Recent posts by RowanE on Kongregate

Topic: Serious Discussion / Micronations

Originally posted by pmr0078:

Originally posted by CanadianOverlord:

Originally posted by pmr0078:

Originally posted by CanadianOverlord:

Originally posted by pmr0078:

So that’s why they don’t really work out. Not enough people are willing to join.

Im down. Anyone else?

I’m down. That’s two.

See, its not that hard finding people who want to do this. What IS hard however, are the legal implications and implementation of the plan. A few years ago some people tried to settle on an uninhabited island and the nearby country invaded and claimed the land as part of their territory. It is very hard to become a legitimate country through the eyes of world powers. That is the hardest part: finding/acquiring land, and keeping it sovereign.

Actually, they built the island from scratch, and then a nearby government annexed them.

Yeah, true. But still, its crazy, you build your own, and another country can still claim you.

To be fair though, the reef it was built on was a good fishing area used by the locals.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Can communism work?

I like some of the ideas of communism/socialism, because it would make the world much fairer, but i can’t see any way it could work efficiently. Can a planned economy succeed?
Is there any alternative, in a communist/socialist system, to a planned economy?
What could there be to motivate people to hard work and academic success?
How would luxuries be divided?

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: Asteroid Defense

Depending on how certain we are that a specific asteroid will hit us, as a last resort we can unload LOADS MORE NUKES. Use a project orion spacecraft, propelled by low-yield nukes (they’re the ones that work best – low-kiloton yield) and filled with a payload of the most powerful ones we can fit.

For those of you who don’t know what project orion is, it’s the idea, thought up in the 50s, of powering a spaceship with a series of nuclear explosions. They did the math and it would actually work, just the fallout would kill some people. If the earth is at risk, it’s worth it.

Now, maybe a nuke might not do much damage. Maybe not even a megaton-yield nuke. But 800 0.35kt bombs will propel a 5,300t payload on a mars orbit return (the closest estimate in the table, here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29#Sizes_of_Orion_vehicles to the distance to a near-earth asteroid)
That’s 4,808 metric tonnes. The B41 nuclear bomb (most powerful one built by the US) weighed 4,850kg.
You could load 991 B41 bombs, with a theoretical yield of 25 megatons each.
That adds up to about 25 GIGATONNES.

Obviously it wouldn’t be 991 of those, because only one was built, i think. But i know there’s no theoretical maximum to the size and power of a thermonuclear bomb, and so you could just have a however-many-stage monster bomb. Or the most mass-efficient nuclear bombs from every country in the world. Whatever works. Still, it’d be a hell of a lot of force.

I’m not suggesting we blow up a nickel-iron asteroid, that’d still be pretty difficult if you only had one of those ships, but it would move pretty much anything away from its course to hit earth.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should we just rid this world of religion?

Yes, religion is a problem. But it keeps stupid and/or dangerous people happy and contained. Can you think of something else that does that?

Well, maybe drugs. Legalise heroin, ban church.
Legally require churches to hand out heroin. Then ban them and hand out the heroin somewhere secular.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why can't Iran be allowed to have nuclear power/weapons?

Because Iran hates Israel, and might bomb it. And the Israelis will bomb them. And more people would die in that war than in any other in human history.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Do you believe in aliens?

Life definitely exists out there, the universe is just too big. But intelligent life probably isn’t that common, since it takes a lot of other factors. 90% of the planets, moons, asteroids, nebulae and what-have you that feature life will be mostly single-celled, and only about 1 in 100 of the ones with multicellular life will get intelligence.

Although that’s mostly just a guess, i’ll admit.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Where do we go from here?

Technology will get better and cooler, in ways that can’t be predicted specifically.

The amount of change can’t be predicted well either, because of the chance of a singularity. Computer tech might slow down, as we reach 1-molecule thick wires in silicon chips and so that’s as far as we actually get. That would still mean a hell of a lot of advancement, because lost of tech still hardly keeps up with the rate computers advance at, and computing power will double at least twice again before it levels off.

Or, on the other hand, we’ll get the singularity, and in 20 years we’ll be nanotechnological beings that humans of the present could only perceive as gods. more like the power of the abrahamic god than the greco-roman gods, but plural so it’s still lower-case.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Moral Relativism and Multiculturalism

Rights should be restricted as little as possible – but nobody has any right to force their beliefs on other people. Especially not religious ones.

Topic: Serious Discussion / National Service

Your nationality is a simple fact of chance. You were lucky to be born in the UK, or unlucky to be born in North Korea, or whatever. It’s random.

So it doesn’t seem right for any country to force its citizens into service, and that should only be done if there is a genuine threat of that nation being attacked.

Topic: Serious Discussion / How do atheists treat dead bodies?

“atheists” are just as general a group as “theists”. If you want to get any real answer, please narrow it down to one of the infinite different atheistic philosophical viewpoints.

