When will the world end next?

[The Seventh]

This makes sense, to an extent. It seems preposterous to think that a computer couldn't jump from 1999 to 2000 safely. However, remember that technology back then was 11 years more primitive. Windows 98 was the big, new OS.

I wasn't around back then to have been able to put much thought into it at the time. Well, I was around... just five. Maybe it was a matter of thoughts that the basic computer system hadn't been programmed to continue time into the 2,000th year. Looking back now it seems silly, but you never know. Were the people of yester-century concerned with that? Maybe. Did they think that the older computers from the 80s or whenever weren't programmed to go past 1999, and only the new ones were? Maybe. Did they think that anything using outdated computer software would at the very least hiccup or reset itself at 00:00 on 1 Jan 2000? Sure. The resetting thing does not sound too preposterous considering the level of computer technology.

Nevertheless, it probably comes down to this. One person believes this as a worst-case scenario that has less than a 1% chance of happening. Then the rumor spreads that there "could possibly" be a catastrophe. Then that is twisted and exaggerated to "imminent doom". It's all progression. And people underestimating the intelligence of computers, really. I think the date change would not possibly cause a problem. And that's what happened.

I can't quite remember exactly why, but the whole Y2K thing was caused by a deficiency in programming.  I can't remember the details, but if I remember correctly it was because, then, computers tabulated time based upon the last 2 digits of the year, and output that as 19-- (the -
s being the last 2 digits computed).  So, the jump from 99 to the next year might have a computational issue, or it may throw the computer off, because now it thinks it's 1900 (if I recall correctly, it was the latter issue).

Many feared this would cause issues, hence the reason why they now read the year as the full number, and can compute beyond the 1900's (i.e. instead of 99 it's now 1999, or instead of 11, it's read as either 1911 or 2011 now).

Or in that case I could be completely wrong...I didn't do the best on the computer history part of programming...

Listen, the only thing thats coming close to our planet is in 2029, which is going to be a meteor, which is going to pass right by earth, but its going to be caught by the gravitational pull and return seven years later in 2036, no meteor or any outside space thing is coming at us in 2012

Yeah.  And most cosmic debris that comes near our planet that actually ENTERS the atmosphere just burns up anyway before it can hit anything.

[Kayo]

Or in that case I could be completely wrong...I didn't do the best on the computer history part of programming...Yeah.  And most cosmic debris that comes near our planet that actually ENTERS the atmosphere just burns up anyway before it can hit anything.

This logic contradicts with the meteor theory on dinosaur extinction, and frankly, I know little to nothing on that matter so I have no stance on what wiped them out.

[Doodle]

This logic contradicts with the meteor theory on dinosaur extinction, and frankly, I know little to nothing on that matter so I have no stance on what wiped them out.

It doesn't contradict it at all. Obviously little meteors/etc. will burn up in the atmosphere. If it's big enough, it won't burn up all the way.

[Kayo]

It doesn't contradict it at all. Obviously little meteors/etc. will burn up in the atmosphere. If it's big enough, it won't burn up all the way.

What I'm saying is, who's to say that another huge meteor won't come and kill us?

If that's even what got rid of the dinos. I think I'd need to study that more but I don't want to.

Actually, I think if that DID happen, there's a few things we'd have to consider. For example, if it landed in the ocean, it probably wouldn't be as destructive as if it landed on land. would it unleash huge tsunamis though? I don't know. That certainly wouldn't be good. But if it landed on land, say, in an unpopulated area such as the vast Sahara Desert, the impact wouldn't cause the harm. If there were any resulting tremors or what have you (anyone who knows about this correct me if I'm wrong; I'm really just guessing) that might do some damage to further areas.

I think the problem would be the cloud of dust. I think that we have the technology to be able to handle that, though, in an emergency. Stay indoors, have people with protective gear delivering supplies or whatever must be done if it's a true emergency. Bottom line is, we'd be able to get through it better than the dinos.

[Hero_of_Darkness]

If anything is gonna end the world, its gonna be us. I mean look, tons of people make a BIG deal out of this kind of thing, when most of it is a Hoax.  Back in 1992 the same guy predicted something was going to happen, but then he miscalculated, Hoax, Like what Neerb said with the Y2K Theory, Hoax,  June 6th, 2006 aka (6/6/06) Hoax, and now the May 21, 2011 Rapture theory, its all a hoax.

If anything is gonna end the world, its not gonna be some.....OH MY GODZ A FIRE BALL IN THE SKY AND IS COMING DOWN INTO THE CITY RUN!!! 100,000,000,000 / 1 chance of happening event. If anything is going to end the world, its gonna be us. Us as in Human beings. We're the most power hungry, Resource dependent, and the most corrupt life form on the planet.

Unless you're accusing the people who say those thing of just making it all up to stir things up, I don't think that "hoax" is the word you're looking for. The people who put out those warnings genuinely believed them to be true.

[Kayo]

Unless you're accusing the people who say those thing of just making it all up to stir things up, I don't think that "hoax" is the word you're looking for. The people who put out those warnings genuinely believed them to be true.

And so do the people who believed in the rapture and everything. People are so closely tied with their religion that they would actually kill themself if they thought God told them too. In my opinion, that's when religion is just out of hand. I'm not one to criticize people on their beliefs, but that is really just too much.

[Hero_of_Darkness]

And so do the people who believed in the rapture and everything. People are so closely tied with their religion that they would actually kill themself if they thought God told them too. In my opinion, that's when religion is just out of hand. I'm not one to criticize people on their beliefs, but that is really just too much.

I think that's more of a problem with people than religion.

[Kayo]

I think that's more of a problem with people than religion.

I'm not blaming the religion, I'm blaming the people that follow it THAT CLOSELY. Religion should not take over a person's life THAT much, and people should know this, but they don't.

