if done improperly, which the United States currently does, so yeah I guess I could give you that it's "easy" to dispose of.

Please do educate me, O Wise One, on the proper method of disposing of nuclear waste.

A caveat to your response is that there hasn't been an incident of theft, leakage, or loss of spent fuel rods in America in-transit to disposal since modern regulations (the past 30ish years) were implemented. It's also fairly simple to dispose of: encase it in steel and concrete, then bury it in the ground.