b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » Old Time Adverts » Message 10378064

[challenge entry] Supplementing my TOAP with a bit of a montage...


Try and rush this in before it gets bindun a million times.

From the Old Time Adverts challenge. See all 168 entries (closed)

(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 10:36, archived)
# Bazinga!
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 10:38, archived)
# Jozinga?
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 10:40, archived)
#
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 10:43, archived)
# That's a new one on me.
And quite full of WTF!!
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 10:46, archived)
# I wasn't very impressed with Big Bang Theory to start with
but as it has progressed it has become amusing
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 10:50, archived)
# love that show :)
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:03, archived)
# I detest that show.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:10, archived)
# I've never seen that show
/full range of opinions blog
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:13, archived)
# I've never seen that show.
There we go - all bases covered!

Edit: Gah!!! Damn your duck-pond emvee!!!
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:14, archived)
# I have caught that show occassionally and am fairly indifferent
/now the full range is covered
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:15, archived)
# I've never heard of that show?
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:16, archived)
# I agree with you, Paul P
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:21, archived)
# I like the female presenter whose name escapes me
but man called Dallas' name annoys me.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:23, archived)
# Are you talking about "Bang Goes The Theory"?
Althought made up of most of the same words, that's actually a totally different show, dude..
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:34, archived)
# hahaha, yeah!
Totally miss read it!

Turns out I'm in the never heard of it camp then.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:36, archived)
# It's like Friends, but the main characters are post-grad science geeks / sci-fi & comic book nerds
except for the girl next door, who's a waitress.

You can imagine the fun they have, eh.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:43, archived)
# I like toast.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:23, archived)
# Rather that than a ghost
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:27, archived)
# Unless it's the river kind, I like them the most
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:27, archived)
# I'm with Tribs
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:25, archived)
# I hope not, I'm in the bathroom
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:27, archived)
# *shuts ceiling flap stealthily*
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:31, archived)
# "Ceiling Nibus is watching you use the bathroom"
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:34, archived)
# Is that one with darlene's boyfriend from Roseanne?
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:57, archived)
# yes it is
and the bastard still looks young
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 12:44, archived)
# it is clean, safe and sustainable
Its just that people are shitting themselves over the current crisis in fukushima, yet forgetting how many years it has been providing them with energy.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 10:56, archived)
# I'm not getting into this...
The power source yes, potentially, all of the above. The industry in charge of it on the other hand...

*slowly backs away*
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 10:58, archived)
# True enough about the industry.
I'd make them all not-for-profit. Nuclear is definitely the way to go, though. By that, I don't necessarily just mean fission. With any luck, the polywell 'wiffleball' will soon be tested further to see if it can be used for large-scale energy production. That would kick some serious ass.
In the meantime, a switch to thorium-based fission would get rid of much of the cost and also massively reduce the waste produced from current U/Pu reactors.
I love science, me.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:10, archived)
# *slowly backs away*
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:12, archived)
# nice ideal yes but trouble is..."not for profit" will never be
pretty obvious
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:15, archived)
# theyre saying the same things about fusion now as they did about fission in the 50s
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:16, archived)
# That's what the scientists said!
/ac
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:19, archived)
# Problem with thorium
You can't make nuclear weapons from the byproducts. So until governments figure out "Hey! Our need for energy is greater than our need to blow the crap out of each other!" we're stuck.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:26, archived)
# I'm thinking of building my own atomic super-reactor
which will involve hanging a potato inside a cardboard box and filling it with wasps
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:33, archived)
# *narrows eyes*

(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:37, archived)
# No it isn't
Nuclear is prohibitively expensive once you factor in the decommisioning which costs several billion pounds and takes at least 30 years.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:55, archived)
# ^
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:59, archived)
# And yet people keep building them.
Funny that. Places like Japan they make sense as there's no significant coal or gas resources to exploit.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 12:52, archived)
# Yeah the not for profit part is bloody unlikely.
The rest is all geek to me.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 18:49, archived)
# ^^
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:10, archived)
# been to chernobyl lately?

