Moontanman

I agree, still a person and still the same person and i would do it.

Ok yodaP do something GOD like, rearrange all the planets so we have more than one habital planet in the solar system, cool down Venus and make it Earth like, do something dude!

Hydroelectric has lots of environmental problems, from release of greenhouse gasses to environmental disruption. Most environmentalists are looking to decrease our use of hydroelectric from damns.

As long as your uranium doesn't have to come from the ground as ore there is plenty left. Future civilizations will mine our old nuclear waste depositories for new fuel. I think we should make this as easy as possible and store the stuff in places where it can be removed easily.

So in Dave's universe gods are quite common? So is being able to create something God like behavior? Who created the computer technology in the first place? Who created Dave's universe?

I think the idea of a benevolent God or at least mono theistic type god is quite modern. At one time God was plural, Gods, and many of them were quite evil or mischievous and even destroyers instead of creators. First for Dave to be a God he would have to be supernatural but to us mere computer programs he would indeed be supernatural so yes Dave is a God. he has total control over everything can resurrect the dead (old programs) change reality to suit his whims and would appear to be both capable of time travel changing both the future and past and super luminal Then again, what are the people who make his computer? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Do something supernatural and you have my vote.

Yeah, toasty, you are correct one bomb will kill us all, no way to shield any one or anything, huge sheets of lead and concrete (or maybe 36 inches of soil) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_shelter Or maybe we are already dead, we detonated many nukes in the atmosphere before the nuclear test ban treaty. Toasty, yes nukes are bad, no they should not be used but there is a difference between knowing the danger and running around stepping and fetching like your ass is on fire and your head is catching. Nukes are defined as weapons of mass destruction, they are all dangerous and under the correct conditions and numbers they could all pretty much end civilization as we know it. If you want to learn about the effects of nuclear weapons i suggest you do some research instead of listening to all the anti nuke crazies out there. Would a nuclear strike be bad for everyone? Yes, no doubt but even a limited war between small powers would not kill us all, it would be bad, no doubt the effects would hurt us all. But it would not be world ending, I spent all of my growing up years in horrible dread of nuclear war, it took me many years to find out the old wives tales of nukes and radiation have real world connections but that most of them are gross exaggerations of what would really happen. I think it's great the the US has decided not use nukes to automatically attack if we are attacked by WMD's. But your constant fear mongering of how world ending the use of any nuclear weapons would be is simply not true. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedToasty, i owe you an apology, this thread has gone so far off topic I'm not sure what it was we were supposed to be discussing. This thread is a huge pile of ifs, maybes, coulda, woulda and shoulda's. I find myself defending the indefensible, excusing the inexcusable. Which is more powerful among the WMD's is like deciding if being eaten alive by a shark or a killer whale is worse. personally i don't want to die either way. After exorcising my own demons i have to say that using a nuke, even in defense should not be an option. Nukes are terror weapons, the idea of nuclear power drives demons in people we never even know we have. But Nukes are not supernatural, the do have limits but the limits are quite large. Given the technology IMHO nerve gas is probably the biggest threat to the human race, Nukes would have to be second but for low tech scenarios bio-weapons have to be the stuff of nightmares than can come true. If I was in power and knew of a hardened bio-weapon facility that was being used offensively a ground penetrating type of bunker buster bomb might be justifiable if time was a factor but in all but the most extreme scenarios conventional weapons would be the only way to go. Nukes can be useful as MAD weapons but to actually use one is almost completely unthinkable. They are threats, as was already said in this thread like hand-grenades in an enclosed space. But bio-weapons are equally ridiculous as weapons as are chemical weapons, only the insane would use such weapons or the desperate and often the two are difficult to see a difference in. lets hope that the trends of the last couple of decades continue and that our children or their children do not have to have this discussion due to the idea of unreasonable people with ideologies than can turn the other side into a threat that has to be eliminated no matter what the risk. Lets hope that the numbers of all weapons of mass destruction continue to go down and eventually get to zero. IMHO the real weapon of mass destruction is unreasoning ideologies that that dehumanize anyone who disagrees and allows the slaughter of other humans simply because God or they are of a different social system or economic system says they can be killed. The true weapons of mass destruction are these dehumanizing ideologies and the people who follow them.

we don't need large slabs of lead, not do we need to stay inside for years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_shelter Fallout can be defended against, it does not kill everyone and it does not mean the end of everyone. a nuclear strike against one target or even several would not mean the end of the world. Fallout is limited, it decays, it does not cover everything everywhere with deadly level of radiation. You assertion about one 2 megaton explosion being equal to 100 20 megaton explosions is very misleading and is nothing but fear mongering!

