So I went to the gym today. I had not been in a week due to grandma getting sick in the middle of the night last week and me being in atl this weekend. I did a couple of miles on the exercycle and 80 crunches on the crunch machine with 70lbs tension. I may pay for the crunches in the morning.
So I had an interesting discussion last night with my grandfather at dinner concerning global warming and nuclear power. This led me to an see what other people think on the subject. Now there is very little doubt at this point that the data definitely points to global warming is occurring. Now there may be some debate as to whether it is caused by normal cycles of climate for the planet or is it caused by human industrial byproducts. Lets assume it is caused by humans. A sizable portion of the greenhouse gases in the world is from our power generation in coal burning power plants. This could easily be replaced by switching to nuclear power. Now there are other alternatives but each of them have large obstacles. Wind power, so far is of an efficiency that would make it impractical to have fields large enough to produce enough power for everyone who wants and needs it. Solar power despite having a better efficiency still is only producing during the day and it also not as great a power output as nuclear power. Hydroelectric makes a huge ecological impact by reshaping the water ways but it has good efficiency, but there are only so many rivers you can plug up. So Nuclear power is the only mature technology that could produce as efficiently or even more so than coal power that is available to us now. Which would you prefer, nuclear power or greenhouse gases? Now I tend to support Nuclear power. It is a technology that has not finished cooking perhaps but it is if done correctly it is actually quite safe. there is still debate as to whether 3mile island caused more than a couple of fatalities and it was about as bad as american nuclear power plans can get. Chernobyl was bad. Real bad. But it was also the result of an outdated design and a deliberate experiment in trying things outside the safety margins. There are some research lines to actually reduce the waste to almost nothing by extracting and reprocessing the usable isotopes and re burning them in the reactor. I am interested in what other people seem to think on this though.
So there is an interesting discussion I came across in a podcast and i thought i would run it past my Laping homies. Now the vast majority of us play in long running campaigns. I was wondering if any of you had any thoughts on one shots. There is a school of thought that says an inclosed single event story can be more effective. While you may not get as involved in your characters the story can be very compelling if it has a well defined begining and end is very structured. I can honestly say some of my more memoriable larp moments came from one shot convention games. I still have people who talk to me about Uncle Vito and that was years ago. I was wondering what yall thought though. With all the continueing Larps people play, how many of you are actually fans of One Shot games.