Disclaimer: I'm not a geologist, but I watched one on South Park.
"Yeah, Frank? It's uh, Randy. Uh-huh... Good. Yeah, listen, the, uh, the little needle's moving... Yeah, it's going back and forth really fast. What does that mean?"
I'll never get tired of people pretending that terrorists will one day use an atomic bomb. This idea is older than Back to the Future I, and sounds like it will never get old. Pure FUD tho.
You could tell from the seismograph. The main thing that makes that an earthquake can be told from an underground nuclear explosion is the "attack" in the seismograph. With a regular earthquake, the maximum intensity is reached in the middle of the seism, meaning the intensity increases progressively, and decreases progressively. For a nuclear explosion, it goes straight from a flat line to the maximum intensity, and then decresses progressively.
From the provided seismograph, I'd say it looks pretty much like a nuclear explosion, but IANAG and it's not like I look at seismographes everyday anyways.
Nukes are the most useless weapon any country can have, simply because you can't use them
Very true, however I don't think they are uselss. It would be like saying that a gun without bullets in is completly useless. It's not because you can still point it at people and make then think you're gonna shoot. I'm pretty sure that some conflicts such as invasions have been avoided thanks to dissuasion from nuclear weapons. After all, would Russian and American troops have looked at each other in the eyes in Berlin in the 1960's if it weren't for nuclear weapons?
Anyways I'm pretty sure that it explains why terrorism has been fashionable lately, because you just can't as a country attack the UK or the USA, because if you do you'll get nuked, so your only solution is to attack not as a country but as an independant group, in other words a terrorist group.
This being said, I think it's fine that Iran and North Korea develop nuclear weapons, because as you said nobody's gonna use them anyways, and it guarantees that they -particularly Iran- won't get invaded or attacked, because unlike what you can hear sometimes, you do not attack a country that actually has weapons of mass destruction.
ha. ha. loser, that was weak. We're not even talking about a geological phenomena. Scenarios of terraforming are usually all about hundreds of thousands of years.
It's not like much electricity comes from burning oil or derivatives
Riiight, except that 80.2% of China's production of electricity and 71.4% of the USA's production of electricity is coming from fossil fuels, and that for the whole world 65.1% of electricity is produced from fossil fuels.
You're right, it's not that much, it's only two thirds.
so the 'core' of the planet died several thousand of years ago
lol, I love how people have such an aweful representation of geological scales. Like this old lady who said that where she lived ocean was there a few hundred of years ago when it was really in the Jurassic (about 180 million years ago according to my geological map of France). The core of the planet died most likely (i didn't check) a few hundred million years ago, or even a few billion years ago.
so there is no hope of having a planet with any atmosphere
I didn't get that, what does the atmosphere have to do with volcanic activities or the planet's core? Mars already has and atmosphere by the way, although it's substentially thiner than ours, if we wanted to make it more earth-like we could, but it would take hundreds of years.
we'll cope with whatever comes our way, anyway. We always have; we always will.
No we haven't. The sixth extinction has started a few centuries ago and there's hardly anything we've done to cope with that, and more and more species are disappearing and there's hardly anything we can do to it. And whatever we do now we're in for a ride to the land of troubles, because as the unfreezing of permafrost and the acidification of the ocean due to its higher concentration in carbon release gigatons of CO2, these new gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere contribute to the very unfreezing of permafrost and acidification of oceans, in other words even if we totally stopped emiting CO2 or methane if you like, the global warming would go on on its own.
You see what we gotta cope with is not simply the direct warming effect due to our emissions, what we rather have to cope with is our environment's kind of self-destruction process
just let a major volcano erupt and you'll see a temperature swing that'll get your attention
Oh man how I love to prove people wrong. Volcanoes actually cool down the atmosphere because of the aerosols they spray in the air. That's because of a volcanic eruption that we had a year without a summer
Or let methane generation get completely out of hand, that'll put CO2 in perspective for you.
