Slashdot Mirror
Only 10-20 Billion Years To Go
cinorhc writes "An article at Space Flight Now reports on a study of some Stanford researchers that say the universe will collapse in on itself in a mere 10-20 billion years, resulting in "the Big Crunch". That puts us in the middle of the uni's life cycle. The generally accepted theory as of now is the universe will expand forever, leaving isolated galaxies all alone in a nearly infinite sea of darkness. If these guys are right, we should see galaxies blue shift any day now. I personally prefer a universe that will collapse in on itself and then re-Big Bang so to speak, circle of life on a grand scale."
Tuvok said that Voyager could not withstand the creation of the universe.
What we see depends on mainly what we look for. -- John Lubbock Now search for that bug slave!
damn moderator didn't want to face reality.
There are several reasons a person might just hurt you
a, they see you as a threat to their survival
b, you have threatened their survival
c, you fundimentally disagree with them
d, you have done severe damage to them.
e, you look weak or vulnerable
Think not of the terrorists, but of the african kid who is trying to survive.
But what does it matter? we will all die in 100 years anyways, and the universe as we know it will end in 10 billion, so lets be existentialists and enjoy the moment.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Dresden and Hiroshima being two more consequences to being an asshole...
For the record, the bombing of Dresden was an experiment. Dresden had escaped being bombed up until a few months before Germany's defeat. It didn't have any military targets. It hadn't been considered a military threat. Bombing it didn't have enough military value.
Bombing military bases is considered "counterforce", because the base has weapons that can be used against you. Bombing military barracks is considered "counterforce", because it houses soldiers who could fight against your soldiers. Bombing factories that produced strategically important supplies is similarly "counterforce". Allied strategic bombing during World War II wasn't very accurate. Jacob Bronowski, whose war work was to analyze how successful strategic bombing was, said the average ww2 bomb had a 50% chance of landing within five miles of its target.
So, is bombing the apartment buildings around a strategically important factory "counterforce" or "countervalue"?
Whatever. Dresden didn't qualify. IMO Dresden was terrorism writ large. IMO Dresden was a war crime.
So Dresden provided a perfect experimental subject to answer the question "what happens when you dump enough incendiary bombs to generate a firestorm in a intact city?"
If a fire is large enough, and hot enough, the updraft it generates can be so strong that it causes hurricane force winds to rush towards it, from all directions. Even people in deep bomb shelters in Dresden died. The firestorm consumed all the oxygen, and they suffocated.
The allies had already firestormed Hamburg. But Hamburg had already been bombed up during more conventional attacks. Its streets had been torn up. Fire mains probably required repair. Fire engines and fire stations were damaged or destroyed. So it wasn't a sufficient test of how a city with an intact fire-fighting infrastructure would survive a firestorm.
Because Dresden hadn't been bombed it was more like a peacetime city. Because Dresden hadn't been bombed, bombing it could provide strategic planners with clues as to how to fight world war three. It could provide strategic planners with clues as to how damaging a sneak attack with atomic weapons could prove, after the war was over.
Tokyo too was firestormed.
I believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had escaped attack up until the atomic bombs were dropped on them.
So, remind me, who were the assholes in these cases again?
Oooh oooh, let me buzz in!
I believe the assholes were the ones who won the war. Thank you, thank you.