The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Er, it's a question, you don't need me to explain it you retards.
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
> Tphi wrote:
> Of course.
>
> We just need some fools who can get their hands on a rather big
> atomic
> bomb.
>
> Rather implausible, even multiple strikes all over the globe would not
> kill everything and a situation where every nuclear capable country
> hits each other and every other nation would be bizar to say the
> least...
>
> The dinosaurs survived a massive disaster, by evolving - because they
> didnt have the technology to do otherwise. We do.
>
> Anyway, we'll never be extinct - 1969 assured that. The first
> reachings out to space were important for that reason if no other.
> With the ISS under construction, and planned missions to Mars in early
> stages, along with other technologies, you may see off world colonies
> in our lifetimes, certainly in the next 100 years.
>
> ~~Belldandy~~
but its very possible that America faked the landing on the moon.
> Tphi wrote:
> Of course.
>
> We just need some fools who can get their hands on a rather big
> atomic
> bomb.
>
> Rather implausible, even multiple strikes all over the globe would not
> kill everything and a situation where every nuclear capable country
> hits each other and every other nation would be bizar to say the
> least...
>
> The dinosaurs survived a massive disaster, by evolving - because they
> didnt have the technology to do otherwise. We do.
>
> Anyway, we'll never be extinct - 1969 assured that. The first
> reachings out to space were important for that reason if no other.
> With the ISS under construction, and planned missions to Mars in early
> stages, along with other technologies, you may see off world colonies
> in our lifetimes, certainly in the next 100 years.
>
> ~~Belldandy~~
but its very possible that America faked the landing on the moon.
Dimebag wrote:
> The theory of greenhouse gases being linked to the greenhouse effect
> and global warming has not actually been proved. While gases breaking
> down the Ozone layer exist the link between the breaking down of the
> ozone layer and the overall warming of the earth is just a theory.
> The earth goes through cycles of warmer temperatures and colder
> temperatures ie. Ice ages and inter glacial period. The state of the
> earth at the moment could just be one of those inter glacial periods
> and in a few thousand years the earth may be plunged into an ice age
> again. You have to look at the whole picture, over millions and
> millions of years, to see that a few thousand years do not really make
> a differece.
Get him, he works for Esso!
> The theory of greenhouse gases being linked to the greenhouse effect
> and global warming has not actually been proved. While gases breaking
> down the Ozone layer exist the link between the breaking down of the
> ozone layer and the overall warming of the earth is just a theory.
> The earth goes through cycles of warmer temperatures and colder
> temperatures ie. Ice ages and inter glacial period. The state of the
> earth at the moment could just be one of those inter glacial periods
> and in a few thousand years the earth may be plunged into an ice age
> again. You have to look at the whole picture, over millions and
> millions of years, to see that a few thousand years do not really make
> a differece.
Get him, he works for Esso!
Back to original question:
I hope so.
Really, I do.
Not in a miserable, Sylvia Plath kind of way. I just think we've outlived our usefulness and the sooner we slide into the tar-pits, the better.
I hope so.
Really, I do.
Not in a miserable, Sylvia Plath kind of way. I just think we've outlived our usefulness and the sooner we slide into the tar-pits, the better.
cookie monster wrote:
> Are you considering the effect from the dust clouds? Multiple strikes
> all over the world with the nukes we have these days would be
> disasterous, these days your average nuke is some 100 times more
> powerful than those used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Yes - I know the old dust clouds stopping sunlight thing, even with that it is not as if we are entirely dependent on the sun for sustaining life now. Obviously, a massive strike would kill massive numbers of people, and some nations would cease to exist, but some people would survive.
Even so, theres still no real scenario when multiple strikes would happen.
And we have the fledgling Star Wars programme beginning to show signs of success. It isn't 100% there yet, but it will be eventually.
~~Belldandy~~
> Are you considering the effect from the dust clouds? Multiple strikes
> all over the world with the nukes we have these days would be
> disasterous, these days your average nuke is some 100 times more
> powerful than those used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Yes - I know the old dust clouds stopping sunlight thing, even with that it is not as if we are entirely dependent on the sun for sustaining life now. Obviously, a massive strike would kill massive numbers of people, and some nations would cease to exist, but some people would survive.
Even so, theres still no real scenario when multiple strikes would happen.
And we have the fledgling Star Wars programme beginning to show signs of success. It isn't 100% there yet, but it will be eventually.