I tried, once, to stay on one of those liquid diets with just the right amount of calories, vitamins and fiber to keep me healthy, it came in lots of really great flavors and tasted really good, I gagged at the sight of it with in two weeks.

I don't think any reasonable persons definition of several would suffice to kill everyone on the planet.

Define several, 4, 8, 25, 100?

Your point would be?

And why pray tell would anyone want to do that? I thought we were discussing a retaliatory strike against one nation for using non nuclear WMD's against that country, exactly what scenario would result in the detonation of every nuclear weapon on the earth geographically distributed all over the Earth? On the other hand a bio weapon could indeed spread over amuch larger area than one nuke (or even several) ever could and cause far more deaths than one nuke (or even several) ever could.

I will agree with that Yes but the fallout from a single or even several nuclear detonations is limited, Radiation does not become ever more dangerous, it becomes less dangerous over time. No, diseases cannot be contained, once released they can spread and grow, fallout is limited and becomes less dangerous over time, not more dangerous. I will grant you this, even rabies is not absolutely 100% deadly. Agreed and neither can one or even several nuclear weapons eliminate everyone on the earth. Both are very bad, both are very scary, it is conceivable that the release of one bio-weapon over one populated are could spread and kill a huge percentage of the human race. The release of one nuclear weapon would be limited in both the number of deaths and the spread of radiation. It could not eliminate even every one in a large city much less the entire human race.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W87 (300 kilotons) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W88 (475 kilotons) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B83_nuclear_bomb (1.2 megatons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B53_nuclear_bomb (9 megatons, largest bomb currently available but not in active service) so where are all the factual 20 to 100 megatonnweapons just waitign to be dropped all over the eaerth? Do the russians have them, they seem to be as serious as the US about small reliealbe weapons instead fo huge city bustetrs of the cold war, do the french have them? who has them as you claim to be facts? Nulcear weapons are desinged to use blast and heat to destroy targets, fallout and or radioactuive poisoning of the planet is not the idea behind modern nuclear weapons. I don't know why this discussion has gone into how powerful nukes really are but a limited strijke against one city is not going to end the world or kill 95% of the planets population. Bio weapons can indeed kill a major number of people not targeted by them. Bio-weapons get out of control they spread, reproduce, nuclear weapons do not reproduce and spread like biological organisms do. I applaud Obama for saying nukes will not be used against non nuclear states. I also think bio weapons are more dangerous than nukes.

Very funny, but this has been brought up more than once in this conversation. Nice to make me look small when I am offering real information instead of fear mongering. I never said it made the fallout safer or the bomb safer but modern nukes do indeed put out less fall out per kiloton or how ever you want to put it. They are made so more of the nuclear material is used up and less is left over they are far more efficient than the old nukes were. As I said this doesn't make being nuked better but it does show nukes are different now than they were even a couple of decades ago. No, there are no 100 megaton nuclear weapons, never have been, the largest yield ever was Tsar bomba at 60 megatons. it was a very old very dirty very inefficient weapon that was designed to be 100 megatons only one was made but it's yield was much less due to design problems and most the plutonium was wasted in fallout. modern nuclear weapons are not in the multimegaton range. the ones fielded by the USA are less than one megaton in almost all cases, the old 20 megaton bombs have not been fielded sine the late 60 or early 70's. Modern nuclear weapons would be about 20 times the yield of what was dropped on japan, this yield is out of much less nuclear materials that are used up instead of being spread out as fall out.

I think It's more than a little disingenuous to try and say the detonation of one nuke or even several in response to a WMD attack would result in every nuke on the planet being used. Nor would such a limited strike take out most of the planet via fallout since we already detonated a large number of much dirtier nukes back in the 50's and 60's in the atmosphere and it did not kill us all. Modern nuclear weapons are designed to make far less fallout than the type of weapons used on japan in WW2. This would not make being nuked any better but I honestly cannot see a reason to nuke a population center much less several population centers unless the same was done to us. Even during the cold war most nukes were targeted toward military complexes, not directly at population centers. It is simply not true that thermonuclear weapons were meant to be used against population centers, back in the days of the cold war this made very little difference. Twenty megaton war heads and or bombs that were not very accurate to start with would destroy any target many times over. Trying to destroy a sub base on the out skirts of a city pretty much meant the city was gone too. Now days nukes are much smaller, far more accurate, accurate to the point that they are really not needed to destroy most targets. most war heads in the US arsenal are less than 1 megaton, (475 kilotons I think) to destroy a huge population center like for instance New York city would require more than one probably several to really level the city. (does anyone know which major US city had two multi megaton nuclear weapons dropped on it in the early 1960's?) http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread389946/pg1 They are small enough and accurate enough to make a precision strike against a bio-weapons facility that had been hardened against nuclear attack and or other military targets with far less collateral damage than was done to European cities during WW2 when trying to take out military targets. The human mindset now days would not tolerate the same sort of wholesale killing of civilians as we did during WW2, I doubt anyone would want to nuke a city but military centers being used by an adversary to launch WMD's against let's say French targets should expect to be nuked. I say French because it is highly dishonest to keep saying Americans will be doing the nuking, there many countries quite capable of nuking an adversary in the modern world and most of them would be more likely to do so because they do not possess the same military advantage countries like the US do. Is using nukes a good idea? I'd say unequivocally NO! Would a government who had nukes be crazy not to use nukes if confronted with overwhelming military attack from an adversary? YES! I think a small country like France or England would be far more likely to use nukes in response to a WMD attack than the USA. The USA would be likely to use nukes if confronted by WMD's on the battle field but in retaliation we would be more likely to use conventional weapons to destroy small targets from a long distance or use over whelming military force on an adversary than simply nuke em! A nuke is a last ditch type of weapon in modern times not a hair trigger use them or loose them weapon like they were in the cold war. http://www.gizmag.com/nuclear-bomb-damage-map-nuke/12097/ I think most people who think on these unthinkable things seem to think a real nuclear exchange on population centers is most likely between Pakistan and India.

