Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Died During [chat] Creation

1454648505173

Posts

  • AbdhyiusAbdhyius Registered User regular
    Mojo_Jojo wrote: »
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    Mojo_Jojo wrote: »
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    also, manmade global warming has a bright side: It means terraforming is possible!

    Yeah, that is the brightside. We have the means to accidentally devastate planets! Hurray.

    Next stop Mars. Fuck you, Mars.

    ...there is no way to really make Mars a less shitty place to live.

    No, but we could make it harder to terraform because we don't have any real understanding of how to impact planetary climates.

    But ahah!

    We do know how to make a place slightly warmer. Which is the thing Mars needs.

    ftOqU21.png
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    I think our ability to terraform any other place is rather constrained by our ability to send at best very small amounts of anything to them, at great expense

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • AbdhyiusAbdhyius Registered User regular
    okay you know what we do

    we take the most effective greenhouse gases

    and then we pack 'em together real tight

    and then we build a huge-ass mass driver

    and then we shoot it at Mars.

    ftOqU21.png
  • AbdhyiusAbdhyius Registered User regular
    We also do this to, say, the greenland ice.

    ftOqU21.png
  • AbdhyiusAbdhyius Registered User regular
    Kalkino wrote: »
    I think our ability to terraform any other place is rather constrained by our ability to send at best very small amounts of anything to them, at great expense

    That'll improve.

    ftOqU21.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    Mojo_Jojo wrote: »
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    Mojo_Jojo wrote: »
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    also, manmade global warming has a bright side: It means terraforming is possible!

    Yeah, that is the brightside. We have the means to accidentally devastate planets! Hurray.

    Next stop Mars. Fuck you, Mars.

    ...there is no way to really make Mars a less shitty place to live.

    No, but we could make it harder to terraform because we don't have any real understanding of how to impact planetary climates.

    But ahah!

    We do know how to make a place slightly warmer. Which is the thing Mars needs.

    We don't really know, so much so that there's nothing we're doing right now that would change Mars climate unless we could somehow introduce 3 billion people living in the industrial age onto the planet.

    In my compromise solution, you'd be the guy who said "Fuck it, no need to look further, knife go in, eye come out, surgery done."

    We are sort of learning how to change a climate, but it isn't at the level where it would mean fuck all in terraforming terms.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • PowerpuppiesPowerpuppies Registered User regular
    Abdhy you're playing games with language. The ability to use fossil fuels on Earth implies precisely zero about our current ability to alter literally anything on any other celestial body. We can barely get to another celestial body; we're ages away from being able to draw parallels between what we do on Earth and what we could do elsewhere.

    It's certainly true that one day we will know how, given unlimited energy, to terraform a planet. Even then, it may not be feasible.

    Also it's a really terrible idea to experiment with mars to figure out how to terraform. Not sure if that's what you were implying when you said there's no way we could make mars a shittier place to live, but if it was, it was terrible.

    sig.gif
  • PowerpuppiesPowerpuppies Registered User regular
    Crab that picture is wonderful

    sig.gif
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    okay you know what we do

    we take the most effective greenhouse gases

    and then we pack 'em together real tight

    and then we build a huge-ass mass driver

    and then we shoot it at Mars.

    SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AbdhyiusAbdhyius Registered User regular
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    Mojo_Jojo wrote: »
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    Mojo_Jojo wrote: »
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    also, manmade global warming has a bright side: It means terraforming is possible!

    Yeah, that is the brightside. We have the means to accidentally devastate planets! Hurray.

    Next stop Mars. Fuck you, Mars.

    ...there is no way to really make Mars a less shitty place to live.

    No, but we could make it harder to terraform because we don't have any real understanding of how to impact planetary climates.

    But ahah!

    We do know how to make a place slightly warmer. Which is the thing Mars needs.

    We don't really know, so much so that there's nothing we're doing right now that would change Mars climate unless we could somehow introduce 3 billion people living in the industrial age onto the planet.

    In my compromise solution, you'd be the guy who said "Fuck it, no need to look further, knife go in, eye come out, surgery done."

    We are sort of learning how to change a climate, but it isn't at the level where it would mean fuck all in terraforming terms.

    We know how, roughly, we're just not able to.

    Because the output of greenhouse gas from 3 billion people living in the industrial age would do jack shit to Mars.

    It's not about making a tiny tiny tiny change in athmospheric composition that causes a tiny tiny tiny change in average temperature.

    ftOqU21.png
  • 21stCentury21stCentury *~ Have a Magical day ~* Purveyor of Pixelly PalsRegistered User regular
    Doesn't Mars not have a magnetosphere? IIRC, Mars used to have an atmosphere, but it was eroded away by solar winds.

