Were you not paying attention in physics class the day they explained the difference between mass and weight? As @Payback pointed out the energy required to overcome inertia is the same no matter what the gravity, low gravity simply allows you to "spread the duration" of the force like a fulcrum.

I.e. it would be easier than on earth but you still have to apply enough force to move 2-300kg of mass, you just have the option of doing so less rapidly (making it easier but not easy).

Even if this were not the case your argument still makes no sense. If it was indeed faked then surely they were on wires anyway? How else are you proposing they replicated the effects of low gravity?

The fact your comment got 3 likes is rather depressing. As someone who makes researching conspiracy theories a borderline obsessive hobby I can say with some confidence that the whole faked moon landing thing is about the most debunk-able one ever conceived. It is an insult to the very term "conspiracy theory" and helps give the rest of us a bad name .

Radiation belt? = 7 mins of expertly calculated exposure, there is a 1000ish page NASA manual on how they did this.

Cameras? = they had about 20 DIFFERENT cameras & much like anyone else would the crappy poorly framed or exposed shots weren't used for publicity

Multiple light sources? = The surface of the moon is both highly reflective and uneven. (mythbusters did the shit out of that one)

Most complicated machine ever built? = Actually launched, several times, to the freaking moon and back!

Waving flag? = Funny how every single shot of the flag waving is when someone is holding/touching it eh? (& what kind of retard leaves evidence of wind in the most expensive coverup of all time?)

The Russian space programme? = They just turned a blind eye to their arch rivals lauding it over them? They were in on it? You have to get really paranoid before that one starts to make any sense whatsoever.

etc. etc. etc.

I have a lot of time for conspiracy theories and I'm happy to speculate with the best of them but I've yet to find a single good argument for the landing not happening. I can maybe work with the possibility that some things were omitted/covered up (Monoliths etc.) because this could not be conclusively refuted by empirical facts. Suggesting that it never happened however is so easy to disprove it blows my mind that people still have time for the idea.

For your own sake try looking into the opposing arguments. There are plenty people with PHD's and direct experience who are happy to take you through the counters to all this stuff. And they back it up with actual evidence and experiments rather than conjecture and selective information. Your mind will thank you for it

Heading back to school for nuclear engineering myself in the next year or so, hopefully to make reactors completely self regulating.

Since no source is mentioned, I assume this to be your comment and therefore applaud and envy you. Most of my passion for a couple of things died somewhere along the way.

Questions, comments or concerns on nuclear or energy in this thread are always welcome (and encouraged!)

Meaningful questions would require a level of knowledge I do not possess, so I'll stick to the layman's reaction: a comment.

Two issues that are not exclusive to the use of nuclear technology make me a strong opponent of nuclear energy in general, aside from technology-specific problems. It's the involvement of people in every stage of the process and centralisation.

Anything run by private entities has to generate a profit. Therefore corners will be cut, regulations will be circumvented. Mistakes will be made, design flaws covered up. The cheapest material will be used by the least paid worker, supervised by a guy on his second job who just wants to go home to his family.

Case in point would be the reactors in Germany, one of the most stricly regulated and controlled markets in the world. Absurd levels of negligence and coverup after coverup have become public over the years, and that's before cost cutting measures became en vogue.

Or take the EPR Olkiluoto 3 in Finland. The reports on the construction process would be hysterically funny if it wasn't a bloody nuclear reactor they're working on.

Google some pictures of "Schachtanlage Asse" to see the reality of "due dilligence" in these matters. If people are involved, bean counters and politicians will run the show, fuck-ups and bad calls are inevitable.

Even if engineers call the shots, they'll overengineer it, they'll make it incompatible with real life conditions. We've seen it time and time again. I could tell you stories about the ICE train, for instance, that'll make your head spin. Incidently, the same company is also involved in the construction of nuclear power plants.

As for centralisation: if energy generation is focused on large scale power plants, it creates monopolies/oligopolies. If a handful corporations, or regionally even just a single corporation, controls the market for something as fundamental as energy, it turns all concepts of a market into a farce. Look at France where EDF basically owns every single plant. Or Germany, where Vattenfall, E.ON, RWE and EnBW control the grid, control the power plants, control the market, control the price, control the politics. It's madness.