Meshal, I know lots of people have opinions about homosexuality, most of them are based in morality and this morality is based on parts of the Bible (or Koran) that state homosexuals are ungodly and should be killed or some other sort of negative ideas. The idea that homosexuality is immoral and wrong is not universal nor is the idea of homosexuality being simply a way some individuals express their natural emotions and sexual preference new. Homosexual behavior has always been a part of human society and always will be, it can be suppressed and out lawed but it does not go away. The truth is that homosexuality and the sexual desire for some one of your own sex is indeed difficult for heterosexual people to understand especially when the people who form your own moral values say unequivocally that homosexuality is wrong. if you question them they always come up with the "unnatural" idea but if you point out that homosexual behavior is quite natural and is practiced in many if not most animals then they say well humans should know better as we are intelligent and animals are not. Of course their argument is biased from the start and no argument can convince someone who refuses to consider any one else as correct. Homosexuality has been shown to be natural behavior, people are indeed born homosexual. It has even been demonstrated how homosexuality can even be helpful to reproduction. Evidence for these ideas have been provided many times on this forum, i suggest you read more of the threads on homosexuality to understand this. There are species of animals that are all homosexual, all of them, and there are animals who change their sex routinely. Homosexual behavior can be forced on an individual as can heterosexual behavior. Even if you truly believe from a moral or religious stand point that it is wrong it's difficult to justify treating individuals who's behavior is different as wrong as long it does no harm to anyone else. Our society or at least the ideas behind our society would, at least on the surface, appear be based on adults being able to freely choose their behavior as long as it does not imping on anyone elses life significantly. I would suggest that even if homosexual behavior is chosen their is no reason to justify denying anyone one their basic rights as human beings based on homosexual behavior. You can think it's not right much as you or anyone can think that driving a motorcycle is not right or that oral sex is not right, or that eating raw fish is not right and you can think such behavior is wrong and that it is immoral and that these behaviors contribute to the moral decay of our society but unless you can prove such things then your dislike of them is not something that the rest of us need to base our behavior on.

Galileo, didn't exactly have a Celestron, it's a good bet his view wasn't all that clear. The image is a pretty good representation of the moon, you can see the seas, and craters, my binoculars give a much clearer view but the optics of my binoculars are far more advanced than what Galileo had.

Khryzs Maars, tell us about your idea in detail, links to other sources of information about the fuser would help too. When does the omgponies go away?

Can you provide links to information about these fusors? I am interested.

Actually a high altitude nuclear detonation is more damaging than one close to the ground due to interactions with the earths magnetic field and the effects of the earth absorbing the EMP when it is close to the ground. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedvery funny

It has always bothered me that because I do not agree with all Conservative or Republican ideas that I am immediately labeled a Liberal or Democrat (as though there are only two possible ways of thinking) and that as a Liberal I am automatically assumed to believe everything Liberals are supposed to stand for. Conservatives are more of a mono culture and Liberals are more of a jumble of different cultures or ways of thinking. But I do not think either party represents everyone no matter what culture they affiliate themselves with. I do know people who are Conservative who do not agree with all Conservative view points. In a sane political system there would be several parties (at least) who would share power through coalitions instead of one group opposing another. Far too many people do not really fit into either extreme for either party to really represent everyone. Several different parties would better represent everyone and allow for power sharing instead of constant dead locks between two opposing parties.

Can you support this contention? No one has ever been revived after being frozen. Drying out the human body would be just was impossible to revive from as freezing.

No! I wanted to know how long giant squids live!