[Archive c 17.03.2008] Humour [Archive to 28.04.2012] - page 284
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing a couple of weeks ago when I was breathing the smog. It doesn't take much to exceed many times the dose of CO and carbon dioxide emitted by human activity - just a few hundred hectares of burning forest nearby. There have been worse times on Earth - such as the mass extinctions of the Triassic 200 million years ago.
But it takes one good, high-quality solar flare to wipe out an entire electronic civilisation, of which there must have been quite a few in the history of the Earth. And there was about one somewhere in the 19th century. But then there were no transformers or modern semiconductor electronics.
So, do we continue to believe that mankind has messed up the Earth badly?
It is true of course, but he has a substitution for the sake of effectuality, man cannot in principle be interested in the planet as such, in itself. The Earth is of interest to man only as Home as it is today.
And a house like that can be destroyed with a stockpiled weapon within 24 hours.
Not humour, of course, but very interesting!
The things described in the link were not advertised under the Soviet regime. But the word of mouth was very strong and every Samaritan (without exception) will unequivocally confirm this.
From my earliest childhood I heard this story which happened in my hometown. From my great-grandmother.
Then repeatedly from my grandmother. Finally, I have just read it in detail.
http://www.ufolog.ru/articles/detail.aspx?id=3335
Stupid and unfunny.
It's not silly. It is a historical fact.
Religious literature is a source of historical facts only for mindless believers. Those are in the minority here. So you can't claim it as "historical fact". In spite of...
At one time I read about it in the newspaper "Pravda". Not so much, of course, but it was there. You can flip through the library's archives at....
Why should I argue with you? You'd rather argue with members of opposing religions, Swetten, for example. "Truth" is for her.
Why don't you go over there and find out from each other whether it is a historical fact or not?
What are you saying?
"The Oxford dictionary has been enriched with thousands of obscure words
Tell me, do you know whether "defriend" or "defriend" is correct? Are you sure you know what the term "tweet" means? And how many "t's" should be in that word? What about "cosplay" and "botnet"? All of these, and thousands of other words that didn't exist in nature even a decade ago, are included in the third edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, released on 19 August 2010.
"
Mathematicians are finally disillusioned with the solution to the millennium problem