1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Caveman 2 Cosmos

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Caveman 2 Cosmos' started by strategyonly, Aug 25, 2008.

  1. Noriad2

    Noriad2 Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2014
    Messages:
    1,153
    Gender:
    Male
    True - over the past millenia, the Moon has had various religious, occult, symbolic and mystical meanings. However I think that by the time people actually start living on the moon, they'd just consider it a big boring lump of rock that happens to be in orbit around the Earth.
     
  2. strategyonly

    strategyonly C2C Supreme Commander

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    20,563
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MN
    No so fast now, the US Government(or was it the UN, I forget) has APPROVED realtors and anyone else, to BUY "Moon Property" and when people do want to more there WHEN its possible they have their property already set for them, now building it, is another problem story, lol . . .:rolleyes:
     
  3. Arakhor

    Arakhor Dremora Courtier Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    35,556
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    I was under the impression that international law states that no single nation can own any extra-terrestrial part of the Solar System.
     
  4. Maxima7

    Maxima7 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2013
    Messages:
    118
    Why nuclear plants over nuclear weapons? Though, the singularity is more of a wild card.

    Your opinion isn't based on fact. All new nuclear plant designs are literally orders of magnitude less likely to result in a "meltdown" due to their passive safety that don't require operators.

    Chernobyl didn't have a containment core. It used a graphite moderator (though, technically not bad with a good design), and poor training and standards for the workers. Your comparison is like comparing the "science" in the 13th century to the much more professional scientific community of today.

    The Japanese disaster wasn't thought to be impossible. It wasn't designed for a 9.0 quake, though more importantly, the tsunami knocked out the backup generators.
     
  5. HorseshoeHermit

    HorseshoeHermit 20% accurate as usual, Morty

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,298
    Location:
    Canada
    We cannot quote such a sentiment since we are not there yet.

    We can quote ideas people have about living on the moon now, or quote ideas people have had about living on the moon (or living elsewhere, or about the geographic nature of the moon), or quote ideas characters have fictively had about the moon in people's speculation.

    Or any idea that comes to mind when one is supposedly living on the moon; not just ideas about that itself. Einstein's quote about driving safely only tenuously has to do with cars which only a little bit has to do with Combustion. It was, however, a poetic concept, an artistic statement, an elaboration of culture, which could only have occurred once there were cars.

    Again, though, antecedent the future we can't refer to any sentiments about the technology since they don't exist. So we have to pick something else.
     
  6. Harrier

    Harrier Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    2,414
    Location:
    UK
    But we have been to the moon and lived there for a few days, albiet in lunar capsules.

    As Noriad2 says - it is a boring lump of rock, regardless of any resources it may eventually yield. :)
     
  7. Reisk@

    Reisk@ Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2012
    Messages:
    190
    :lol::lol::lol: Dream on sheeple. :lol::lol::lol:

    Now you can run under the skirts of mods again. :lol:

    Moderator Action: Please stop your trolling, this is unacceptable. Contribute in a positive way or simply move on.
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
     
  8. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    27,767
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    This is my point... we're setting up ticking time bombs and saying we KNOW they are safe when we likely have yet to be hit by earth shattering disaster scenarios that we can't imagine as possible yet because they haven't happened yet. What's going to happen to all of the Nuc plants on the North American continent, for example, when Yellowstone goes off? Or when a random meteor strikes that perhaps mostly could've been survived but now we've dotted the landscape with regions that can't be lived in for the rest of all time in addition to the woes caused by the initial disaster? Our imagination of disaster scenarios is likely not beginning to fathom the big picture - these generators, when they go wrong, leave a scar that cannot be healed, no matter how many workers you put out to 'scrub' the fallout. Regardless of the amount of immediate pollution a coal plant can generate, and how damaging it might be right now, in half a million years nobody would ever know it existed... the fact that the same can be completely untrue of a nuclear generator that went wrong says everything imo.

    We have 2 (well... really 3) examples of nuclear accidents already. Is it not simply common sense that we must at some point admit that no matter how much humanity may think itself capable of perfection, it is impossible to obtain? And with that in mind, is it ever prudent to play with fire of this magnitude, no matter how under control you may think it to be?
     
  9. JosEPh_II

    JosEPh_II TBS WarLord

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    16,182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Western IL. cornfields
    Please Reisk can't you just post on the subject and leave the taunts and ridiculing others out of the conversation? Is that possible for you to do?

    JosEPh

    Moderator Action: Please report posts and continue your conversation. Answering and addressing trolls only encourages them.
     
  10. Faustmouse

    Faustmouse Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    3,518
    When Yellowstone goes of or a meteor at the right size strikes the earth we have other things to worry about. You are thinking to much long-term here. Also, nuclear fallout is not THAT bad. Does Chernobyl look like a barren desert? There are plants living there and lots of animals. The radiation is still elevated and it's considered "unsafe" to live there and you'd probably get cancer pretty fast, but it's not impossible. At the current rate, we'll reach a point were we could cure all mutations instantly in about 40-50 years at most.

