Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Whoever developed Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing. Thank god they went outta business...

In terms of pure crappyness, I agree. However, I believe a loss of funds/bankruptcy forced them to release the game while it was still in the alpha stages of production. Maybe if it was done it wouldn't have been so bad.

However, in terms of sheer disappointed and let downs, I would say Cryptic takes the cake. IMO, they failed with Star Trek Online. They had such a huge hype built up for it, and had some good ideas for it too, but let the community down with repetitive missions, unbalanced PvP (by that I mean I was never in a match with say 4 v 4), slow paced PvP that was based on one side making the first strike creating the potential for indefinite draws, and the inability to actually provide the Star Trek feel through exploring and problem solving. I really wish Paramount kept that project, they had some great ideas for the game.

At 4/22/10 01:54 AM, Yokumashu wrote: Mallow from super mario RPG: The Legend of the 7 stars.

Agreed, that character annoyed the shit out of me, as soon as I got enough characters I removed him from my party permanently. Not to mention his character background was plain awful and he cried a lot. What a wimp.

if they would make a good one it would be fine for me but a good plant is to expensive for good ol uncle sam

What the fuck are you talking about do you even know how cheap and easy it is to make a reactor system impervious to meltdown? You don't know what you're talking about, and really need to read up on how nuclear plants operate and the safety systems they use. Like I said, modern plants can't meltdown. Your argument is invalid and false.

Actually, one of the bigger faults of nuclear power is the cost to build them. The United States Department of Energy agreed in 2002 to pick up the tab of the job to get the designs and ideas of nuclear reactors to blue prints. The program is dubbed "Nuclear Power 2010" and will cost the government $500 million to get working, safe, reliable reactors across the country.

However, all the costs for the nuclear plant comes from the operator of the plant and not from the government, and they have money set aside for accidents. Where as coal burning plants rely on tax money to fix the impacts of their use. Such as health impacts from pollution. If this cost were internalized in order to build the plant like a nuclear plant. A coal burning plant would cost more to build than a nuclear plant. In the Price Anderson Act, which sets a cap on how much insurance a nuclear power plant operator needs to pay damages in the case of a major accident. The government then stands by to pick up a serious chunk of cost beyond that. Which costs the government nothing. On the other hand, fossil energy sources do not charge the buyers of their power for the pollution impacts of their use. The costs of those 28,000 deaths the cost of treating all the health impacts of respiratory and circulatory illness and short of death, the lost work time, the impacts on forests and wildlife, the acid rain enhanced degradation in roads, bridges, buildings, and structures, all are not counted in the cost of that power. The cost of all those things is paid, by the form of taxes. The relative costs are hard to determine because nuclear costs depend on the lifetime of the reactor. It would be different compared to fossil fuels if relative estimates of the costs were included

Chemical reactions are when you take Atmoms / Molecules and make them into new Molecules

Nuclear reactions are when you use Atoms to either break down or create new atoms [So far i think we've only managed to Split hydrogen, and Combine 2 hydrogen] The energy Yeilded.

The fission event used in modern nuclear reactors uses Uranium or Plutonium, and if it is a breeder reactor it uses thorium with Uranium to create a fissile form of Plutonium by using a source of nuclear irradiation.

Chernobyl had many faults in it. Number one was the half assed construction that went into it, and when the Russians were doing "tests" on the nuclear reactor they shut down a bunch safety systems to preform said tests. Plus a series of bad ideas and judgements contributed to it. The reactor became unstable during one of the low level portions of the testing, and because the safety protocoles were off the operators were not aware of the it. Which caused it to explode. The Russians had a high ego about what they could do with nuclear energy/bombs at the time (The Cold War) and were mainly testing the reactor in various sorts of forms which we really wouldn't do today.

At 7/23/07 01:49 AM, Dash-Underscore-Dash wrote: You're the industrial engineer, you tell us.

I already know what I think about it, I just wanted to know what others thought, but I'll put in some fun facts that I know about it.

Nuclear energy, right now, is the only viable source of alternative energy we have. Agianst things like oil and coal In matters of energy production, one kilogram of coal will make 3 kilowatt hours of electricity. enough to run 800,000 hairdryers for 2.5 hours. One kilogram of nuclear fuel produces 240,000 kilowatts of electricity compared to the 3Kw of electricity from coal The United States' current dependency on coal is higher then reserves which forces us to import from other countries and regions the same goes for oil in oil fired power plants. Also, the relative cost for a kilowatt hour of nuclear powered energy averages at $1.82 , compared to $2.13 for coal fired plants and 3.69 for natural gas fired power plants.

Alternative energy sources, such as wind, hydroelectric cannot make a huge impact on our needs. Hydroelectric is limited by the very few sites to be exploited. Biomass cannot outpace the growth of energy use, and wind and solar have problems in their low energy density and supply Nuclear power takes up less real estate than the usual green alternatives. It would reduce global carbon emissions by 15 percent and would require relatively modest growth in the US nuclear capacity. In order to eliminate one gigaton of carbon emissions per year, the amount of space needed would need to increase for nuclear by 5% of current capacity wind 300% and solar 6000%

The problem with nuclear power, is that people are scared of nuclear meltdowns, which really isn't a threat. What happened at Cheyrnoble was a series of mistakes and half asses construction by Russia. In theThree Mile Island incident, the containment building was intact and did it's job to help prevent the coolant failure from becoming a disaster, and no radiation was emitted.

People really need to stop worrying over the what if's and start looking at our current need of energy and nuclear is right there.

Lets face it, we can't rely on fossile fuels forever. One alternative source is nuclear energy. Is it good or bad?

Nuclear Fusion has so many problems though. I'd be willing to bet huge money that a practical and working fusion reactor (one that actually produces inexpensive electricity) won't exist for eighty years.

Of course it does, the amount of energy to create a fusion event is so great that we can only attain it currently through nuclear fission. Unfortunatly, our oil reserves are only expected to last 70 years ( I believe, it may have changed since I last checked). What we need to do on matters of energy is find a new source of energy for cars, like hydrogen, and by using fission plants for energy

It'll be interesting to see what happens with out population is response to depletion of fossil fuel resources. I would personally hope that the population levels off quickly, there are so many people already.

Hopefully by then we will have mastered hydrogen fuel and nuclear fusion...

I think nature has a way of trying to level off humanity in some current uncurable diseases, such as AIDS and cancer, and I think that when we cure those another disease will come along and strike us with just as much force as before.

I think that this is an accurate estimate. If you look at any population graph you'll see a skyrocket starting around the 1900's. Mainly because of the technological and biological advancements in humanity today. Like someone already stated, people are living longer now. A few hundred years ago, people would die due to diseases they did not understand or in war, or simple accidents, with today's better understanding of biology we are able to cure people, more babies are coming into existance because they are born in safe enviroments away from disease, and we have found cures for many of the diseases that accounted for many deaths in the past. Basicly, more people are coming in while older people are still alive, and if it keeps happening then yes the population will experiance a large boom quite possibly to 9 billion.