http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/
This is all the information we will ever need, provided by this entirely factual website. Other articles worth reading are the ones on Hitler, Margaret Thatcher, David Cameron and Joy Division.
I knew Claude will choose JL, so I thought I'd combat with this. Noel Gallagher is heavily inspired by JL and the Beatles, but I think he's a better song writer. Most Beatles songs are credited to Lennon/McCartney, which means they collaborated on the song writing. Noel wrote most of Oasis' tunes by himself. That makes him a better song writer. Oasis have some better songs than Beatles, but The Beatles have more good songs than Oasis.
I knew Claude would have a dig at Ian Curtis, which is another reason why Noel's better. I actually prefer John Lennon -- I have a poster of him. I have Liam Gallagher too but there's no Noel.
Ian Curtis, a Nazi, forever. <3
I say continue with the Olympics. I'm fairly sure that if people of a Christian faith had some sort of fasting, and the Olympics were being held in a Muslim country, the athletes would have to choose.
I'm not sure if this is right but I think my friend Ahmed once told me they have a choice to fast or to donate more money to charity, that it's not absolutely necessary. If a country feels they're at such a disadvantage, then they should help the athletes donate money.
I think it depends on which disaster we're talking about. For example, for volcanoes it's definitely primary effects. Lava and magma rolling down a hillside at a rather warm temperature would just kill you.
With earthquakes it's harder to tell. You've got the primary effects such as buildings falling down etc. but you've also got secondary effects like overcrowded hospitals and after-quakes.
I'm going to say primary effects then because on the Volcanoes v Earthquakes debate I said Volcanoes are worse, and seeing as I think the primary effects of a volcano are worse, then I'll say Primary Effects. But really I'm undecided.
I agree with you, and I do like Boris Johnson, I'd certainly come back and see him if I were from abroad. The stadium itself has cost the British taxpayer about £500 million to build. I've driven past it and it looks magnificent. It's a massive boost to the north-east of London.
However I help thinking about the threat of terrorism, the extra security the country will have to put in place and the tube will probably break due to overcrowding.
To be fair, he didn't say an LEDC will recover quicker. He said they rely on MEDCs to help. The UK donated quite a large amount of money to help the earthquake victims, because Haiti is an LEDC. They're still not fully recovered from the earthquake.
"If a country is wealthier it has a better response to a disaster."
"But in a MEDC they don't always rely on this help from other countries as they have more money invested into their own emergency services... so the aftermath is not as bad as a LEDC."
I think some people are missing the point of the title - "Tropical Rainforest Destruction Is An Inevitable Consequence Of Brazil's Need To Develop." As humans we class ourselves as intelligent, and we've realised that the rainforests need to be protected. Not doing so will have serious environmental effects, as well as the loss of a huge variety of species.
However, for Brazil to develop, they'll have to use whatever resources they have. This includes the rainforest. Two of the main exports of Brazil are Iron Ore and paper. Obtaining both of these products requires destroying the rainforest: wood is the main ingredient in paper and the iron mines are mainly located underneath the rainforest.
We're not debating whether destroying the rainforest is bad, we're debating whether destroying the rainforest is neccessary for Brazilians.
I agree with Anthony I'm afraid. Imagine yourself living in a city on the coast, and you hear a huge tsunami is heading in your direction. You try and get away but everyone else has had the same idea. Traffic clogs the road up and you drown in your car. The early warning system gives you time to prepare, because you'd be able to try and get away, but you wouldn't get far...
Japan recieved a Magnitude 9 earthquake in March last year. After the earthquake, a huge tsunami battered their main power sources. Although they were confused at first, they overcame the crisis pretty well, and I think that was mainly due to them being classed as an MEDC. They've managed to get back on track and the Yen becoming a bit weaker over the last year, the rest of the world is also a mess so in global terms, they're not doing too badly.
Seeing as we're 'Hostile' I'm disputing your first point. I think you're forgetting "The Claude and James Experience". I guess you could also add that volcanic soil is very fertile so it's a great opportunity for farmers or people who enjoy a good garden.
Great for growing shrubberies.
For me, volcanoes present people with a more immediate danger. For example, if we were to look at the Haiti Earthquake in 2010, I would suspect the original quake caused just a fraction of the 300000 (approx) deaths that came from the disaster. The main cause of death would be the aftermath of the quake, because of starvation and lack of shelter and medical aid.
However, the danger caused by a volcano straight after the event is massive: towns and cities at the base of a volcano would almost certainly be obliterated by the torrent of boiling lava rolling down the hillside. Then, red hot ash and huge volcanic chunks of rock will rain down on the people who are still alive. Finally, the poisons in the air will suffocate them and they'll be asphyxiated.
Of course, volcanoes can be predicted and most townspeople will have evacuated. But some people will be stubborn, remaining in their homes and dying a horrible and probably painful death.
