Author
|
Topic: Does Fallouts storyline seem "too real?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rad-x
Vault Citizen
Member # 86
Member Rated:
|
posted November 28, 2003 10:58
quote: Originally posted by Slurrydevil: will there be no end to the fiendish scope of my machiavellian machinations culminating in a veritable plethora of venal and superfluous platitudes??!
Don't worry Gauss, I'm pretty sure it's a rhetorical question, bound by the creator's purpose domination over any man who dare gaze his eyes upon it, blasting into the void of infintity that reader's freedom and robbing him of the evils, and often goods, of choice, which culminates in one pissed off Rad. No, it's not as good as Slurry's, but I tried my best. Can anyone try and beat Slurry's? [ November 28, 2003: Message edited by: rad-x ] -------------------- As I gaze up at the night sky in my own fair time, I look back down and see the devastation. This post-nuclear world. It's terrible. But at least we got Nuka-Cola, warm and flat, the drink of the post-apocalyptic civiliztion. Generation Next!
|
Posts: 466 | From: Glasgow, Scotland | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keln
Outsider
Member # 154
Rate Member
|
posted December 03, 2003 02:46
I find the games' storyline to be unrealistic actually....now anyway. I think the real possibility of full scale nuclear war has passed away with the 20th century. If a Nuclear missle was shot towards the U.S., it would be intercepted and destroyed by our "non-existent" missle defense system. You think it's only in a testing phase right now? Heh, how long was the U-2 spyplane or the SR71 in service before the public knew about it? It's a slight breach of a treaty with Russia, and that will keep it a "secret" for now. If you live in the U.S., you are probably quite safe from nuclear strikes. Even if you aren't, who's gonna shoot a nuke at anyone else? Ok, so India and Pakistan might finally turn each other into glass parking lots.But the reality of the entire Earth undergoing a nucelar war is pretty much a thing of the past. And so will the misconception that power sources will disappear in the near future, that so many common citizens have. The truth is we'll move onto the next thing when it becomes somewhat necessary, and most importantly (for companies) somewhat profitable. All of the major automobile manufactuors have been designing hydrogen and/or fuel cell cars, or hybrid versions. There are a few driving around California (of course) today, with a couple of Hydrogen "gas" stations. Hydrogen is actually much more effecient than Gasoline, and will be the major automobile fuel source in the future. When the infastructure for it arrives (ie. Hydrogen-statons), then most gasoline cars will start being replaced with hydrogen/fuel cell/ hybrids. 30 years from now...I'd say half gas half alternative fuel cars on the road. Natural progress is slow like that. If we run into a gas crisis, then expect the promised land sooner. Someone said you couldn't run everything off of Hydrogen power...of course you could! But why the heck would you? That would be a bit expensive. Nuclear is the future...but it's still plagued by activists and public fear. Most folks simply don't understand what it is, and why it is safe in modern plants. Until the taboo that "Nuclear Power = Cherynobl = Nuclear Bomb" disappears, Gas and Coal are here to stay. Theres a good number of Nuclear plants in the US, but not too many have been built in the last 30 years, and there are far less than there should be. Nuclear waste is not a problem when handled correctly. Personally I say grind up the fission products and spent fuel and spread it over the ocean. It takes a concentrated amount of radioactive particulates to be a hazard. You arent going to fry any fish. But of course that would be out of the question, so we'll just bury it in Idaho Nuclear cars? I don't think so. The day the government allows the common joe to have access to nuclear anything is the day "dirty bombs" can be bought at your local fireworks dealer. It simply isn't gonna happen. Not in this lifetime buster. And it's not really feasable. Even in a house. It takes alot of subsystems to run a reactor plant, not too mention the electrical generation systems. Who's gonna do manitenance on all that? Do you trust computers to keep an eye on a critical reactor? As far as Fusion goes....I knew a guy working in that field. He said the current fusion reactors take more energy (pressure and heat) to cause sustained fusions than the amount of energy that you get from the process. No, the energy doesn't dissappear, but it's not ins a useable form. The solution? The "cold fusion" idea (causing fusion at lower temperature or pressure). According to him, theres no such thing persay. But he admitted that research had been going in that direction for some time. Needless to say, I don't think fusion will be a possibility for a long time. Coal, gas, gasoline, diesel....these all work, we still have supplies, and most importantly they still make $. There will never be a huge war over the "last" oil reserve that will wipe out the earth. It will suddenly become convenient to introduce alternative energy sources to the mainstream economies, and suddenly another industrial revolution will be born. Ahh, how I despise money and the motivations it causes. I blame it for not having my flying car by now. -------------------- "I'm tryin' to like people, it's just so hard filtering out all the stupid ones."
|
Posts: 28 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Keln
Outsider
Member # 154
Rate Member
|
posted December 03, 2003 02:58
Electrolysis..btw.For splitting water up into oxygen and hydrogen. Pass an electric current through 2(H2O) and you get (2 H2) + (O2). Now putting H2 and O2 together to form water is a bit more tricky I believe. I think gamma radiation is required?
And I never even saw "Chain Reaction". -------------------- "I'm tryin' to like people, it's just so hard filtering out all the stupid ones."
|
Posts: 28 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|