|
Randler posted:Same way we paid back Israel. First we lower the sum (significantly, as Greece probably does not actually have the claim it claims to have), then we split it. One half in credit/cash, the other cash in military hardware. Instant subvention to our home industry. Seems legit. I'm sure there are some Greek nationals working in our Panzer factories and banks that will finally get the help that they deserve. Also, could we get Turkey to buy the same amount of tanks in response? German help for everyone!
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 03:46 |
|
waitwhatno posted:Can we please have us all lieb again and talk about the real elephant in the room? How are we going to pays all that reparations money to Greece? Do we still have some hidden Nazi gold laying around or do we really need to raise taxes? I see three alternatives. Option 1: We pay them with discount coupons for KMW, Heckler&Koch and Rheinmetal, 3% off everything usable for a total of €9.1 trillion*. Option 2: We securitiz the reperations Sweden owes us for the Thirty Year war and hand those over to Greece. A comission of well known historians using best practices from Greece² has determined that those dirty Swedes owe Germany exactly €278,7 billion. Option 3: As we know from the wise Greek people, a new government is not responsible for the acts of the previous government. Therefore I believe the debt is not owed by Germany, but by the home country of the real perpetrator, Austria and we should join forces with Greek and demand reparations for all the evil that has befallen poor innocent Germany in the years after 1933. *only accepting upfront cash payment ² the debt someone owes us is exactly as much as we owe someone else
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:my check should be coming in any day now Listen I paid good money for my online advertising courses and qualifications plus the EU Nuclear Energy Promotion Certificate ok. My check WILL come annnyyyyy day now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 09:03
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:I see three alternatives. I don't even know why we would talk about anything but option 3 here. This is a brilliant Idea, GaussianCopula.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 09:15
|
|
|
Just hand the bill over to the Reichsbürgerbewegung.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 09:21
|
|
|
I want to chime in on the nuclear debate because while it annoys me (on both sides), that is a stupid reason to not participate at all and I want to get better about that. I still read all posts so I want to just say that I saw completely nonsensical arguments on both sides. As I see exactly one anti-nuclear-power person here, I may be misinterpreting it, especially as he is not the best at phrasing his thoughts (while also being quite aggressive, sometimes), so correct me if I'm wrong. But I think that Libluini is not one of "these people" who go "nuclear bad" because of unreasonable fears. Even though, as has been thankfully stated, I can understand people who say "it might explode", we should all know that this event is very unlikely. Also, the debate about the dangers of living next to a reactor is completely wrong to lead here, because again, the argument "uuuh I might get cancer living next to a plant" is really only brought up by unreasonably fearful people, and I don't think someone here actually said that. Therefore, going "lol don't you know that planes are exposed to far more radiation" is not wrong because it's factually incorrect (it isn't, flying does get you rayed), it's wrong because you are arguing against people that don't exist here. Unless I forgot an older post. Similarly, though I'm less certain about it, I don't think an argument expressed on here is actually "but explosions", though if it were, I'd find it hard to argue against, because the topic is so morally and emotionally charged. Morally because "I guess it might explode and kill a few 10k/100k/million idk, cancer rates, Spätfolgen, but it's for the good of mankind!" is really cynical on paper, emotionally because Tschernobyl and Fukushima. On the other side, everyone is correct to make fun of conspiracy theories, an unfortunate thought which sours the debate severely. The real debate one should have is about alternatives, waste, sustainability, and, last but not least, practicability. - Alternatives: Thorium is a good argument, breeder reactors are a good argument, we-can-still-have-lots-of-renewables-in-the-mix (also Biomass!) is a good argument. I would not want to debate any of that. - Waste: Now this is a topic to get heated about. My personal biggest problem, and why I am, grand reveal, against nuclear power, is the waste it produces. Someone, and I'm not going to look for that just to call it out, said something like "yeah I guess we get this radioactive stuff but we can just put it under a mountain or some streets or whatever" which is a terrifying thought to hold. As it stands, we still have no way to get rid of the stuff safely and as long as we don't have that, I will continue to oppose nuclear power until we do find a way. It kind of frightens me to handwave the radioactive waste question away when it's a very real and pressing problem we have. Breeders (and Thorium, I guess) might solve some of it, but we will always have highly toxic and deadly end products which we should find a solution for first and then think about un-demonizing nuclear energy. - Which brings us to sustainability: but what about the waste from other sources of energy, including the "waste" of space involved in building