What are the best free money places you have found in Second Life?
Please share your Best of with us …

Second Life – Best Free Money Places

What are the best Profile Picks you have been paid for.
Please share your Best of with us …

Second Life – Best Profile Picks
Look for Vista Animations, they have a $69 Profile Picks, thats great money for putting their pick in your profile.

But if we really want to know which the best songs were was, as far as the global audience is concerned, we have the simplest of tools available to us.

Using the number of views on the official Eurovision Youtube channel, I have collated the publics choice for Eurovision 2010.

The winner of Eurovision 2010 was Germany, and this was the publics view globally. Some of the other results, however, are very interesting….

Eurovision 2010 votes, in million of views.

WRONG! Once again the Eurovision voting system is a disaster, and a pathetic failure.

Dont take it personally, EUB but you got it wrong, again.

The problem is the regional voting patterns.

Here is the solution.

Once upon a time you could vote, but not for your own country. Thats when there were only a handful of entrants.

Now we have dozens of entrants and regional voting blocks are a problem.

I would extend the philosophy of not voting for your own country to not voting for your own region.

Group all entrants into regional blocks of 6 and you can not vote for a country in your own regional block.

This would immediately remove the impact of regional voting and ensure a fairer Eurovision system.

What do you think?

An alternative would be to group all entrants into groups of 6, and they have a mini final against each other so that only one entrants goes to the final from that region, with wildcards given to the next highest placings.

There are many commentaries suggesting this was one of the largest earthquakes on record – this is true and, unfortunately, Chile is listed many times on the Top 10 of all earthquakes.

The largest ever earthquake was recorded in Chile on May 22, 1960 with at least 1600 people killed.

On March 27, 1964, a magnitude 9.2 quake in Prince William Sound, Alaska  killed about 130 people.

On Dec. 26, 2004:, a magnitude 9.1 quake off the Indonesian island of Sumatra triggered a tsunami that killed 225,000 people in 12 countries.

And on Aug. 13, 1868, amagnitude 9.0 quake in Arica, Peru, Chile killed more than 25,000 people in  South America.

Many of the deaths in these quakes came from tsunamis.

Here we are in the 21st century. About 70,000 years ago we started out on a journey that has seen humankind cover the plant in a mass of people, oxygen breathing people, and we have this terrible habit of exploiting everything we find to exhaustion.

As we increase in population every day, we also remove and use more of the forests and plant life that gives us air to breathe.
As drinking water becomes more scarce, we have begun to use the oceans for our drinking water – and no doubt one day we will exhaust that resource.

And whilst we worry about causing rising sea levels, a minor inconvenience for some, nobody seems to pay any attention to the levels of oxygen in our atmosphere.

Did you know that our atmosphere is only 12kms thick? This precious envelope that gives us life is like the thin skin on an apple.

Not only is the atmosphere thin but it is made up of only 21% oxygen, and the oxygen in our atmosphere wasnt always there. It has only been there for the last billion years or so.

So we know that it is finite, very finite, and we know that we use it up every day. We also know that we use more of the oxygen in the atmosphere than is put back by natural processes.

Studies have shown that amount of oxygen in the atmosphere over the last 10 years has been declining. Its a slow and very small decline, but its happening.

Scientists will tell you that there is no problem with the level of oxygen in our atmosphere.But consider these issues…

1) the numbers suggest a small decline in oxygen in our atmosphere.
2) the number of people using oxygen is not reducing, it is increasing every year.
3) the amount of pollutants going into our atmosphere increases every year.
4) the number of trees and plants that would put oxygen back into the atmosphere decreases each year.

I have seen an estimate that indicates we have about 60,000 years of oxygen left in our atmosphere.
But that is not the important figure because we can not survive on 1 or 2% of oxygen.

The important figure is 15 %, because at that level of oxygen the effect is similar to living at 10,000 feet and at this level most humans suffer from lack of oxygen. Comprehension is reduced, coordination is reduced.

Today we have 21% oxygen in atmosphere. We will be in trouble if that number reduces to 15%.
We know that the percentage is declining, slowly, and we know all the activities that humans undertake are going to increase the rate of oxygen depletion.

I imagine that we will the 15% oxygen mark in the atmosphere somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 years from now. That is not much time left for humankind to figure out what it is doing and how it can have a future.

The fantasies, and the science, usually involve people travelling to another location, getting out and moving around as though they are part of the new present.

This is not how time travel works.

Time travel requires massive amounts of energy. It needs this energy because it has to warp, or distort, space and time.
The amount of energy required is not something that is available to us here in the early 21st century.

Without going into the physics of it, time travel basically works like this.

