Dan Gillgren

IT Manager
Sydney, Australia

About Dan

Talk to me about

A new game I am beginning to trial called "Flagball ".

People don't know I'm good at

Painting... well, not that good, but people don't generally know that I dabble.

Comments & conversations

Noface
Dan Gillgren
Posted almost 2 years ago
is there a way to overcome time travel paradoxes? is there a possible way to travel in time?
Time travel did once exist, because a soldier from the distant future told me the story personally. It was invented in the year 2152 by a Swiss inventor. Unfortunately it was quickly militarized, and was ultimately the cause of a massive global war that lasted the next 50 years, taking humanity to the brink of existence. So in order to save mankind, special forces were sent back in time to kill the parents of the inventor, therefore saving the world from a catastrophic war. Time travel was then never invented, and because it had never been invented, no one has any recollection of it ever existing.
Noface
Dan Gillgren
Posted almost 2 years ago
existence of god (why religion is the answer)
There are too many things that don't make sense regarding the existence of God. If he did indeed create mankind and the planet on which we live, why would he make the universe so very large? To create billions of galaxies each with billions of stars, for the sake of mankind and Earth, it makes little sense. And why create all of the other exo-planets are discovering around distant stars? Why would he create an energy source such as the Sun with a finite lifespan? Surely God is aware that most people on Earth question his existence, so why doesn't he simply provide proof of his own existence? If God were to simply pay us a brief visit, we'd be able to clear up the whole "this religion" vs "that religion" nonsense, allowing everyone to focus on the one single God (whoever he might be). "God" is hope that mankind has when we question our own mortality. It would be nice to think that "God" has a place for us when we die, but the more we learn about the cosmos and how everything is constructed, I think it is unlikely. Anyone with undeniable proof as to the existence of God can contact me for a $50 reward.
Noface
Dan Gillgren
Posted almost 2 years ago
Is fighting climate change a losing battle?
Tongue in cheek, while global warming is a bad outcome for some, anyone who has lived in New Zealand should really be welcoming global warming. It can get bitterly cold there during winter, and a couple of degrees warming would be nice. And if the sea temps also rise, the beaches won't be so damn cold even in summer. The original question on global warming is really a subset of a broader range of questions regarding humanity and what actions it needs to take to ensure longevity of existence. I'd like to see humanity get behind the "Mars-One" project. Having a colony on Mars is an insurance policy against catastrophic events on Earth, and perhaps then we could sleep a little better at night. I agree as well that our planet cools and warms over time. The next ice age will be interesting for sure. The issue of global warming is very complex. We install solar panels while at the same time we destroy forests, we empty our oceans of fish, and continue to build weapons that have the potential to wipe life off the planet many times over. Governments talk about needing to grow their economy, and some governments even have policies that boost immigration to support economic growth. Governments are part of the problem not the solution, and that if we all sit back waiting for governments to do something, then we will be waiting a heck of a long time. Or even if they manage to implement something like a carbon tax, it is all ultimately meaningless for all of the reasons mentioned in my original reply. A complex situation indeed, and the best place to start is with each individual ie the choices we make and things we can do to make positive change.
Noface
Dan Gillgren
Posted almost 2 years ago
Is fighting climate change a losing battle?
My thoughts on global warming: 7 billion on the planet right now are having a negative impact on the environment. Populous countries such as India and China are generating more wealth each year, and therefore it is natural to assume that consumption in these and other poorer countries is only going to increase over time. Greater consumption is going to lead to more manufacturing and more pollution. Not everyone is going to be a consumer, but with upwards of 10 billion people by 2100, it is rather frightening to start thinking about how many of these 10 billion will be consumers, all wanting the latest iPhones, DVD players, LCD televisions... You can have all the fancy schemes you can think of to try and combat "global warming" eg bio fuels, solar/wind energy, but the real underlying issue is uncontrolled world population growth. We're already starting to see the consequences. The Great Barrier Reef is slowly being destroyed partly due to human activities on land. Destruction of the natural world will only increase as the world population increases. When we hit the 10 billion mark at around the year 2100 or so, I believe global warming is going to be a lesser concern over and above "competition" over resources such as food, clean water, and raw materials for manufacturing, and the resulting destruction to the environment. I'd like to end this by highlighting the stupidity of mankind... The Australian Govt is quite prepared to spend over $40 billion on a national broadband network. Yet, the current petroleum distribution network can't be replaced by hydrogen because it is "too expensive". I have no idea how much it would cost, but $40 billion would go a heck of a long way towards paying for a move towards hydrogen fueled vehicles and the refueling infrastructure.