    MVZBm5i.pngzd1yxOn.png
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    We should still trap an asteroid in earth orbit and then harvest it to launch things into space.

    Probably my favorite alternative theory for getting stuff into space.

    B7ozVfx.png
  • AbdhyiusAbdhyius Registered User regular
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    okay you know what we do

    we take the most effective greenhouse gases

    and then we pack 'em together real tight

    and then we build a huge-ass mass driver

    and then we shoot it at Mars.

    SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

    Yes it does!

    You just need to make it huge enough.

    And, well, accurate enough.

    ftOqU21.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    Kalkino wrote: »
    I think our ability to terraform any other place is rather constrained by our ability to send at best very small amounts of anything to them, at great expense

    That'll improve.

    Not really, given the current pattern of behavior vis a vis space and science spending.

    We're likely going to go backwards on space technology for the next fifty years or so. We already got rid of reusable space ships, and we're one delete key from getting rid of Apollo era technology.

    I don't have much hope for space exploration in the near future.

    What that does mean is that in fifty years President A Man From Earth will be able to launch a brilliant new space program using 100 year old technology that will have been rediscovered.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • descdesc destroy all false poseur trend metal Registered User regular
    It would suck to get sent to mars as the first wave of colonization and then get told

    "now sit in traffic for 10 years. we need to start greenhousing this place up."

    No civilization yet established and you are sitting in traffic in an idling car for the good of mankind

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Man, i'm learning SO MUCH HISTORY from video games. Whoever said video games can't teach you things never played Assassin's Creed or Sengoku Basara. Those are history lessons made fun!

    i know an absurd number of names from feudal japan and china from playing too many Koei games as a kid

  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    desc wrote: »
    It would suck to get sent to mars as the first wave of colonization and then get told

    "now sit in traffic for 10 years. we need to start greenhousing this place up."

    No civilization yet established and you are sitting in traffic in an idling car for the good of mankind

    There is a good satirical scifi novel waiting to be written around this idea. I can feel it in my bones.

    B7ozVfx.png
  • simonwolfsimonwolf i'd rather sink than swipe right for bradRegistered User regular
    desc wrote: »
    It would suck to get sent to mars as the first wave of colonization and then get told

    "now sit in traffic for 10 years. we need to start greenhousing this place up."

    No civilization yet established and you are sitting in traffic in an idling car for the good of mankind

    you could really catch up on your sudoku skills

  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck NONSTOP INFINITE CLIMAX POSTING you must go on i cant go on ill go onRegistered User regular
    how we fix mars? simple

    we carve a huge ass onto it

    obF2Wuw.png
  • AbdhyiusAbdhyius Registered User regular
    Abdhy you're playing games with language. The ability to use fossil fuels on Earth implies precisely zero about our current ability to alter literally anything on any other celestial body. We can barely get to another celestial body; we're ages away from being able to draw parallels between what we do on Earth and what we could do elsewhere.

    It's certainly true that one day we will know how, given unlimited energy, to terraform a planet. Even then, it may not be feasible.

    Also it's a really terrible idea to experiment with mars to figure out how to terraform. Not sure if that's what you were implying when you said there's no way we could make mars a shittier place to live, but if it was, it was terrible.

    The Earth is the only place we can ruin for ourselves. Because it's the most perfect place there is. Dead pieces of rock that could and would kill the people living there in a hundred different ways do not compare.

    ftOqU21.png
  • AbdhyiusAbdhyius Registered User regular
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    Kalkino wrote: »
    I think our ability to terraform any other place is rather constrained by our ability to send at best very small amounts of anything to them, at great expense

    That'll improve.

    Not really, given the current pattern of behavior vis a vis space and science spending.

    We're likely going to go backwards on space technology for the next fifty years or so. We already got rid of reusable space ships, and we're one delete key from getting rid of Apollo era technology.

    I don't have much hope for space exploration in the near future.

    What that does mean is that in fifty years President A Man From Earth will be able to launch a brilliant new space program using 100 year old technology that will have been rediscovered.

    Getting rid of the space shuttle wasn't a step backwards. They weren't good ideas.


    And in fifty years, we will have better technology. We will be better at everything. That is what we do.

    ftOqU21.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Doesn't Mars not have a magnetosphere? IIRC, Mars used to have an atmosphere, but it was eroded away by solar winds.

    That's the current running theory.

    Which means it doesn't really matter how much we change the environment since people are a little allergic to cancer. Unless I'm confusing my layers of the atmosphere here.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    Kalkino wrote: »
    I think our ability to terraform any other place is rather constrained by our ability to send at best very small amounts of anything to them, at great expense

    That'll improve.

    Not really, given the current pattern of behavior vis a vis space and science spending.

    We're likely going to go backwards on space technology for the next fifty years or so. We already got rid of reusable space ships, and we're one delete key from getting rid of Apollo era technology.

    I don't have much hope for space exploration in the near future.

    What that does mean is that in fifty years President A Man From Earth will be able to launch a brilliant new space program using 100 year old technology that will have been rediscovered.

    Getting rid of the space shuttle wasn't a step backwards. They weren't good ideas.


    And in fifty years, we will have better technology. We will be better at everything. That is what we do.

    Can I introduce you to modern western civilization?

    The boomers have thrown there hands up in the air and said "welp, we had it good but somehow things are shit for everyone after us"

    I would very much like that not to be the case, and I plan on doing everything I can to keep it from being the case, but current trends would say that we're entering a period of voluntary decline.

    We're at a liminal period in history. We can chose Star Trek or Mad Max right now to head toward and the people in charge are going for the cheaper, more Australian one. It's just a question on whether or not the rest of us are going to stop them.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AbdhyiusAbdhyius Registered User regular
    Doesn't Mars not have a magnetosphere? IIRC, Mars used to have an atmosphere, but it was eroded away by solar winds.

    That's the current running theory.

    Which means it doesn't really matter how much we change the environment since people are a little allergic to cancer. Unless I'm confusing my layers of the atmosphere here.

    cancer schmancer.

    But yes, it doesn't have a magnetosphere anymore. No real tectonic activity.

    It still has a thin atmosphere, but it's lost lots of important bits of it. Water, for example.

    So we need to get a shitload of asteroids and throw them at mars.

    ftOqU21.png
  • 21stCentury21stCentury *~ Have a Magical day ~* Purveyor of Pixelly PalsRegistered User regular
    Doesn't Mars not have a magnetosphere? IIRC, Mars used to have an atmosphere, but it was eroded away by solar winds.

    That's the current running theory.

    Which means it doesn't really matter how much we change the environment since people are a little allergic to cancer. Unless I'm confusing my layers of the atmosphere here.

    That's easy to fix! Just bundle up all the magnets in the world, put a drill on top, build a giant mass driver, aim it at Mars and bingo. new magnetosphere, right?

    MVZBm5i.pngzd1yxOn.png
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    Well, if tectonic activity correlates to magnetospheres, couldn't we just start fracking mars? Get those plates shifting and jiving, and see what happens?

  • DynagripDynagrip destroy everything you touch Registered User, ClubPA regular
    I think before too long we're going to have to seriously considering terraforming earth to combat climate change. It would be nice if we had a some place to test out the options but that's unlikely. Something I read yesterday made it seem unlikely that with current technology we could pull a ton of CO2 out of the atmosphere, which is a shame. If we can come up with a process to do that, that would be ideal. Instead we might have to creative and actively cool the planet as we continue to dump gigatons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

    Mankind has already changed the Earth but in a clumsy, dangerous manner. Moving forward we'll probably have to go onwards and upwards using science and engineering to try to alleviate our earlier unintentional mucking about.

    gusinrepose.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I will say I don't really give a shit about the environmental protection of Mars.

    If we can use it as practice for Real Space Colonization I'm not sure what the problem is. It's not like if we do nothing Mars is an option to live on right now.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • descdesc destroy all false poseur trend metal Registered User regular
    no eggs : o

    let's just get some hash browns going then, [chat]

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Doesn't Mars not have a magnetosphere? IIRC, Mars used to have an atmosphere, but it was eroded away by solar winds.

    That's the current running theory.

    Which means it doesn't really matter how much we change the environment since people are a little allergic to cancer. Unless I'm confusing my layers of the atmosphere here.

    That's easy to fix! Just bundle up all the magnets in the world, put a drill on top, build a giant mass driver, aim it at Mars and bingo. new magnetosphere, right?

    That made me giggle far to much for a 23 year old male.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • DynagripDynagrip destroy everything you touch Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2012
    Mars used to have a substantial atmosphere but I think its low gravity is the primary reason it no longer does.

    It still has an atmosphere it's just very tenuous. Hell, the moon technically has an atmosphere.

    Dynagrip on
    gusinrepose.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Dynagrip wrote: »
    I think before too long we're going to have to seriously considering terraforming earth to combat climate change. It would be nice if we had a some place to test out the options but that's unlikely. Something I read yesterday made it seem unlikely that with current technology we could pull a ton of CO2 out of the atmosphere, which is a shame. If we can come up with a process to do that, that would be ideal. Instead we might have to creative and actively cool the planet as we continue to dump gigatons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

    Mankind has already changed the Earth but in a clumsy, dangerous manner. Moving forward we'll probably have to go onwards and upwards using science and engineering to try to alleviate our earlier unintentional mucking about.

    I think that this is basically what we're going to have to do. Either that or nuke China and India, but I don't think that's necessarily a good idea.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Mars used to have an atmosphere but the aliens who colonized earth destroyed it during their drive to the stars.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    They took most of it with them in their massive interstellar machines.

  • SarksusSarksus Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    We have to jump start Mars's core with a giant car battery.

    Sarksus on
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Mars used to have an atmosphere but the aliens who colonized earth destroyed it during their drive to the stars.

    mars_face.jpg

  • wazillawazilla Registered User regular
    Yay they're letting me out of the cave to do some on site work!

  • AbdhyiusAbdhyius Registered User regular
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    Kalkino wrote: »
    I think our ability to terraform any other place is rather constrained by our ability to send at best very small amounts of anything to them, at great expense

    That'll improve.

    Not really, given the current pattern of behavior vis a vis space and science spending.

    We're likely going to go backwards on space technology for the next fifty years or so. We already got rid of reusable space ships, and we're one delete key from getting rid of Apollo era technology.

    I don't have much hope for space exploration in the near future.

    What that does mean is that in fifty years President A Man From Earth will be able to launch a brilliant new space program using 100 year old technology that will have been rediscovered.

    Getting rid of the space shuttle wasn't a step backwards. They weren't good ideas.


    And in fifty years, we will have better technology. We will be better at everything. That is what we do.

    Can I introduce you to modern western civilization?

    The boomers have thrown there hands up in the air and said "welp, we had it good but somehow things are shit for everyone after us"

    I would very much like that not to be the case, and I plan on doing everything I can to keep it from being the case, but current trends would say that we're entering a period of voluntary decline.

    We're at a liminal period in history. We can chose Star Trek or Mad Max right now to head toward and the people in charge are going for the cheaper, more Australian one. It's just a question on whether or not the rest of us are going to stop them.

    Modern american civilization, is what you are talking about. You are talking about small irrelevant political eddies in one nation, here.

    And what trends. What trends are saying science in america is dying? That progress will halt? It doesn't! It never does!

    The world is generally and on balance, a better place to live this year than it was last year.

    Your pessimism is stupid.

    ftOqU21.png
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Dropbox is now officially the coolest technology in history: Bono invested in it.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    Kalkino wrote: »
    I think our ability to terraform any other place is rather constrained by our ability to send at best very small amounts of anything to them, at great expense

    That'll improve.

    Not really, given the current pattern of behavior vis a vis space and science spending.

    We're likely going to go backwards on space technology for the next fifty years or so. We already got rid of reusable space ships, and we're one delete key from getting rid of Apollo era technology.

    I don't have much hope for space exploration in the near future.

    What that does mean is that in fifty years President A Man From Earth will be able to launch a brilliant new space program using 100 year old technology that will have been rediscovered.

    Getting rid of the space shuttle wasn't a step backwards. They weren't good ideas.


    And in fifty years, we will have better technology. We will be better at everything. That is what we do.

    Can I introduce you to modern western civilization?

    The boomers have thrown there hands up in the air and said "welp, we had it good but somehow things are shit for everyone after us"

    I would very much like that not to be the case, and I plan on doing everything I can to keep it from being the case, but current trends would say that we're entering a period of voluntary decline.

    We're at a liminal period in history. We can chose Star Trek or Mad Max right now to head toward and the people in charge are going for the cheaper, more Australian one. It's just a question on whether or not the rest of us are going to stop them.

    Modern american civilization, is what you are talking about. You are talking about small irrelevant political eddies in one nation, here.

    And what trends. What trends are saying science in america is dying? That progress will halt? It doesn't! It never does!

    The world is generally and on balance, a better place to live this year than it was last year.

    Your pessimism is stupid.

    Right, cause Europe is so much better right now at that whole "lost generation thing"

    And certainly the nerfing of the space program in the richest and most space programy country doesn't matter.

    Your optimism is stupid.

    Lh96QHG.png
This discussion has been closed.