 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Invisible schrieb:
>
>> "The core is a 7m-long graphite block encased in steel, water cooled and
>> then further wrapped in 750 tonnes of concrete and iron shielding."
>>
>> Damn half-arsed engineering. ;-)
>
> Gives a new definition to the term "core dump"...
Hahahaha!
--
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Stefan Viljoen wrote:
>> Given how dependant we are on techy stuff for daily life, it is scary how
>> vulnerable technology can be.
>
> I think we're much less dependent than you think we are. It's just much
> less *comfortable*.
I disagree. My folks often say this too - just cut out the computers and
we'll just be less comfortable. But take down -especially- the
microprocessor and you likely loose
- traffic lights
- mains electricity (I shiver to think about a nuclear plant suddenly losing
all computerized instrumentation and monitoring systems)
- water supply
- comms of every kind (internet, wired telephone, terrestrial digital radio,
cellphones, fax, the works)
- modern medical support (all those EKGs, MRI machines, heart-lung monitors)
- food (unless you kill the supermarket guy 'cause he won't release ANY food
to you - his computerized stock management system is offline, so he doesn't
know what he is selling, how much to order in, etc.)
- access to your money
etc. etc.
We actually gamed this out once when I was still in the emergency services
here (we had too - our national grid was at the point of collapse) and it
was quickly realized that society will regress so quickly it will be
catastrophic.
Granted, that was for a loss of all mains electricity, possibly for weeks,
but I think some elements of that apply to major failures in technology,
especially computer technology.
Hey! That means that you'd most likely have to start hunting again. That
isn't so bad, so I guess you got a point as well! :)
--
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> - traffic lights
> - mains electricity (I shiver to think about a nuclear plant suddenly
> losing
> all computerized instrumentation and monitoring systems)
> - water supply
> - comms of every kind (internet, wired telephone, terrestrial digital
> radio,
> cellphones, fax, the works)
> - modern medical support (all those EKGs, MRI machines, heart-lung
> monitors)
> - food (unless you kill the supermarket guy 'cause he won't release ANY
> food
> to you - his computerized stock management system is offline, so he
> doesn't
> know what he is selling, how much to order in, etc.)
> - access to your money
...
> Hey! That means that you'd most likely have to start hunting again. That
> isn't so bad, so I guess you got a point as well! :)
Oh come on, in the first half of the 20th century there were no
microprocessors, yet we managed to have shops, delivery systems, we could
even build planes, cars and power stations. Sure there will be mayhem if
unexpectedly uP's suddenly disappeared, but it's not like we'd have to go
back to hunting.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Hey! That means that you'd most likely have to start hunting again. That
>> isn't so bad, so I guess you got a point as well! :)
>
> Oh come on, in the first half of the 20th century there were no
> microprocessors, yet we managed to have shops, delivery systems, we could
> even build planes, cars and power stations. Sure there will be mayhem if
> unexpectedly uP's suddenly disappeared, but it's not like we'd have to go
> back to hunting.
Just a joke man. Relax.
Of course what you say is true, but all those societal elements were evolved
TO. If today's tech was to disappear tomorrow, we'd suddenly have a
regression to a level far below what we had in the early 20th. Until we can
re-establish the "outmoded" technologies and technological base (like steam
power) that were cutting edge in say, 1920.
--
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Of course what you say is true, but all those societal elements were
> evolved
> TO. If today's tech was to disappear tomorrow, we'd suddenly have a
> regression to a level far below what we had in the early 20th. Until we
> can
> re-establish the "outmoded" technologies and technological base (like
> steam
> power) that were cutting edge in say, 1920.
Yeh, it still massively surprises me how anything can be designed or made
without computers and the internet. Basically ever since I started work
*everything* was designed via CAD systems and almost-instant internet
exchange of data. I often ask some of the older people working for my
company how stuff worked before, it is really interesting, and explains why
things can be made so much more efficiently today.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stefan Viljoen schrieb:
> - mains electricity (I shiver to think about a nuclear plant suddenly losing
> all computerized instrumentation and monitoring systems)
Which is why nuclear power plants (at least in safety-aware western
world) come with multiply rendundant systems, at least one of which is
independent of electronics.
For instance, a reactor might have control rods held in place by
solenoids; cut the power, and are driven into the core by gravity or
loaded springs, effectively shutting the reactor down.
> - water supply
I guess this will actually be the worst. Food is second.
You forgot heating systems. Those come third, though warm clothing and a
lot of warm blankets can help you some. Well, maybe in Africa it's not
that much of an issue...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Of course what you say is true, but all those societal elements were
>> evolved
>> TO. If today's tech was to disappear tomorrow, we'd suddenly have a
>> regression to a level far below what we had in the early 20th. Until we
>> can
>> re-establish the "outmoded" technologies and technological base (like
>> steam
>> power) that were cutting edge in say, 1920.
> Yeh, it still massively surprises me how anything can be designed or made
> without computers and the internet.