But, generally, the atheist way is the secular way, i.e, however the dead body wanted to be disposed of. Personally, i’m going for cryogenic freezing.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why is there a Price for Everything?

Everything needs work in order to be produced.

So, you can either do all the necessary work yourself, or work at something you’re good at, and pay for everything with the money that that work earns you. Which of those was more efficient got decided back in the stone age. You’re looking at a thing called “division of labour”.

Now, the only way you can avoid that is by automating every job anyone does, ever. And all the work that needs to be done to maintain that, etc.
This just isn’t possible. Therefore, everything will always cost something. Although fortunately, it will always decrease in cost, because most jobs will gradually become more automated, and easier, etc.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Ben Stein said in an interview about the monie, with a straight face, “science leads you to killing people”.

That pretty much sums up how stupid the film is.

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Impossibility of the God of Abraham

The existance of god is unlikely, implausible, hilarious even. But not impossible. At least, assuming he doesn’t have to be nice. If he’s a complete A-hole, then the bible can be completely correct, and in fact it fits perfectly with how much of a dick it would make him to make all the fossils, fake all the billion-year-old rocks, and creating conflicting religions. Since this is the guy who makes blasphemy the unforgivable sin, and tortures them forever. And requires you accept his son/himself (mythology is confusing) as saviour, and otherwise will send you to the lake of fire. Etc, etc.

So either god does not exist or he is an evil psychopath. Which is pretty much true in the bible anyway.

For him to be both good, and still be the god of the bible… that’s where there’s logical inconsistencies, but only if we use the standard of good we have. There’s not a solid enough definition of good for it to be impossible.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Israel passes Nazi-like, intrustive, law. Their first step towards forced sub-dermal skin tagging.

Alrighty then: it’s very useful, because there is a universal way of confirming who you are, so there can be no more ID fraud. However, there would have to be many measures in place to prevent the system from being abused.

Topic: Serious Discussion / If the government gained the secret of immortality, should it be made publicly available?

Neither – it should, at least at first, only be given to those who deserve it. Great artists, scientists, heroes, etc.
People whose minds should be preserved for the future.

Of course, this would only be temporary, and it would be rolled out to the rest of the population gradually, as the birth rate falls and food production rises.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Israel passes Nazi-like, intrustive, law. Their first step towards forced sub-dermal skin tagging.

Uh, no, those are ID cards. There may be worries about them, but at least the intention is to make things more convenient.

The reason Israel is evil is because they brutally opress the palestinians, who were there first, and only have the country in the first place because god promised it to them in their fairytale book.

(ok, the palestinians weren’t actually there first, but neither were the jews, they invaded some bronze-age people at some point in prehistory)

Topic: Serious Discussion / Blackwater

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

And would it be that difficult to force similar constraints onto private organisations?

Wouldn’t it be easier to just not allow them and keep the current system? I suppose you could do it, I just don’t see the point in allowing it in the first place.

Sorry i didn’t get back to you more quickly – time zone differences. Anyway, you don’t need a “point in allowing” it,you need a reason to make things illegal. If there’s not a good reason to do something or not to do something, it should be legal. hm?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Nuclear War

I think what he’s trying to say, is “imagine you are president of the USA/USSR, during the cold war, and the opposing side launches a pre-emptive strike. what do you do?” but as i’m british, and britain had nukes then anyway, i’m assuming i’m prime minister.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Blackwater

And would it be that difficult to force similar constraints onto private organisations?

Or, better yet, just make the management directly responsible for any war crimes that they could plausibly have had anything to do with. Because then they have a damn good reason to obey the law.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Blackwater

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

i don’t see what else need be done.

Maybe oversight to make sure they actually follow those laws?

And what’s done to make sure government organisations do so?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Nuclear War

Depends if i can reach safety in time.

If i can – Using my closest MI5 agents, take some of the gold reserves (if the bank of england has any – ?) and the crown jewels, and escape to a neutral country in an aircraft that was already set to take off, which i would comandeer. Then sell the stuff (except half of the nukes i had) on the black market, and go into hiding.

If i can’t – Give the submarine crews instructions to convert their warheads into cobalt bombs, and use those to destroy all life on earth.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Blackwater

Private contractors should be allowed to exist, but forced to obey the laws of war as much as any country’s armed forces. Since that would include the laws against wars of agression, i don’t see what else need be done.

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: Santa Claus

but i’m pretty sure this should be in off-topic.

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: Santa Claus

You saw a few months ago, in the news, when the US navy blew up a satellite with a missile?
That was a test. They want to see if they can reverse-engineer his timetravel, inertialess drives, and his other tech, from the smoking wreckage of his sleigh.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Emotion: Man's Greatest Weakness?

Well, without emotions you have no goal. Nothing to drive you.

But other than those emotions, they’re more problematic. They are, essentially, ways to reach a logical decision much more quickly as to what should be done, but in conditions that only make sense 100,000 years ago. Currently, they’re not very helpful