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> Rather implausible, even multiple strikes all over the globe would not
> kill everything
Are you considering the effect from the dust clouds? Multiple strikes all over the world with the nukes we have these days would be disasterous, these days your average nuke is some 100 times more powerful than those used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> Rather implausible, even multiple strikes all over the globe would not
> kill everything
Are you considering the effect from the dust clouds? Multiple strikes all over the world with the nukes we have these days would be disasterous, these days your average nuke is some 100 times more powerful than those used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Protoss wrote:
> There are more than enough nuclear weapons on this planet to
> disentegrate the planet outright. If all weapons were let use then the
> whole planet would actually explode, Death Star style. Try escaping
> that.
America is supposed to possess two bombs that could both disntegrate the planet.
> There are more than enough nuclear weapons on this planet to
> disentegrate the planet outright. If all weapons were let use then the
> whole planet would actually explode, Death Star style. Try escaping
> that.
America is supposed to possess two bombs that could both disntegrate the planet.
Tphi wrote:
> Of course.
>
> We just need some fools who can get their hands on a rather big atomic
> bomb.
Rather implausible, even multiple strikes all over the globe would not kill everything and a situation where every nuclear capable country hits each other and every other nation would be bizar to say the least...
The dinosaurs survived a massive disaster, by evolving - because they didnt have the technology to do otherwise. We do.
Anyway, we'll never be extinct - 1969 assured that. The first reachings out to space were important for that reason if no other. With the ISS under construction, and planned missions to Mars in early stages, along with other technologies, you may see off world colonies in our lifetimes, certainly in the next 100 years.
~~Belldandy~~
> Of course.
>
> We just need some fools who can get their hands on a rather big atomic
> bomb.
Rather implausible, even multiple strikes all over the globe would not kill everything and a situation where every nuclear capable country hits each other and every other nation would be bizar to say the least...
The dinosaurs survived a massive disaster, by evolving - because they didnt have the technology to do otherwise. We do.
Anyway, we'll never be extinct - 1969 assured that. The first reachings out to space were important for that reason if no other. With the ISS under construction, and planned missions to Mars in early stages, along with other technologies, you may see off world colonies in our lifetimes, certainly in the next 100 years.
~~Belldandy~~
Dimebag wrote:
I suppose it is possible for a bomb to kill
> everyone on the earth but even earthquakes, Tsunamis, Volcanic
> eruptions and other tectonic related Hazards wouldnt reach everybody
> on the earth.
There are more than enough nuclear weapons on this planet to disentegrate the planet outright. If all weapons were let use then the whole planet would actually explode, Death Star style. Try escaping that.
I suppose it is possible for a bomb to kill
> everyone on the earth but even earthquakes, Tsunamis, Volcanic
> eruptions and other tectonic related Hazards wouldnt reach everybody
> on the earth.
There are more than enough nuclear weapons on this planet to disentegrate the planet outright. If all weapons were let use then the whole planet would actually explode, Death Star style. Try escaping that.
I agree its worrying, and we should do things to try and help the environment but being realistic none of us will really see any adverse effects from global warming. We will all be dead by the time the earth really begins to suffer.
You mean the glacial periods which scientists think are linked to orbital variations?
I'm familiar with them, but the issue there is that we appear to be warming up faster than we should. They happen in cycles of something like 100,000 years, and the total variation in temperatue isn't much more than about 20 degrees. That's .0002 degrees per year, on average.
Given that the average temperature of the Earth has gone up in excess of fifty times faster than that over the last two decades, it could be considered a little worrying? Especially since we only went up about half a degree in the 400 years prior to the 20th cwentury.
Admittedly there are inclines in temperature in the glacial cycle with a significantly higher gradient than the average, but if we're not going through an exceptionally steep part of it at the moment, things don't look good.
I'm familiar with them, but the issue there is that we appear to be warming up faster than we should. They happen in cycles of something like 100,000 years, and the total variation in temperatue isn't much more than about 20 degrees. That's .0002 degrees per year, on average.
Given that the average temperature of the Earth has gone up in excess of fifty times faster than that over the last two decades, it could be considered a little worrying? Especially since we only went up about half a degree in the 400 years prior to the 20th cwentury.
Admittedly there are inclines in temperature in the glacial cycle with a significantly higher gradient than the average, but if we're not going through an exceptionally steep part of it at the moment, things don't look good.
Page: