The end of the world in 2014?

efthimios · Post by **efthimios** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 11:30 pm

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/wwn/20050912/112653720001.html

I don't know why it is there, but there you have it.

ste · Post by **ste** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:51 am

haha, check this out tho...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4261522.stm

if NASA was convinved of our impending doom by 2014, then why make plans to go to the moon 6 years after that? has to be a hoax, surely...

bodidley · Post by **bodidley** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:55 am

ste wrote:if NASA was convinved of our impending doom by 2014, then why make plans to go to the moon 6 years after that? has to be a hoax, surely...

Going to the moon, you mean?

Funny, the Mexica predicted the world would end in 2012...anyhow:

http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/science/61501

It seems that the yahoo news article is actually a Weekly World News article. No worries, mate

efthimios · Post by **efthimios** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 10:15 am

bodidley wrote:
ste wrote:if NASA was convinved of our impending doom by 2014, then why make plans to go to the moon 6 years after that? has to be a hoax, surely...
Going to the moon, you mean? Funny, the Mexica predicted the world would end in 2012...anyhow:

http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/science/61501

It seems that the yahoo news article is actually a Weekly World News article. No worries, mate

The ironic thing would be (is?) if they are actually right but none believes them.

I have to say I am a bit worried, though I have never even seen weeklyworldnews.com before.

efthimios · Post by **efthimios** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 10:16 am

ste wrote:haha, check this out tho...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4261522.stm

if NASA was convinved of our impending doom by 2014, then why make plans to go to the moon 6 years after that? has to be a hoax, surely...

I could come with a number of reasons, but that would be guessing.

Funny thing, I bought the book Space by Stephen Baxter a few days ago and finished the first chapter, and so far it sounds very similar.

efthimios · Post by **efthimios** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:55 am

Oh well, I guess it is fake.

sum1won · Post by **sum1won** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:06 pm

It is fake. First of all, if the chaos cloud is moving that fast, and is that big, then it would have shifted the black hole. And we would have noticed that by now, if the chaos cloud is 7 years away. Why? The effects of gravity would be totally changed. In addition, if the chaos cloud is under 7 light years away, we would not see any light from the area it is coming from- and it would have taken out a good portion of the night sky.

And anything coming from world weekly is about as real as the yeti, or the loch ness monster, or the time machine. They published an article on a time machine. They claimed that the reason Saddam couldn't be found was that he went into a time machine.

In addition, when any information is quoted as coming from a high level official, or the CIA/FBi, and that the leak wishes to remain anonymous, you know it is fake. REal news stories do not claim to be from an anonymous high level official. At most it will be a member of the gov't.

bodidley · Post by **bodidley** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:24 am

sum1won wrote:REal news stories do not claim to be from an anonymous high level official. At most it will be a member of the gov't.

It's actually a common practice for journalists in America to quote anonymous sources because if they blab about who's talking then no one will want to talk to them. The Weekly World News is a tabloid paper though.

P.S. Triple post efthimios? You'll have the radar artillery avatar in no time!

ste · Post by **ste** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 12:36 am

what are the rank just out of interest?

sum1won · Post by **sum1won** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 12:58 am

"A senior white house official"

No rank, just senior. Tabloids say they got it from a source like this to support their otherwise flimsy claims. Even more common is the poor terminology. I beleive it is Hawking Radiation, not hawking's, though I could be wrong. And there are no more "Rocket Scientests" any where in the world. That is too broad of a field, and rockets are now more or less obselete. Finally, a spacecraft specialist would know little to nothing about it- this is more the area of theoretical physicsts, astrophysicists, and astronomers

Anyways, I am also from the US- NY, not the city, NOT THE CITY, the state...

And while sources are mentioned, they are rarely termed "Senior white house officials". Usually a government offical, or a white house offical. Nobody likes to be that specific when refering to their nice juicy leak.

efthimios · Post by **efthimios** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 9:11 am

How are rockets obsolete?

bodidley · Post by **bodidley** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 10:09 am

efthimios wrote:How are rockets obsolete?

They're not. The Space shuttles all lifted off with rockets, satellites are launched with rockets, nuclear rocket technology has become very complex, rockets are used for air-to-air missile, air-to-surface missiles, surface-to-air missles, guided bombs, high-explosive-anti-tank rounds, anti-personal rounds from both multiple-barrel launchers and single-barrel launchers; hell, I'd say rockets are in their heyday right about now.

sum1won · Post by **sum1won** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 11:05 am

Bah. What I meant was that the term rocket scientest is obsolete- We do not have rocket scientests. We have people who do things- rockets that are simple wnough for one person are more or less gone now. We have rocketry, but it takes more than one person to work on it. We have chemists, and arerodynamics experts, and this, and that, but "rocket sceientest" is not really applicable.

efthimios · Post by **efthimios** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 11:09 am

sum1won wrote: but "rocket sceientest" is not really applicable.

I don't think it ever was !

btw, "Falling Down" has a great rocket scientist.

ste · Post by **ste** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:15 pm

efthimios wrote:How are rockets obsolete?

everyone's using ION CANNONS now! I miss C&C, Brother of Nod \m/

sum1won · Post by **sum1won** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:17 pm

At any rate, regardless of whether or not certain terms are totally correct, the whole document is full of little things that don't quite fit. A normal newsaper article has one or two. This is full of them. Thats the point I was getting at, or trying to.

efthimios · Post by **efthimios** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:36 pm

ste wrote:
efthimios wrote:How are rockets obsolete?
everyone's using ION CANNONS now! I miss C&C, Brother of Nod \m/

You should play them again then! I know I do!

Though the last couple of weeks the little free time I have is spent playing CC Renegade and CC Generals/Zero Hour.

Being a full time care worker while preparing for another year at the uni is not the easiest thing in the world.

Oh well.

ste · Post by **ste** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:50 am

I have the original on PS1... i still remeber the abosolute shock when Seth got shot

I might fire up the old PS1 for a game later

efthimios · Post by **efthimios** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 4:12 pm

C&C was released for the PS1? How did you manage without the mouse??
I can see for example Sole Survivor (something like that, right?), but a full blown RTS? Interesting.

ste · Post by **ste** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 7:15 pm

C&C was AMAZING on PS1, worked really well, you moved the cursor wtih the d-pad, etc.