Me too - Jay Leno in his Popular Mechanics column a few issues ago had an
article about a steam engine he bought. He said they were all made by hand,
and not one (!) had identical measurements! It was the -same- manufacturer
and they built the same model, but apparently they were so roughly made
that parts didn't fit across same instances of the same model. But they
worked just fine. And were lubricated with pig-fat!
> Basically ever since I started work
> *everything* was designed via CAD systems and almost-instant internet
> exchange of data. I often ask some of the older people working for my
> company how stuff worked before, it is really interesting, and explains
> why things can be made so much more efficiently today.
I spoke to an engineering grad a while ago, and he said that often older
craftsmen, with hand-controlled lathes, could turn out better, more
accurate products than the computer driven CNC machine they used at his
company. He said it was because the human can "know" his tool or lathe, and
where it is inaccurate or a little "under" as regards measurements. A CNC
machine can't "know" that, and if you screw up its setup in the slightest
(not level, too hot, vibration, etc.) it gives sub-optimal results - where
a human can adjust for a mis-measurement or error.
--
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Stefan Viljoen schrieb:
>
>> - mains electricity (I shiver to think about a nuclear plant suddenly
>> losing all computerized instrumentation and monitoring systems)
>
> Which is why nuclear power plants (at least in safety-aware western
> world) come with multiply rendundant systems, at least one of which is
> independent of electronics.
I hope so!
> For instance, a reactor might have control rods held in place by
> solenoids; cut the power, and are driven into the core by gravity or
> loaded springs, effectively shutting the reactor down.
Hmm, isn't this what happened at Chernobyl? The reactor scrammed, but due to
the design, the control rods exacerbated the runaway reaction, instead of
attenuating it?
But then, the design was way-different from western PWRs as far as I know.
>> - water supply
>
> I guess this will actually be the worst. Food is second.
>
> You forgot heating systems. Those come third, though warm clothing and a
> lot of warm blankets can help you some. Well, maybe in Africa it's not
> that much of an issue...
Correct, here, you can get by year round without any real-special provision
for heating. It rarely if ever goes below -5c - and then only for an hour
or two in the early morning. Coldest I've ever been in my life was at
about -9c.
--
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Me too - Jay Leno in his Popular Mechanics column a few issues ago had an
> article about a steam engine he bought. He said they were all made by
> hand,
> and not one (!) had identical measurements! It was the -same- manufacturer
> and they built the same model, but apparently they were so roughly made
> that parts didn't fit across same instances of the same model. But they
> worked just fine. And were lubricated with pig-fat!
Yeh, that was how stuff used to be made before Henry Ford realised that you
just need to make each component accurate *enough*, then each part can be
used on any car and will fit without manually needing to tune it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> I disagree. My folks often say this too - just cut out the computers and
> we'll just be less comfortable. But take down -especially- the
> microprocessor and you likely loose
>
> - traffic lights
These are not microprocessor-controlled. (This is part of the reason why
it is impossible to "hack into" the traffic light system and turn all
the lights green. It's not computer-controlled to start with.) More like
just a collection of timers and electromechanical relays.
> - mains electricity (I shiver to think about a nuclear plant suddenly losing
> all computerized instrumentation and monitoring systems)
I'm fairly sure a nuclear plant would just automatically shut down. I'm
pretty sure somebody will have thought of this.
> - water supply
This involves computers somehow?
> - comms of every kind (internet, wired telephone, terrestrial digital radio,
> cellphones, fax, the works)
Apparently valves are relatively unaffected by an EMP. There are
probably plenty of ham radio ops out there who could still keep working.
> - modern medical support (all those EKGs, MRI machines, heart-lung monitors)
Yeah, most of these would be ****ed.
I don't know about EMP shielding, but these kinds of devices tend to be
subjected to some pretty insane levels of safety testing. (Remember, I
work in an industry indirectly related to medical devices.) And of
course, doctors know how to do their work without machines. Obviously
they can't work as well as they would, but they can still do something.
> - food (unless you kill the supermarket guy 'cause he won't release ANY food
> to you - his computerized stock management system is offline, so he doesn't
> know what he is selling, how much to order in, etc.)
I doubt the baker on the village highstreet is going to let people
starve to death over a little computer glitch. He only uses an antique
mechanical cash register anyway. (This is not hypothetical. I'm talking
about an actual baker I know of within walking distance.)
> - access to your money
That could be fun. :-D
> We actually gamed this out once when I was still in the emergency services
> here (we had too - our national grid was at the point of collapse) and it
> was quickly realized that society will regress so quickly it will be
> catastrophic.
>
> Granted, that was for a loss of all mains electricity, possibly for weeks,
> but I think some elements of that apply to major failures in technology,
> especially computer technology.
Remember the Y2K bug? The one that was supposed to make planes fall from
the skies and nuclear reactors go into meltdown?
...
Nah, it wasn't so bad. ;-)
> Hey! That means that you'd most likely have to start hunting again. That
> isn't so bad, so I guess you got a point as well! :)
I'm wondering... All those absurdly fat people? Would they even *need*
to eat?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