[Neerb]

I'm not blaming the religion, I'm blaming the people that follow it THAT CLOSELY. Religion should not take over a person's life THAT much, and people should know this, but they don't.

Actually, religion IS supposed to take over a person's life THAT much; it's just that not every follower is as devout as they "should" be. I mean, if you just follow it half-heartedly, then it's not even a religion, it's just advice.

However, you are right in that the people are to blame; everyone has a choice to believe and do what they want (well, mentally anyway; physically, many are unfortunately forced to convert or die due to the culture in which they live).

[Kayo]

Actually, religion IS supposed to take over a person's life THAT much; it's just that not every follower is as devout as they "should" be. I mean, if you just follow it half-heartedly, then it's not even a religion, it's just advice.

However, you are right in that the people are to blame; everyone has a choice to believe and do what they want (well, mentally anyway; physically, many are unfortunately forced to convert or die due to the culture in which they live).

Uh, no. Religion shouldn't precede logical decisions in everyday life. Like say you were supposed to go to work one day. You can't say home and use for an excuse "God told me to stay home".

Likewise you shouldn't let it affect your better judgment. If you want to believe the Earth was created in a week, go ahead. But don't jump off a building because you BELIEVE something that every logical conclusion, even common sense, contradicts.

[Neerb]

Uh, no. Religion shouldn't precede logical decisions in everyday life. Like say you were supposed to go to work one day. You can't say home and use for an excuse "God told me to stay home".

Likewise you shouldn't let it affect your better judgment. If you want to believe the Earth was created in a week, go ahead. But don't jump off a building because you BELIEVE something that every logical conclusion, even common sense, contradicts.

Says your point of view.  ;)

You see, that's the point; what "should" or "shouldn't" be done is different in different people's minds. Now, don't get me wrong; I'm intelligent to know that there IS such thing as absolute truth, but frankly, not everyone has the same sense of what should and shouldn't be done. Why? Because of whatever their belief system is. The point is, not all religions are absolutely true, but nearly all religions are created to be followed AS IF they were true. Hinduism wasn't created because its creators wanted people to pick and choose parts of it; it was created because its creators wanted people to believe ALL of it.

[Kayo]

Says your point of view.  ;)

You see, that's the point; what "should" or "shouldn't" be done is different in different people's minds. Now, don't get me wrong; I'm intelligent to know that there IS such thing as absolute truth, but frankly, not everyone has the same sense of what should and shouldn't be done. Why? Because of whatever their belief system is. The point is, not all religions are absolutely true, but nearly all religions are created to be followed AS IF they were true. Hinduism wasn't created because its creators wanted people to pick and choose parts of it; it was created because its creators wanted people to believe ALL of it.

Says my point of view? If I decided to not show up for my job for a whole week, but told my boss "God said I should stay home from a week" he wouldn't buy it. And I'd be fired. Taking a week off using your vacation days or whatever is one thing, but that isn't a legitimate excuse.

[Doodle]

Uh, no. Religion shouldn't precede logical decisions in everyday life.

But that's essentially the point.

[Neerb]

Says my point of view? If I decided to not show up for my job for a whole week, but told my boss "God said I should stay home from a week" he wouldn't buy it. And I'd be fired. Taking a week off using your vacation days or whatever is one thing, but that isn't a legitimate excuse.

Again, not every view can be right at the same time, but if a person legitimately believed that their god wanted them to skip work, that would take higher priority for them; getting fired would be an unfortunate but "necessary" side-effect. In the mind of the person who follows said belief, that belief takes higher priority. So you see, religion "shouldn't" be top priority in life in the eyes of someone who doesn't follow said religion, but it "should" take top priority in life in the eyes of someone who does follow said religion. After all, if you legitimately believed that the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient creator told you to quit your job, the logical decision would be to obey, since God would have a lot more control over you than your boss should you disobey.

The point is, religions are designed for the purpose of being followed religiously. Even if from an objective standpoint it's nonsense, from a subjective standpoint no religion should be followed half-heartedly. The reason a person follows a religion is because they think it's real and thus NEEDS to be followed. Obviously, no one can follow any moral code perfectly, but if you live a lifestyle of partially following a religion, you're a hypocrite and are frankly wasting everyone's time, including your own.

[Kayo]

Again, not every view can be right at the same time, but if a person legitimately believed that their god wanted them to skip work, that would take higher priority for them; getting fired would be an unfortunate but "necessary" side-effect. In the mind of the person who follows said belief, that belief takes higher priority. So you see, religion "shouldn't" be top priority in life in the eyes of someone who doesn't follow said religion, but it "should" take top priority in life in the eyes of someone who does follow said religion. After all, if you legitimately believed that the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient creator told you to quit your job, the logical decision would be to obey, since God would have a lot more control over you than your boss should you disobey.

The point is, religions are designed for the purpose of being followed religiously. Even if from an objective standpoint it's nonsense, from a subjective standpoint no religion should be followed half-heartedly. The reason a person follows a religion is because they think it's real and thus NEEDS to be followed. Obviously, no one can follow any moral code perfectly, but if you live a lifestyle of partially following a religion, you're a hypocrite and are frankly wasting everyone's time, including your own.

Yes but it's bullpoop to let it precede everyday life to a destructive extent. Religions aren't designed to control your mind, and it's not half-hearted to not allow it to do such. It's a bit over the line for someone to allow religion to INTERFERE with their everyday life in a negative way. If they want to leave their job for a week for no reason other than a supernatural being "speaking" to them, fine for them. They just can't cry when they get fired. In this kind of world we live in now, that's just not acceptable. You wouldn't like it if you hired and paid someone that decided to just not work as much as your other employees, using a religious excuse. No religion is that intrusive, and no religion should be.