Edit: Blimey! This was supposed to be a short comment, yet it turned into another incoherent rant. Sorry.

>> ^notarobot:

>> ^deathcow:
My god you realize what this is.... this is not a flood control system... this is a coverup. They'd discovered Moria! Refer to 01:25

But where did they put the Balrog?


If you pause at 1:32 you can just make it out in the upper left. That's why this clip was only 2 minutes long, it killed the entire crew and this was footage was sent back as a warning. It's OUR coverup, not Japans.

>> ^deathcow:

My god you realize what this is.... this is not a flood control system... this is a coverup. They'd discovered Moria! Refer to 01:25


But where did they put the Balrog?

Of course. That's what makes something nationally relevant. It doesn't even have to affect me. It just needs to impact more than some kid in New Mexico or something (I already don't remember). I'm just saying this isn't national news. There isn't some national epidemic of cops brutalizing 10 year olds.

There could be an epidemic of police brutality, and certainly of racial profiling. A human interest piece covering systemic coverups, dirty departments, anything that involved actual digging could be considered actual national news. In fact, many have been run by the "corporate media" on things like stop-and-frisk, terrorist profiling, and even things like corporate prison labor. I, like most lefties, am interested in well researched stories of that sort. This isn't that. It's some regurgitated local sob story. Typically their fact checking is bullshit to boot.

In other words they amplify noise and partisan rhetoric rather than inform. The Economist or the Times they are not. It's usually fine that they do what they do, it's just that you shouldn't confuse it for something that it isn't, like news.

>> ^scheherazade:

That really speaks to the general state of selfish humanity.
If it isn't affecting me, then I don't care.
People not affected by the economic downturn, don't care about the recession.
People not affected by psycho police, don't care about police brutality.
Enough people are affected by the economy for there to be a lot that want to hear about it in the news.
Only some people are sacrificed to the police gods, so only some care to hear about that in the news.
(Although with 1% of our population in jail, and 1 in 30 in jail or on parole, 1 in 9 black males ages 20 to 34 in jail, it's not that small of an amount... and it's particularly sinister when these people are shoved into private jails that charge the public to hold the prisoners, and then charge the prisoners for their stay [as if it's a hotel], and use the prisoners for cheap labor that they sell to companies that don't want to hire people for livable wages, with solitary if you don't work for them. - on top of most people in jail being guilty of "crimes" that involved no one but themselves and have no harm.)
Ultimately, when it's you that's out of a job, the economy matters a lot.
And when it's you getting tazed, beat up, and charged with assault (oh the irony), then police brutality matters a lot.
The sentiment of "don't waste my time with your sob stories, we've got real problems (that affect me)", really goes all ways.
You could just as well read : "Who cares about your economy, when the government is taking my health and putting me away for no more than the entertainment/venting of a public employee".
-scheherazade

Wow, no kidding!
>> ^deathcow:

My god you realize what this is.... this is not a flood control system... this is a coverup. They'd discovered Moria! Refer to 01:25

My god you realize what this is.... this is not a flood control system... this is a coverup. They'd discovered Moria! Refer to 01:25

>> ^VoodooV:

I hate to say it, but Cenk summed it up pretty good. He can see it both ways. How many times have cops had to put up with bullshit stall tactics, it's impossible not to become jaded on this stuff.
still yeah, they could have driven him to the hospital and he could have been saved. If someone was faking it, a doc or a nurse could see that right away.
homicide though? nah. At best, it was negligence or just a plain ole accident. The biggest crime I see here is the coverup.


Negligence is better than homicide? I don't see it, either way the guy is still dead. Look I get being jaded is something that happens, it's happened to me plenty. I still have to go do my job though, what else am I gonna do? He's not going to escape, I don't have anything better to do, he's my suspect, he's important whether he's guilty or not guilty.

The point is do your job, just like the cops in the Casey Anthony case that got a call from someone who claimed to have found the body of a baby. I don't care that you don't believe him, you have something better to do? Take a drive and INVESTIGATE! Care about your fucking job.