As much as methane can have a global warming effect, I think there's quite a difference between the volume of CO2 released and the volume of methane, both naturally and from our emissions, which makes CO2 a more important protagonist.
Myspace is already past the height of its popularity, its just coasting on momentum which will run out eventually
Can you please back that claim with.. anything? All I see is the ever increasing number of members on myspace, and now with the new multilangual versions of myspace it can only get worse. For example, hardly anyone knows MySpace in France, yet.. because so far it was all in english, but now the french section was launched just a few weeks ago..
While NUDITY and/or PORNOGRAPHY may be bad in the Middle East, the US is virtually the only place where simple NUDITY may be considered as PORNOGRAPHY.
Why the hell do you think they ban nudity? It's because they consider nudity sexual.
Wait, here we're not talking about being naked but nudity depictions being considered pornography. My point is, what the hell does anyone know about what people in Iran for example think about for example artistic nude?
Come on, the video had no sound, and as the first link points out, "lip readers had been unable to decipher what the men were saying", so that's hardly proving anything, unless I missed something. I didn't pay much attention to that whole story because I'm getting more and more fed up with "terrism" but anyways, how do we even know that these two guys participated to the 9/11, and how do we even know what they precisely did? (this is not a rethorical question, i'm really asking, and the answer shall not be a mere speculation).
Oh and the other thing that I was wondering is how could we tell whether it was filmed on the 1st of august rather than on the 8th of january?
haha I know but look at what I said more closely : "Basically, girls are supposed to have "fun" out of their nipples, some even can orgasm just from having it stimulated, as men are not supposed to feel anything in their nipples."
FTFA : Black laid out the case, consisting of communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States.
There's one thing that disturbs me with that whole thing, it's who we mix together al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The reason why I am saying this is that al-Qaeda is quite a huge, fuzzy, hardly hierarchised organisation, that Osama bin Laden denied having anything to do with the attacks (although his (forged?) videos claim the opposite), the the sentence I quoted talks about the likelihood of an al Qaeda attack, and that we hardly know who did the attacks anyways, if it weren't for the intact passports of still alive supposed terrorists (as we only found 1 out of 8 of the planes black boxes).
My point is that I don't see how bin Laden is linked to these pre-9/11 warnings, if I didn't misread the article it seems to me that bin Laden and al Qaeda are just being mixes together, as if anything so-called al Qaeda members did was decided by bin Laden.
Goddamn wtf's wrong with all you people, it's all about what nudity is considered to be, not how alright nudity is, damnit. Why you guys always gotta point out that in the USA it's so less worse than in the Middle East? By lack of something worse than you to compare yourself to?
Au contraire, we share that distinction with a number of other countries that have their governments controlled by strong fundamentalist religious groups.
You are the third person I see replying to the GP by simply comparing the USA to such countries. Why are americans always comparing themselves with countries they're at war with? Oh well that may have to do with americans hardly knowing anything about countries they're not at war with;-) but anyways, in this very topic, why are you guys even talking about these countries? Like I already told the two other persons who made such a comment, here we are talking about what nudity is considered to be, not how alright it is considered to be. When have you ever heard of people from such countries considering nudity to be pornography? I haven't, ever.
I guess it was just one more of these "Maybe we're bad, but we're so much better then teh terrists!!1" posts.
I think it has to do with the erogenousity (or something of this kind) of the female nipple, and/or maybe lactation. Basically, girls are supposed to have "fun" out of their nipples, some even can orgasm just from having it stimulated, as men are not supposed to feel anything in their nipples.
The funny thing tho is how children are not supposed to see boobs (including nipples), as if it could shock them, as babies suck nipples and grab their mother's boob.
That's actually not true. In other theocracies it's often the same or even worse.