geothermal plants, the definite waste of highly valuable resources needed to build wind turbines etc.? It is a point I understand and which I frankly have no good solution for, but it does not sway my argument much, because of two thoughts: a) I have blind belief and lots of optimism in the power of scientific research, so I think a lot of problems with the "stealth" waste of renewables might well be solved, and we should therefore spend time and money on developing the efficiency, space and material demands of these technologies instead of b) technologies which will always produce waste which I am not optimistic we have any way to get rid of safely, especially since nuclear power was hip for quite a while and therefore funding for research in that direction was too and we still have no solution, while renewables, sustainability and green energy are current let's call them fads and still need time to work out the kinks. - And finally, all the arguments for nuclear power might be moot anyway because it's very hard to justify simply building more plants because pragmatism to the public. I know that this is not a perfect argument and not one I would actually want to make, but it does have to be taken into consideration: how would you sell people the idea of re-re-reversing the stance on nuclear energy again, build more plants and say "gently caress your concern, it will be better in the long run, promise"? Even if that were completely true and not just based on the weighing of different risk/reward factors which are honestly really hard to calculate especially as lots of them involve the cost of human lives?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 09:55
|
|
|
I think the main problem with Libluini is the same problem with almost everybody else: they don't sit down and look at the hard numbers. They don't build their preferences on weighing the best quantitative estimates of the full consequences of multiple scenarios. They look at single, isolated characteristics - plutonium is poison; you can burn stuff in a slightly less bad way than today; and don't require a full plan for actually supporting a society of tens of millions of people with energy. Basically, qualitative arguments about isolated facts vs. exhaustive quantitative arguments. (This is how literally everyone is, almost all of the time.) Simply Simon posted:- Alternatives: ... we-can-still-have-lots-of-renewables-in-the-mix ... is a good argument. I would not want to debate any of that. Simply Simon posted:- And finally, all the arguments for nuclear power might be moot anyway because it's very hard to justify simply building more plants because pragmatism to the public. I know that this is not a perfect argument and not one I would actually want to make, but it does have to be taken into consideration: how would you sell people the idea of re-re-reversing the stance on nuclear energy again, build more plants and say "gently caress your concern, it will be better in the long run, promise"? Even if that were completely true and not just based on the weighing of different risk/reward factors which are honestly really hard to calculate especially as lots of them involve the cost of human lives? Just consider how long it took to swing the mood in one direction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 11:00
|
|
|
On the reparation-demands from Greece: Just pay them in G36-rifles when we have to replace them all, done. (Recently there was something in the news about how, after several years of supressed or ignored reports, it has finally dawned on the civilian overlords that the G36 really does have an accuracy-problem if you shoot too often/the muzzle gets too hot. In those cases the G36-accuracy just takes a nosedive. Now it may be the Bundeswehr will go back to the G3 until a replacement for the G36 can be found. ) Cingulate posted:I think the main problem with Libluini is the same problem with almost everybody else: they don't sit down and look at the hard numbers. They don't build their preferences on weighing the best quantitative estimates of the full consequences of multiple scenarios. They look at single, isolated characteristics - plutonium is poison; you can burn stuff in a slightly less bad way than today; and don't require a full plan for actually supporting a society of tens of millions of people with energy. Eh, I wrote a term paper in university about the outlook of geothermal energy in Germany and it looked really good to me. Since the paper was graded with a A- (1,3), my professor apparently agreed. If someone wants to read that, I can post a link. (It's 100% German, though. Hopefully Google-translate is up to the task for non-Germans?) There were a lot of numbers in that paper. Libluini fucked around with this message at 11:05 on Apr 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 11:00
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Option 1: We pay them with discount coupons for KMW, Heckler&Koch and Rheinmetal, 3% off everything usable for a total of €9.1 trillion*. Alternative joke: Heckler & Koch - pacifists who actually do something about it
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 12:26
|
|
|
frankenfreak posted:They won't accept H&K coupons now. Wehrkraftzersetzung pur. I think H&K might have a second Schindler on their payroll.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 13:10
|
|
|
I like the word Wehrkraftzersetzung. I also don't believe it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 13:18
|
|
|