(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:13, archived)
# I heard the Mk II Comets used to crash.
All airliners are unsafe.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:16, archived)
# last time I checked
planes didn't feature the ability to make whole swathes of land uninhabitable for hundreds of years and spread poisonous material around the globe
and didn't have to be put underground for eons after use
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:21, archived)
# They do after I've used their toilets
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:30, archived)
# "Jesus Christ, boy! What did you eat?"
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:31, archived)
# Nor did Chernobyl.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:34, archived)
# explain
Maybe I've exaggerated a bit in terms of duration (I didn't look up details on half-life periods of the radioactive materials used there just now), but I'm strictly against a technology which can seriously fuck up a country's economy and ecosystem when blowing up, even if the chance for it doing so is pretty low (not speaking of the problems with long-term storage and the limited uranium supply). I just don't understand why nuclear reactors are still being built and promoted when there's lots of alternative technologies readily available which can as well supply the required amount of power.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:49, archived)
# Ever been to Greenham Common?
A USAF bomber crashed there and its nuclear weapon burnt up, thus achieving (on a smaller scale) what you mention.
However, what I was saying is that Chernobyl was a piss-poor design managed in an even more piss-poor fasion. It wasn't so much the design of the plant, but the idiots running it.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:39, archived)
# I don't care how low the chances to fail are for a well-built reactor maintained by a well-trained crew
accidents tend to happen nonetheless, and I'd prefer for a coal-fired plant to burn to the ground or a windmill to crash down opposed to a nuclear catastrophe any day
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:55, archived)
# Considerably worse is allowed to happen.
Look at Bhopal - how many died, but we still have factories making the same stuff with far less safety features than a reactor. The contamination there will last a lot longer than the radiation around Chernobyl.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 12:52, archived)
# I don't think "well, at least he's not as bad as Hitler" counts as an argument
Of course stuff like that should be illegal too. But this discussion is about the need to maintain fission as an energy source.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 13:30, archived)
# bet it won't
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 13:32, archived)
# This is all very well until you want to charge your phone or watch telly and you can't
because you don't have a regular source of power because you've run out of coal and it's not windy enough for the windmill/night so the solar cells aren't working.

If you want to live into the next century in the way you have become accustomed to, you will need nuclear power.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 12:59, archived)
# I'm not proposing to shut off all nuclear reactors immediately
but to make an effort in exploiting any renewable resource we can in order to do so as soon as possible. The technology for fully replacing nuclear power is already there. Let's build offshore wind parks, solar farms and pump storages instead of planning new / extending the lifespan of old nuclear plants!

Also, as a response to your arguments: we've already reached the peak of uranium mining; at this rate, we'll run out of uranium faster than out of coal. And recent studies show that nuclear plants aren't flexible enough for the needs of the modern electricity market. You can't just power them up or down, it takes days. It'd be far more effective to use fast-switchable windmills and power storages (there's still plenty of room in Scandinavia for some high-lying new lakes).
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 13:23, archived)
# Tidal power is consistent
Some days it might not be as windy as others. That's why they're building turbines at sea. But you don't get days when there is no tide.

Drax is a coal fired power station, and produces almost 4GW, generating 7% of the supply. It can consume up to 9 million tons of coal per year.

The proposed Severn Barrage will generate more than double the power and requires no fuel whatsoever. Put one across all the major estuaries.

Plus then there are domestic waste incinerators providing NIMBYs let them get built instead of complaining about the toxins that are actually filtered. All of the incinerators in the country combined release less toxins per year than one single bonfire on Nov 5th. Plus it would get shut of a lot of landfill.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 13:33, archived)
# one of many other forms of renewable energy we could harness, yes.
And then there's geothermal energy, for example. Other technologies are in development right now e.g. salinity gradient power. We could fully replace fission by the 2020s if we just decided that we want to.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 13:43, archived)
# Then there's
micro-generation. Your own windmill, solar panels etc. Not viable in built up areas, but still an option. It's still a bit expensive for now, but it'll come down in price. However, then the government will introduce a domestic generation duty.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 13:54, archived)
# It makes sense in the UK at any rate, what with us being an island and all.
I think there's an island in the highlands that's powered by tidal.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 13:46, archived)
# There's one in France
that's been on the go almost 50 years, and generates 600GWh per year.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 13:51, archived)
# I thought the brief said OLD TIME adverts, not current ones
/political-industrial denial blog
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:03, archived)
[challenge entry] I'll just leave this here
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:14, archived)
# utter brilliance
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:16, archived)
# Dear Sir,
I would like to enquire about your 'crocus-free liaisons with cheap strumpets'.
Furthermore, I would be obliged if you could forward your organisation's catalogue forthwith.
Please find enclosed one stamped, addressed stomach-pump.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:22, archived)
# He shall be afeared no longer
provided he went to VexSavers.
(, Thu 31 Mar 2011, 11:24, archived)