Wait a minute, where on earth have you heard that under such regimes people consider that nudity is pornography? Where? As I told some other poster, we're not talking about how well/bad nudity is received, but rather what it is considered to be, in nature. It's not because you force women to hide themselves that you consider that the depiction of nudity is pornography. Not that I'm saying that in such countries people don't consider nuidty to be pornography, but I yet have to hear anyone from such a country claiming such a thing, as you can hear all the time americans considered that nudity is porn. When I think about it I even remember an american saying that the picture of a naked baby right next to a banner for a soft porn site made it turn into child porn, heh. A child + porn = child porn!;-)
I knew foreigners were weird, but you don't even take your clothes off to do it?
lol, that's just like when I try to make some smart ass remark but then I realize that I didn't get it right and that my remark would only make me sound dumb. Basically what you said is just as if the GP had said "Oregon is in the USA" and that you replied, "So the USA are in Oregon?".
The GP says that nudity is considered pornography in the USA, not that pornography consists in nudity.
Really? so it's 100% ok for women to go naken or barely clothed in muslim countries?
-1, Offtopic. The GP is talking about nudity being considered pornography, not about the alrightness of being naked. So to use your idea, do people in muslim countries consider that pictures of naked people are pornography? I don't know, you most likely don't know and nobody cares anyways.
If anything aliens would be getting pissed off with being inundated with out crap 24/7...
Why do some people have such a though time putting themselves in the place of the hypothetical aliens. Even among the scientists, some think that the aliens know about us but find us not evolved enough to be interesting to meet. Come on, if we received a broadcast from aliens, even if the broadcasted us their equivalent of Inspector Derrick, we'd be happy as fuck, just to find out that there's some other sort of life out there. But go figure why, to alot of people the hypothetical aliens would be smarter than us, much more advanced technologically than us, they would know about other aliens, they would even know about us and they would snob us and even wanna destroy us just so they can have our planet.
Between gods and superior aliens, it seems that we humans can hardly even consider the idea that we may be the most "sophisticated" (for a lack of a more accurate term) type of beings out there.
Slashdot Mirror
Disclaimer: I'm not a geologist, but I watched one on South Park.
"Yeah, Frank? It's uh, Randy. Uh-huh... Good. Yeah, listen, the, uh, the little needle's moving... Yeah, it's going back and forth really fast. What does that mean?"
-1, FUD
I'll never get tired of people pretending that terrorists will one day use an atomic bomb. This idea is older than Back to the Future I, and sounds like it will never get old. Pure FUD tho.
does Alaska now have the bomb too?!
You could tell from the seismograph. The main thing that makes that an earthquake can be told from an underground nuclear explosion is the "attack" in the seismograph. With a regular earthquake, the maximum intensity is reached in the middle of the seism, meaning the intensity increases progressively, and decreases progressively. For a nuclear explosion, it goes straight from a flat line to the maximum intensity, and then decresses progressively.
From the provided seismograph, I'd say it looks pretty much like a nuclear explosion, but IANAG and it's not like I look at seismographes everyday anyways.
Nukes are the most useless weapon any country can have, simply because you can't use them
Very true, however I don't think they are uselss. It would be like saying that a gun without bullets in is completly useless. It's not because you can still point it at people and make then think you're gonna shoot. I'm pretty sure that some conflicts such as invasions have been avoided thanks to dissuasion from nuclear weapons. After all, would Russian and American troops have looked at each other in the eyes in Berlin in the 1960's if it weren't for nuclear weapons?
Anyways I'm pretty sure that it explains why terrorism has been fashionable lately, because you just can't as a country attack the UK or the USA, because if you do you'll get nuked, so your only solution is to attack not as a country but as an independant group, in other words a terrorist group.
This being said, I think it's fine that Iran and North Korea develop nuclear weapons, because as you said nobody's gonna use them anyways, and it guarantees that they -particularly Iran- won't get invaded or attacked, because unlike what you can hear sometimes, you do not attack a country that actually has weapons of mass destruction.
coal is not oil, dumbass.
I know lol, but tell it to the two guys who modded me up.
which geologic time scale are you using here?
ha. ha. loser, that was weak. We're not even talking about a geological phenomena. Scenarios of terraforming are usually all about hundreds of thousands of years.