Lucy Heartfilia posted:I like the word Wehrkraftzersetzung. I also don't believe it. The problems with the G36 were well known for years, every report about it was just suppressed by politicians. Sometimes in the most inane way, I remember an article where the newspaper had two versions of a report, one written by the military guy conducting tests and one written by his civilian superior. The military report went like this: "The G36 has some problems, we should look into this." The civilian version based on the report was like: "Everything is great! The G36 is God!" It took a lot of leaks to finally convince someone high enough on the totem pole something was indeed wrong with our rifles. This is more like Wehrkraftverrottung.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 13:44
|
|
|
I think it's a massive case of several people loving up and then covering their asses in combination with a lot of other people who don't give a single poo poo. Even about national defense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
Lucy Heartfilia posted:I think it's a massive case of several people loving up and then covering their asses in combination with a lot of other people who don't give a single poo poo. Even about national defense. One of the reasons this poo poo couldn't be suppressed anymore were the many, many reports and complaints from German soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. All those usage problems suddenly bubbled up to the surface and we're goddamn lucky not more of our soldiers died. Would be hilarious if someone attacks NATO while one of the larger militaries is suddenly forced to adopt to a new major infantry weapon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
Do you know how heavy a G3 is? And how much stronger the recoil is compared to the G36? I pity the poor soldiers if we go back to the G3 for a while, though it's obviously better than not hitting the enemy. I'm really happy that we already had the G36 when I served my Wehrdienst.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Do you know how heavy a G3 is? And how much stronger the recoil is compared to the G36? I pity the poor soldiers if we go back to the G3 for a while, though it's obviously better than not hitting the enemy. I'm really happy that we already had the G36 when I served my Wehrdienst. Well, if they want to have access to modern weaponry they can always leave and join another army. That's how the Free Market rolls. I hear the Syrians, IS and the DPR are currently hiring.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
Simply Simon posted:Therefore, going "lol don't you know that planes are exposed to far more radiation" is not wrong because it's factually incorrect (it isn't, flying does get you rayed), it's wrong because you are arguing against people that don't exist here. Unless I forgot an older post. Similarly, though I'm less certain about it, I don't think an argument expressed on here is actually "but explosions", though if it were, I'd find it hard to argue against, because the topic is so morally and emotionally charged. Morally because "I guess it might explode and kill a few 10k/100k/million idk, cancer rates, Spätfolgen, but it's for the good of mankind!" is really cynical on paper, emotionally because Tschernobyl and Fukushima. The average person's impression of how much Spätfolgen and cancer we get from Fukushima and Chernobyl is waaay overblown compared to the actual numbers of people affected while we are literally killing hundreds of thousands of people each year from air pollution (that nobody cares about), and while nuclear would kill people comparably to or less than the numbers that die from accidents when rolling out renewables. It's like being scared of flying because of the occasional high media attention plane crash and then wrapping your car around a tree instead. I will never stop calling people who make emotional decisions on issues affecting the public at large against all evidence stupid fuckers. quote:On the other side, everyone is correct to make fun of conspiracy theories, an unfortunate thought which sours the debate severely. * Bury the stuff in Sweden We can deal with shuffling stuff away for about 300 years (which is the time it takes till waste from a breeder glows less than the original U ore), and Scandinavian clay keeps stuff safely sealed up and is found in conveniently geologically stable places. I feel safe enough if those things are done. Anyway, we can just dump existing nuclear waste into breeders for the next century so you could just run them as waste disposal which happens to produce electricity. quote:- Which brings us to sustainability: but what about the waste from other sources of energy, including the "waste" of space involved in building geothermal plants, the definite waste of highly valuable resources needed to build wind turbines etc.? It is a point I understand and which I frankly have no good solution for, but it does not sway my argument much, because of two thoughts: Energy density is a bitch, and even 100% efficient renewable generation would deal with energy density lower than fossil fuels by orders of magnitude, which themselves are less energy dense than nuclear fuel by orders of magnitude. You can't change the laws of physics, so it's either accepting more land and resource use, funding fusion, or bust for clean alternatives to nuclear power. quote:- And finally, all the arguments for nuclear power might be moot anyway because it's very hard to justify simply building more plants because pragmatism to the public. I know that this is not a perfect argument and not one I would actually want to make, but it does have to be taken into consideration: how would you sell people the idea of re-re-reversing the stance on nuclear energy again, build more plants and say "gently caress your concern, it will be better in the long run, promise"? Even if that were completely true and not just based on the weighing of different risk/reward factors which are honestly really hard to calculate especially as lots of them involve the cost of human lives? Sit back and watch the country suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Apr 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 14:44
