Date: 11 Jan 2009 00:45
Number of posts: 30
RSS: New posts
I toast ducks in the waxing light, a braying pool shallow and terse.
As an aside, why isn't this and Ted the Caver in our creepypasta section?
Agreed. Carbon dating and other radiometric dating methods don't work that way.
Perhaps the use of chlorine-36 instead of the more common carbon-14 would be a better scientific dating method in this case. Chlorine-36 was produced in nuclear testing and therefore we know when a majority of it was dumped into the environment.
Supposing that no new nuclear explosions occur the dating could be made using standard half life calculations e.g. less carbon-36 than current norms but more than what was available pre-nuclear testing.
Just a quick thought on the matter of radiometric dating of objects from the future
That assumes that:
- The newspaper was made on Earth.
- No more nuclear explosions takes place on Earth for the next few centuries.
Those are awfully big assumptions given the nature of this newspaper and the kind of world the Foundation lives in. Remember, a lot of Foundation sites have nuclear warheads set to go off in an emergency.
It would also tell us that, IF the newspaper came from our Earth's future, then it comes from at least X years into the future. Seems like a good place to start.
(Also, chlorine-36 appears to have a nice, long half-life, too, so the dates can be made very precise, even if they're not necessarily very accurate.)
after re-reading the comments and checking the history, I feel that this re-working seems to feel like a better fit for SCP objects… Uprating
Because it matters to me, I wanted to note here that Fishmonger's did not apparently come from the quality of the work but rather from IRC shenanigans because they did not like me asking people who had previously voted the old SCP-404 to re-read and re-vote if they thought it deserved it.
Call me crazy but I'm of the opinion that ratings on a page should immediately reflect whether or not you liked the CONTENT and not the results of backroom behavior. The ratings matter to me because I can look at who liked what, who didn't like what, rethink issues, and re-write them if necessary.
I know it's fairly BAWWWWish to be bothered by something like this but immature rating shit should really be avoided. If you like it, up-vote it, if you don't, down-vote it, but try to give some kind of constructive reference as to why instead of 'DURRRRRR I DON'T LIKE U'. Some of us actually do CARE to know that the things we write are held in a positive or negative light and try to use that input as a basis on whether to continue writing things or stop and look at current writings to see what can be improved. Maybe not everyone does that, but I do. More-so since I'm trying to breathe life into already down-rated SCPs, unfounded votes don't help me properly gauge if it's working or not.
So, yeah, that down vote apparently came from that. Thank you to the people who voted because you liked or disliked it.
Edit: One of the votes was removed so I edited my rant to reflect that. The sentiment 'Rate the work' still applies.
Ok, thing is, I don't think that the SCP foundation is really competitive. There are good SCPs, and terrible SCPs. Outside of that though, no SCP is really 'better' than another. if ten people like and upvote one, and eight people upvote another, then two people downvote.. Does it really matter? As long as it's recognized as not sucking.