Trotterdam wrote:Candlewhisper Archive wrote:A reasonable approach would probably include such things as recycling and biofuel (as opposed to just trash burning). However, it might lose some of its charm by becoming too rational. I guess that's a discussion to be had if and when we get to rewriting old issues.
I would have considered the trash burning to be rational, if there were a little better control on emissions. I actually chose it a few times, but stopped because I didn't like the stats. I generally assumed that the space shuttle option would give the stats I wanted (which, until recently, it apparently did) but always refused to pick it as a matter of principle.
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Political freedoms shrink a little with a code of conduct.
No actual policy code is changed by this option, so I presume technical team coded that "policy" banner to be based off political freedoms.
:(
Does that mean it's possible to select an option that does explicitly say to ban freedom of press, and still fail to get the policy because your political freedom was too high to begin with? (Or vice versa, choose to protect freedom of press but because your political freedom was so low it doesn't rise enough to lose the policy.)
I thought that we must have a proper freedom-of-press flag, since it factors heavily into the [@@CAPITAL@@gate] narrative (the chain starts out assuming that you do, gives you an option to abolish it, and remembers whether you did or not when deciding which options to present in the last issue).
Azurius wrote:Maybe one could add some weird-mad scientist option to make it keep its charm? I.e. like transmutation, opting to transmutate trash chemically into desired elements? Obviously this too would be costly, limited(as transmutation is a very hard to do and delicate process, nonetheless possible if you google it).
If by "limited" you mean "a few atoms at a time". Turning macroscopic quantities of lead into gold remains completely impossible.
How do you want to controll emissions here...? Besides even if it weren´t for them it takes no genuis to see that burning all sorts of toxic waste and releasing it into the atmosphere does no good for peoples health. Other then that you also run into the problem that complex chemical reactions take place when you just burn a pile of lump, forming new partially totally unknown chemical compounds that could potencially cause far more harm and are far more toxic.
To transmutation... I recommend the wikipedia article on that, look it up. Transmutation is not science fiction anymore but actually hard science.
And yes, science actually managed to do what alchemy tried to for centuries: Actually transmutate substances into gold. Well not lead, but it is currently possible with 2 elements: Mercury and platinum.
Well the former is stupid... why would you want to transmutate the more rare and expensive platinum into the less rare gold? Lol. The former makes more sense, however the problem with that is: First of all only 20% of mercury actually turns into gold, the rest turns into other, for us useless, chemical elements. The second problem is that it is a very delicate and an expensive process, costing more then currently mining gold. So it makes no sense economically.
Transmutation itself is a very complex procedure. To break it down easily to understand: You take an heavier chemical element, apply very delicately controlled radiation or other forces to it to achieve electrones kicking out of said element in a highly controlled manner, to turn it into a lighter and desired element, well most of it, of course the rest will turn into other lighter elements. I guess that is enough to show how complex and delicate this process is. Nonetheless it is possible and science actually succeeded in doing it and not only with gold.
Anyway, right now it is economically not feasible as this technology is in its baby steps and simply costs more then raw exploitation of raw ressources. However it will definitely become ever more interesting in the future.