It's not like much electricity comes from burning oil or derivatives
Riiight, except that 80.2% of China's production of electricity and 71.4% of the USA's production of electricity is coming from fossil fuels, and that for the whole world 65.1% of electricity is produced from fossil fuels.
You're right, it's not that much, it's only two thirds.
so the 'core' of the planet died several thousand of years ago
lol, I love how people have such an aweful representation of geological scales. Like this old lady who said that where she lived ocean was there a few hundred of years ago when it was really in the Jurassic (about 180 million years ago according to my geological map of France). The core of the planet died most likely (i didn't check) a few hundred million years ago, or even a few billion years ago.
so there is no hope of having a planet with any atmosphere
I didn't get that, what does the atmosphere have to do with volcanic activities or the planet's core? Mars already has and atmosphere by the way, although it's substentially thiner than ours, if we wanted to make it more earth-like we could, but it would take hundreds of years.
we'll cope with whatever comes our way, anyway. We always have; we always will.
No we haven't. The sixth extinction has started a few centuries ago and there's hardly anything we've done to cope with that, and more and more species are disappearing and there's hardly anything we can do to it. And whatever we do now we're in for a ride to the land of troubles, because as the unfreezing of permafrost and the acidification of the ocean due to its higher concentration in carbon release gigatons of CO2, these new gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere contribute to the very unfreezing of permafrost and acidification of oceans, in other words even if we totally stopped emiting CO2 or methane if you like, the global warming would go on on its own.
You see what we gotta cope with is not simply the direct warming effect due to our emissions, what we rather have to cope with is our environment's kind of self-destruction process
just let a major volcano erupt and you'll see a temperature swing that'll get your attention
Oh man how I love to prove people wrong. Volcanoes actually cool down the atmosphere because of the aerosols they spray in the air. That's because of a volcanic eruption that we had a year without a summer
Or let methane generation get completely out of hand, that'll put CO2 in perspective for you.
As much as methane can have a global warming effect, I think there's quite a difference between the volume of CO2 released and the volume of methane, both naturally and from our emissions, which makes CO2 a more important protagonist.
Indeed. Wasn't George Orwell English?
More relevently, 1984 took place in London aka CCTV City.
What we really want to know is how many of them are 99 or above.
Myspace is already past the height of its popularity, its just coasting on momentum which will run out eventually
Can you please back that claim with.. anything? All I see is the ever increasing number of members on myspace, and now with the new multilangual versions of myspace it can only get worse. For example, hardly anyone knows MySpace in France, yet.. because so far it was all in english, but now the french section was launched just a few weeks ago..
While NUDITY and/or PORNOGRAPHY may be bad in the Middle East, the US is virtually the only place where simple NUDITY may be considered as PORNOGRAPHY.
I feel understood! :-)
Why the hell do you think they ban nudity? It's because they consider nudity sexual.
Wait, here we're not talking about being naked but nudity depictions being considered pornography. My point is, what the hell does anyone know about what people in Iran for example think about for example artistic nude?
And by the way, guys can get breast cancer too
Yup, just like Ryan O'Reily
Come on, the video had no sound, and as the first link points out, "lip readers had been unable to decipher what the men were saying", so that's hardly proving anything, unless I missed something. I didn't pay much attention to that whole story because I'm getting more and more fed up with "terrism" but anyways, how do we even know that these two guys participated to the 9/11, and how do we even know what they precisely did? (this is not a rethorical question, i'm really asking, and the answer shall not be a mere speculation).
Oh and the other thing that I was wondering is how could we tell whether it was filmed on the 1st of august rather than on the 8th of january?
they definitely are erogenous for men too.
haha I know but look at what I said more closely : "Basically, girls are supposed to have "fun" out of their nipples, some even can orgasm just from having it stimulated, as men are not supposed to feel anything in their nipples."
FTFA : Black laid out the case, consisting of communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States.