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:The average person's impression of how much Spätfolgen and cancer we get from Fukushima and Chernobyl is waaay overblown compared to the actual numbers of people affected while we are literally killing hundreds of thousands of people each year from air pollution (that nobody cares about), and while nuclear would kill people comparably to or less than the numbers that die from accidents when rolling out renewables. It's like being scared of flying because of the occasional high media attention plane crash and then wrapping your car around a tree instead. I'd say that even in the forums context, it is worth taking a look at what politicians can and will be willing to change at all. "They're all stupid fuckers for being so emotional" will never approach a solution that might actually be implemented and completely prevent you from enjoying at least small steps in progress. quote:* Breeders  . Realtalk though, I do think breeder technology is well worth looking at and might be a good way to at least greatly reduce waste, while also giving us more time to come up with a solution for it. This would still imply shutting down old nuclear power plants to stop the production of more waste which cannot be burned with the current infrastructure, and maybe, maybe rebuilding top-notch modern ones as soon as the waste chain is sufficiently established. Really, as soon as the waste problem is solved, I have nothing against nuclear power. I can still understand emotional aversity to it, though, much more than I can understand aversion against phone masts or microwaves or GMOs or, indeed, wind turbines in MY backyard! quote:Energy density is a bitch, and even 100% efficient renewable generation would deal with energy density lower than fossil fuels by orders of magnitude, which themselves are less energy dense than nuclear fuel by orders of magnitude. You can't change the laws of physics, so it's either accepting more land and resource use, funding fusion, or bust for clean alternatives to nuclear power. quote:Sit back and watch the country
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
blowfish posted:I will never stop calling people who make emotional decisions on issues affecting the public at large against all evidence stupid fuckers. That's a really toxic attitude you got there. Nobody who ever worked with dangerous materials and people will ever tell you that it's easy. No amount of control or reasoning will stop people from endangering themselves and others around them by cutting corners. It a loving nightmare, trust me. Germany certainly had its fair share of gently caress ups and cover ups in the nuclear industry and waste disposable. So there is nothing wrong with being reluctant and sceptical about nuclear waste disposable. It not going to be easy peasy and over in a single afternoon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
no but the alternatives are all much worse, and it isn't the insurmountable problem it is sometimes presented as
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Libluini posted:One of the reasons this poo poo couldn't be suppressed anymore were the many, many reports and complaints from German soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. All those usage problems suddenly bubbled up to the surface and we're goddamn lucky not more of our soldiers died. Lol if you think the G36 is the only major problem the Bundeswehr has.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Lol if you think the G36 is the only major problem the Bundeswehr has. And those other problems are relevant when discussing the G36 and it's recent scandal. Which is why you should list them all now, in alphabetic order, so we can discuss them
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
It would be more practical and shorter to list what's not going wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Eh, I wrote a term paper in university about the outlook of geothermal energy in Germany and it looked really good to me. Since the paper was graded with a A- (1,3), my professor apparently agreed. If someone wants to read that, I can post a link. (It's 100% German, though. Hopefully Google-translate is up to the task for non-Germans?) That's not what this is about. It's about an exhaustive quantitative assessment of the situation at whole as the basis of your argument. The situation at whole is 80.000.000 people need energy, and creating energy has consequences. So what are the plausible scenarios?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Lucy Heartfilia posted:It would be more practical and shorter to list what's not going wrong. Well you haven't invaded Russia so it's not an all-time low.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Well you haven't invaded Russia so it's not an all-time low. It's not winter yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Okay, and there's gonna be a lot of numbers in green anti-nuke propaganda fully dissociated from reality. Such as the number 300.000 (alleged Chernobyl deaths), or 100% (alleged percentage of energy we could get from renewables). Well, good to hear. Luckily I never read propaganda, so this is news to me. Here is what I wrote. Geothermal energy alone can cover several hundred times the demand of electricity and 1800x the demand for heating in Germany. Geothermal energy alone. Let that sink in. The only reason we aren't realizing this potential right now is because building coal plants is cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