Here's a story of another situation. I worked at Raging Waters once, and we were shown a video to scare us into being vigilant. A little girl went over to a lifeguard at a local pool and told him that there was a small boy at the bottom of the pool. The lifeguard told her that it was nothing more than a shadow that was always there. The little girl decided to go get her parents, so she walked home. They walked back and brought their video camera. When they got there they were just pulling a small boy out of the pool who had been under for maybe 10 mins. His stomach was bulging with water, his last seconds were probably terrifying. I watched that water very carefully all summer, because that wasn't going to happen while I was around.

I hate to say it, but Cenk summed it up pretty good. He can see it both ways. How many times have cops had to put up with bullshit stall tactics, it's impossible not to become jaded on this stuff.

still yeah, they could have driven him to the hospital and he could have been saved. If someone was faking it, a doc or a nurse could see that right away.

homicide though? nah. At best, it was negligence or just a plain ole accident. The biggest crime I see here is the coverup.

>> ^VoodooV:

I like how @shinyblurry admits to the power of suggestion, but clearly has decided one way.
Two things I found interesting is that in @mtadd's clip:
1) the chanting occurs right AFTER Ryan just gave a long speech, AND Romney props him up for it so it would certainly be reasonable for them to chant Ryan.
2) the audio is just plain shitty, though it is odd that right before the moment of interest occurs, the volume goes up (sadly, it just amplifies the shittiness of the audio instead of making things easier to hear). I can certainly see how you might think you hear Romney, but one thing that does stand out is that despite how similar their names sound in that context, you never hear the "ney" part of Romney's name in any of that chanting. Ryan Ryan, RomNEY, RomNEY. You just never hear any of that emphasis on that last syllable, which suggests they're saying Ryan.
In the end though, it just really doesn't matter and it just proves my previous post. They're going for the sensationalism. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. It's a manufactured controversy designed to stir people up. Just like the birther phenomenon, just like whatever it was in Bush's suit when he debated with Kerry. It's just like Fox getting caught encouraging and directing the tea party protests and making it seem like there were more there than there actually was. It's manufactured outrage.
The reality is that Romney is losing because he's boring and out of touch and he hasn't presented any concrete ideas and he needs Ryan to stir people up (gasp..more sensationalism vs substance, whoduvthunkit) It wouldn't matter if you caught MSNBC red-handed doctoring the video, it doesn't change the reality.
If anything, giving this controversy air time is still a net negative for Romney. You're just playing the same blame game the right is accusing Obama of. Doesn't make Romney look any better even if MSNBC held a press conference and admitted to a coverup. "And I would have won if it weren't for that meddling press" Ut oh Scooby Do!
You're picking at nits while the house is burning down all around you.
It's not an issue of left vs right, it's an issue of low ratings, or high ratings. end of story.


I decided to believe what the crowd was reported to say, as well as the people who were actually there said happened, and also what my ears hear:

@3:35 p.m.: Ryan pauses for a moment while the crowd begins to chant, “Romney, Romney, Romney …”

@3:36 p.m.: Mitt Romney begins speaking to the crowd. Asks them to chant, “Romney, Ryan; Romney, Ryan; Romney, Ryan …”

http://www.whiotv.com/news/news/setup-underway-for-romney-rally-at-airport/nSLFM/

Even the New York Times reported it accurately:

After Mr. Ryan whooped up the crowd in Vandalia on Tuesday, Mr. Romney moved to the front of the stage. As the crowd began chanting “Romney! Romney!” he cut them off.“Wait a second,” Mr. Romney said, instructing the audience to cheer for “Romney-Ryan! Romney-Ryan!” They did.

“There we go,” he said, pleased.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/us/politics/romney-and-ryan-to-start-campaigning-together-more-often.html?_r=2&

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/another-msnbc-scandal-blaze-readers-at-campaign-event-claim-network-misled-in-video-of-rally-chant/

As far as your commentary goes, I can agree with what you're saying generally. This is all about rearranging chairs on the deck of the titanic. You are speaking of some corporate conspiracy, I am speaking to the Satanic power behind the conspiracy. I just think it's interesting that the sift got a kick out of the clip as it was falsely portrayed, and aren't actually interested in what really happened.