There's one thing that disturbs me with that whole thing, it's who we mix together al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The reason why I am saying this is that al-Qaeda is quite a huge, fuzzy, hardly hierarchised organisation, that Osama bin Laden denied having anything to do with the attacks (although his (forged?) videos claim the opposite), the the sentence I quoted talks about the likelihood of an al Qaeda attack, and that we hardly know who did the attacks anyways, if it weren't for the intact passports of still alive supposed terrorists (as we only found 1 out of 8 of the planes black boxes).
My point is that I don't see how bin Laden is linked to these pre-9/11 warnings, if I didn't misread the article it seems to me that bin Laden and al Qaeda are just being mixes together, as if anything so-called al Qaeda members did was decided by bin Laden.
You've obviously never been to the Middle East.
Goddamn wtf's wrong with all you people, it's all about what nudity is considered to be, not how alright nudity is, damnit. Why you guys always gotta point out that in the USA it's so less worse than in the Middle East? By lack of something worse than you to compare yourself to?
Au contraire, we share that distinction with a number of other countries that have their governments controlled by strong fundamentalist religious groups.
You are the third person I see replying to the GP by simply comparing the USA to such countries. Why are americans always comparing themselves with countries they're at war with? Oh well that may have to do with americans hardly knowing anything about countries they're not at war with ;-) but anyways, in this very topic, why are you guys even talking about these countries? Like I already told the two other persons who made such a comment, here we are talking about what nudity is considered to be, not how alright it is considered to be. When have you ever heard of people from such countries considering nudity to be pornography? I haven't, ever.
I guess it was just one more of these "Maybe we're bad, but we're so much better then teh terrists!!1" posts.
I think it has to do with the erogenousity (or something of this kind) of the female nipple, and/or maybe lactation. Basically, girls are supposed to have "fun" out of their nipples, some even can orgasm just from having it stimulated, as men are not supposed to feel anything in their nipples.
The funny thing tho is how children are not supposed to see boobs (including nipples), as if it could shock them, as babies suck nipples and grab their mother's boob.
That's actually not true. In other theocracies it's often the same or even worse.
Wait a minute, where on earth have you heard that under such regimes people consider that nudity is pornography? Where? As I told some other poster, we're not talking about how well/bad nudity is received, but rather what it is considered to be, in nature. It's not because you force women to hide themselves that you consider that the depiction of nudity is pornography. Not that I'm saying that in such countries people don't consider nuidty to be pornography, but I yet have to hear anyone from such a country claiming such a thing, as you can hear all the time americans considered that nudity is porn. When I think about it I even remember an american saying that the picture of a naked baby right next to a banner for a soft porn site made it turn into child porn, heh. A child + porn = child porn! ;-)
PS : oh crap, you got modded up for that? lol
I knew foreigners were weird, but you don't even take your clothes off to do it?
lol, that's just like when I try to make some smart ass remark but then I realize that I didn't get it right and that my remark would only make me sound dumb. Basically what you said is just as if the GP had said "Oregon is in the USA" and that you replied, "So the USA are in Oregon?".
The GP says that nudity is considered pornography in the USA, not that pornography consists in nudity.
Really? so it's 100% ok for women to go naken or barely clothed in muslim countries?
-1, Offtopic. The GP is talking about nudity being considered pornography, not about the alrightness of being naked. So to use your idea, do people in muslim countries consider that pictures of naked people are pornography? I don't know, you most likely don't know and nobody cares anyways.
If anything aliens would be getting pissed off with being inundated with out crap 24/7...
Why do some people have such a though time putting themselves in the place of the hypothetical aliens. Even among the scientists, some think that the aliens know about us but find us not evolved enough to be interesting to meet. Come on, if we received a broadcast from aliens, even if the broadcasted us their equivalent of Inspector Derrick, we'd be happy as fuck, just to find out that there's some other sort of life out there. But go figure why, to alot of people the hypothetical aliens would be smarter than us, much more advanced technologically than us, they would know about other aliens, they would even know about us and they would snob us and even wanna destroy us just so they can have our planet.
Between gods and superior aliens, it seems that we humans can hardly even consider the idea that we may be the most "sophisticated" (for a lack of a more accurate term) type of beings out there.