B-but earthquakes. No powerlines in my backyard. Wind turbines look ugly. No to railroad lines! Fusion research is too expensive. Me, me, me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Stopped reading after I noticed inconsequent citation formats.  (Also the "Fazit" contains arguments that have not been substantiated in the body of the work.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Well, good to hear. Luckily I never read propaganda, so this is news to me. Because we have reasonable estimates of these numbers for nuclear, coal, gas, solar, ... I assume we also have them for geothermal, somewhere. That number is what'd matter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:That's a really toxic attitude you got there. Nobody who ever worked with dangerous materials and people will ever tell you that it's easy. No amount of control or reasoning will stop people from endangering themselves and others around them by cutting corners. It a loving nightmare, trust me. Yeah, practical implementation will be way harder and more expensive than the ideal scenario because chances are people will do it for the profit/subsidies and not to save the planet, but by choosing the simplest most foolproof methods possible and having sensible regulation/oversight, the potential fallout (heh) of fuckups could be limited. For instance, a well-isolated clay deposit hundreds of meters belowground should reduce the impact of even retard level disposal of high level waste in leaky casks from I'm sort of assuming we won't reach Soviet level fuckups and gung-ho waste disposal in random lakes, considering nuclear power is one of the most tightly regulated industries on the planet nowadays  quote:You feel safe enough? How emotional quote:
I meant it less from the side of "can hydrogen/synthetic fuel be made to work" (I don't see why it couldn't, and I think it may be important even in an all-electrified nerd boner inducing 100% nuclear scenario e.g. if it's more workable than batteries for electric cars), but from the side of "how much space will the power plants feeding the LH2/synthetic fuel factory take up". e: Libluini posted:Here is what I wrote. I'll read it tomorrow. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Apr 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Randler posted:Stopped reading after I noticed inconsequent citation formats. We are supposed to use different citation formats for "normal" sources and internet sources. So all my term papers have inconsequent formats by choice. (Except for some of my older ones, were I was just lazy and got maximum demerits for abuse of citations and my messed up sources.  )
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Randler posted:(Also the "Fazit" contains arguments that have not been substantiated in the body of the work.) Pretty much. Also, Libluini posted:Well, good to hear. Luckily I never read propaganda, so this is news to me.  
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Duzzy Funlop posted:Pretty much. That paper is actually well researched and has more sources than my own. And one of the authors is from an Bavarian institute.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Libluini posted:At this point I'm asking myself how many of you are delusional, or just getting money from the nuclear industry to post this poo poo. The people in your paper were literally getting money from 'big geothermal'. Also the amount of sources doesn't really matter if they are all bought. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
Libluini posted:That paper is actually well researched and has more sources than my own. And one of the authors is from an Bavarian institute. Who cares about quantity of sources. How about the quality?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
Eezee posted:The people in your paper were literally getting money from 'big geothermal'. Also the amount of sources doesn't really matter if they are all bought. I hope you are joking. Hell, I was joking with that crap. Orange Devil posted:Who cares about quantity of sources. How about the quality? All the sources are publically available, so you can look them up and decide for yourself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
Libluini posted:All the sources are publically available, so you can look them up and decide for yourself. You wrote the paper, how about you tell me?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:You wrote the paper, how about you tell me? So I wrote the paper, posted it and now you want me to recollect all the sources I used just so you can say again how they are all bought and corrupt anyway? Sources that are, sometimes even with links, right there in it? What, do you have some sort of mental disorder where you can only process information if it's posted on Something Awful.com? Because if you have, I'd be willing to help you out. For a fee.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 03:46 |
|
|
Listen, you posted something that would take a lot of time and effort to argue against, and that's just not fair. Please provide easy debunking routes for at least your most powerful arguments so they can be discarded readily.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 11:51
|
|