    Maxima is right, new nuclear power plants are so much more advanced than "old" once that in a few decades they WILL be fool proof. I'm more concerned about nuclear bombs... The only thing I'm happy about there is that no matter how hard we try, in a million years after a nuclear war there will still be a healthy enviroment on earth...
     
  11. Yudishtira

    Yudishtira Spiritual/Creative

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    2,755
    Location:
    Brisbane
    If that happens, then will be the time to start thinking about using nuclear power and claiming it's safe. This kind of reminds me of the "radiation is good for you" subtext in those superhero backstories:p.

    Renewables are already ahead of nuclear. If all of the billions spent on selling, lobbying for and subsidizing (not to mention cleaning up after) nuclear went into truly sustainable (and not dead-end) technologies like solar/wind/geothermal/tidal/etc. etc., it would make more sense by a couple of orders of magnitude.:crazyeye:
     
  12. Faustmouse

    Faustmouse Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    3,518
    I'd favor renewables over nuclear as well. In fact I spend the last year on researching algal biofuels. But for me it's the most urgent problem to get away from coal and oil based power. And renewables just can't handle that at the moment - the main problem is the infrastructure. If we had wider power grids or better energy storage capabilities (both making great progress over the last years) then they will be ready. But before that we need more "predictable" energy. Also Winfarms, Solar Panels etc also have their downsides. They kill rare birds of prey, leave toxic waste or require major changes in river or coastal regions... It would be the best if we'd stop telling people that you need a brand new cellphone or car every couple of months...
     
  13. Jozef

    Jozef Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    92
    Location:
    israel
    Thank you all for the great job with the mod.
    As I see on SVN, 36 version is on a pretty advanced stage.

    Is it known when approximately it will be ready?
     
  14. Sparth

    Sparth C2C Team Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2013
    Messages:
    2,311
    Hard to say. We have some bugs to fixe before we start testing v36 and modders which can fix these errors are now busy in real life :(
     
  15. ThomasCro

    ThomasCro Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    13
  16. Sparth

    Sparth C2C Team Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2013
    Messages:
    2,311
    Which civic should be activated to obtain milita unit after each farm build?
     
  17. strategyonly

    strategyonly C2C Supreme Commander

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    20,563
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MN
    Here is the python line: giCivicForMilitia = gc.getInfoTypeForString( "CIVIC_CONSCRIPTION1" )
     
  18. Little Abigail

    Little Abigail Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    61
    I know this is kinda old but I feel the need to respond to this.
    When Yellowstone goes off the vast majority of people on North America will be dead within days. Some Nuclear plants melting down won't even be tertiary concerns.
    If a meteor hits that is survivable nuke plants melting down won't change that fact. You seems to be vastly overestimating just how big the contamination area of a nuclear plant melting down is. Nuclear plants don't go off like nuclear bombs when they fail, you get smallish steam explosions at the worst. Reactor fuel is 3-4% enriched, weapons grade material is 90+% enriched. Also, you are extremely overestimating how long the fallout and radiation lasts. Nuclear bombs purposely built to cause as much fallout as possible only last a century or two, not forever.
    Yes they can, radiation decays away naturally. It's not a forever thing.
    Again, fallout lasts a century or two at the maximum, not millions of years. Also, fossil fuels are affecting the climate of the entire world, nuclear meltdowns only effect the immediate area around said plant.

    Three accidents out of the over 430 in the world that have been working perfectly for decades. Chernobyl melted-down due to really shoddy building and gross negligence, Three Mile Island melted-down due to poor training and poor labeling of the new computer systems in it, and Fukushima took two natural disasters in one day to meltdown.

    Honestly, the fact that two natural disasters only caused it to slightly melt down speaks to how safe it is. There's not very many things on this world built to withstand a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami back to back. Also the fact that it was the only one in Japan that happened to out of their over twenty plants.
     
  19. Arakhor

    Arakhor Dremora Courtier Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    35,556
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    That said, Abigail, the Chernobyl exclusion zone is going to be contaminated for some twenty millennia.
     
  20. Hagbard Celine

    Hagbard Celine Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2013
    Messages:
    11
    How much fallout a detonation causes is mostly determined by how and where the bomb is detonated, not how it is built.

    To cause significant fallout, the bomb needs to explode relatively high above the ground, I think it could be several kilometers for the megaton hydrogen bombs in use today, but most bombs in warfare would be detonated only a few hundred meters above the ground.

    Contrary to popular belief, the main purpose of nuclear bombs in warfare is not to cause radioactivity. They are developed and used to destroy entire cities or hardened military installations. To create explosions more powerful than anything that could be achieved with conventional explosives. The radioactivity is just an unfortunate side effect. Most nuclear weapons of today are actually designed to cause as little radioactivity and fallout as possible.


    But I agree with your point. People are too afraid of everything nuclear and overestimate the dangers. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, those were completely wiped out by nuclear weapons and today, just 70 years later, they are sprawling cities with millions of inhabitants.
    We have detonated several thousand nuclear bombs all over the globe in the past 60 years or so and we're all still here.
     

Share This Page