I like how @shinyblurry admits to the power of suggestion, but clearly has decided one way.

Two things I found interesting is that in @mtadd's clip:

1) the chanting occurs right AFTER Ryan just gave a long speech, AND Romney props him up for it so it would certainly be reasonable for them to chant Ryan.

2) the audio is just plain shitty, though it is odd that right before the moment of interest occurs, the volume goes up (sadly, it just amplifies the shittiness of the audio instead of making things easier to hear). I can certainly see how you might think you hear Romney, but one thing that does stand out is that despite how similar their names sound in that context, you never hear the "ney" part of Romney's name in any of that chanting. Ryan Ryan, RomNEY, RomNEY. You just never hear any of that emphasis on that last syllable, which suggests they're saying Ryan.

In the end though, it just really doesn't matter and it just proves my previous post. They're going for the sensationalism. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. It's a manufactured controversy designed to stir people up. Just like the birther phenomenon, just like whatever it was in Bush's suit when he debated with Kerry. It's just like Fox getting caught encouraging and directing the tea party protests and making it seem like there were more there than there actually was. It's manufactured outrage.

The reality is that Romney is losing because he's boring and out of touch and he hasn't presented any concrete ideas and he needs Ryan to stir people up (gasp..more sensationalism vs substance, whoduvthunkit) It wouldn't matter if you caught MSNBC red-handed doctoring the video, it doesn't change the reality.

If anything, giving this controversy air time is still a net negative for Romney. You're just playing the same blame game the right is accusing Obama of. Doesn't make Romney look any better even if MSNBC held a press conference and admitted to a coverup. "And I would have won if it weren't for that meddling press" Ut oh Scooby Do!

You're picking at nits while the house is burning down all around you.

It's not an issue of left vs right, it's an issue of low ratings, or high ratings. end of story.

This is really demented how delusional people are about this stuff.

Recently ended a friendship over this issue. my Ex friend acknowledges that there were abuses, but they're all isolated and refuses to believe that there were coverups involved when it's actually pretty well documented that the leadership actively tried to sweep it under the rug.

And yet, I'm sure people will still believe. There is nothing you can say to someone that WANTS to believe something paranormal (be it UFOs or religion) that will convince them otherwise.

This was clearly part of the conspiracy coverup!

I was giving statistics for the USA. The fear of nuclear energy is irrational. Given a near-worst case scenario like in Japan, no one dies from radiation and a very limited geographic area is made unusable and access is easily restricted. For the life of me I can't understand why people continue to be willing to fill the atmosphere with CO2, and other pollutants, while such a clean alternative is readily available. An individual's lifetime energy consumption footprint is less than a baseball size piece of nuclear waste. Bury it a mile deep in the desert and it will remain there for a million years.
>> ^Fletch:

>> ^snoozedoctor:
Number killed by radiation from nuclear power generation in the last 40 years, about zero.

Chernobyl?
But you are right. Perspective needed. I think nuclear power will be one of very few options for large and consistent amounts of power generation in the future, assuming wind and solar don't become vastly more efficient and take off in a MUCH bigger way. We are on the downward slope of the bell curve of available oil and fusion has been 30 years away for the last 40 years. There are safer, cleaner, more inherently stable nuclear options out there that could win over those opposed to nuclear power, although I think most opposition today is based on ignorance and unwarranted fear.

>> ^snoozedoctor:

Number killed by radiation from nuclear power generation in the last 40 years, about zero.


Chernobyl?

But you are right. Perspective needed. I think nuclear power will be one of very few options for large and consistent amounts of power generation in the future, assuming wind and solar don't become vastly more efficient and take off in a MUCH bigger way. We are on the downward slope of the bell curve of available oil and fusion has been 30 years away for the last 40 years. There are safer, cleaner, more inherently stable nuclear options out there that could win over those opposed to nuclear power, although I think most opposition today is based on ignorance and unwarranted fear.