The “time traveller” sits inside a protective field that protects him, or her, from the massive amount of energy that is used to warp time and space.
It is a slow process, taking many hours to retreat only a single year in time.
Neither the traveller nor the field moves. Time in the immediate area of the traveller is warped.
When the destination time is arrived at, the traveller can see the location about them, but they can not depart from the protective, they can not walk around. If they could step outside the field they would be torn apart instantly.
At the destination point, the “locals” would see a ghostly “glowing” vision appear at the place the traveller arrived, but neither could communicate with the other.

So rather than the glorified and exciting versions of time travel that have been portrayed over the years, time would be a more scholarly exercise.
There would be no need to worry about changing the past, as we can not interact with it.
The primary value of time travel would be to go back in time and view historical events but even this would require significant time and a relocation of the machine to the suppose location of the event before the time travelling commenced.

Time travel would be a rare occurence requiring a significant investment by human society in providing the energy needed.

But if something happens to our planet, we are all doomed – because there is no Plan B, there is no disaster recovery plan.
And I find that a little bit strange, dont you?

All of our efforts, all the bloodshed, sweat, all the energy expended to get to where we are now could all go down the drain with one unfortunate event.
Is that clever?
I would think that a clever species, would have a Plan B already in place so that if the ultimate disaster were to happen on Earth, our species would continue. But we dont have such a plan.
I think we should!

The very famous scientist, Stephen Hawking, is one of many who agree on this topic – he thinks we should get off this planet as soon as possible to ensure our survival. Yet I have read many peoples contrary arguments that space exploration is too expensive.
Lets make this clear, we are not talking about space exploration for the fun of it. We are talking about the survival of the species, and that has to be worth any risk.

I have a plan, a reasonably controversial plan, to get us off this planet and to ensure the survival of our species. And it will cost a lot less than any previous plans.

ET’s Human Species Survival Plan.
Lets assume that at any moment as a result of some act of nature, an accident of human endeavour, or the workings of a madman, human life on earth could come to a sudden end.
The end might be so sudden that we dont have time to put any escape plan into action.
It would appear that the only way humankind would survive such a trauma would be if the species was already off planet.
This means the survival plan needs to get some members off the planet now, and hope they survive.

Space travel is very expensive, it is however much less expensive, fantastically less expensive, if its only a one way trip!
Everyday around the world, thousands of people die in car accidents – but we dont stop making cars and we dont ban automobile travel.
Every day millions of people die from smoking – we dont ban smoking.
Every day tens of thousands of people go to work and never return home- they die in an accident at work, but we dont stop working.

As a society, we consider these losses, these deaths, to be an acceptable price for the machinery of human society to continue.
I see no reason why we should treat an exodus off the planet any differently.

Lets send hundreds, if not thousands, of humans off planet in many cheap expeditions that are all designed to be low cost, and the humans expendable. Yes, of course, we hope they succeed because that is the point of the exercise. But we also have to accept there will be many failures amongst the successes, and yes, some people will die. Bad luck.

We have to get off the planet now, and here are some ways to do it.

Stage One of my plan – lets send 100 humans to the moon. There is water on the moon, we can send many containers to act as living quarters, storage, food production etc areas and we can send tough, innovative and brave men and women of breeding age to the moon. Initially we could assist in keeping up vital supplies and Im sure they could pay for the freight by providing earth with science and vital materials. But they would be producing their own water, air, and food. They would adapt to their home.

This is do-able right now. In 18 months we could send people to the moon. We dont need to do this by government invitation, enough people could get together the funds to send commercial rockets to the moon.
COSTS – 100 people, $10million per person = $1bn
REVENUE- TV rights (min $1bn), Science $1bn, materials back to earth $1bn
I think it would be profitable to send a large group of humans to the moon to live there permanently with no intention to return.

But the moon is very close. We need greater protection.

Step Two – repeat the same process, but this time send humans to Mars.
The first humans could be standing on Mars in 5 years.
COST – $10bn
REVENUES – $10bn [ TV Rights $5bn, Science $3bn, trade with earth $2bn]

Step Three – also send manned one way expeditions to the moons Europa, Callisto and Ganymede and Titan.

Step Four – establish manned one way expeditions on comets that move outside the solar system.
COSTS – $1bn
REVENUE – $2bn

Step Five – send humans outside the solar system permanently.

I think the time has come to take the future of our species into our own hands and stop waiting for incompetent governments to save us.

Lets get off the planet now, lets begin the human exodus to the stars!!

What do we have to do?
1) Support projects like this. Get together with like minded people and begin planning and fund raising.
2) Then do it!