 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> - 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.
So I guess the Siemens guy I saw with his laptop connected to the traffic
light control box was just recharging it? ;-)
> I doubt the baker on the village highstreet is going to let people starve
> to death over a little computer glitch.
Yeh, I guess he can walk around and find a flour mill nearby to supply him,
and power up his ovens with a wood fire. Shouldn't take too long.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stefan Viljoen" <pov### [at] polard com> wrote in message
news:4afa744c@news.povray.org...
> 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.
Can you imagine all the sudden productivity increase we would experience? No
cell phones, no youtube, no computer games, no pov-ray, no newsgroups! With
that kind of manpower available, we'd take no time reviving those dormant
technologies. Also, don't forget that much of that is still alive in the
third world to varying degrees.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> - 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.
>
> So I guess the Siemens guy I saw with his laptop connected to the
> traffic light control box was just recharging it? ;-)
In which country was this?
The last set of traffic lights I stopped at doesn't even detect whether
there's any traffic. The lights just change every 45 seconds. Even at
2AM when there are no cars, every 45 seconds the lights change. What do
you need a computer for?
>> I doubt the baker on the village highstreet is going to let people
>> starve to death over a little computer glitch.
>
> Yeh, I guess he can walk around and find a flour mill nearby to supply
> him, and power up his ovens with a wood fire. Shouldn't take too long.
The baker himself shouldn't have any problem. The problems occur further
up the supply chain.
I guess it depends on whether you're talking about *computers* not
working, or "anything that requires electricity". The latter would be a
much bigger issue. If transport is still possible, even without
computers, companies will find a way. Face it: there's money to be made.
Companies just *love* that crap. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Can you imagine all the sudden productivity increase we would experience? No
> cell phones, no youtube, no computer games, no pov-ray, no newsgroups! With
> that kind of manpower available, we'd take no time reviving those dormant
> technologies. Also, don't forget that much of that is still alive in the
> third world to varying degrees.
WIN!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This thread brings to mind the first episode of James Burke's Connections.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
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
Yeah, OK. Granted, the folks living in cities are pretty screwed, but it's
not asteroid-hits-the-ocean kind of screwed. :-)
It's not like it's going to be a whole lot worse than, say, Katrina. Of
course, if you cover half the country, that's going to be a problem. I don't
know how big an EMP is. And you'll have trouble moving people without the
vehicles working - you'd have to bring some in from outside.
> 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! :)
Yeah, basically. Like I said, people in cities will be screwed.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> 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.
Ah, the old Secondary Control Rod Axe Man - the guy with the job to run in
with the axe and cut the cords holding up the secondary control rods when
the first set doesn't correctly fall on its own. :-) Hence, SCRAM a reactor.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> the lights green. It's not computer-controlled to start with.) More like
> just a collection of timers and electromechanical relays.
Depends where you are. Those movies with the guys watching the traffic
lights in the control rooms? That's real in NYC, for example.
> I'm fairly sure a nuclear plant would just automatically shut down. I'm
> pretty sure somebody will have thought of this.
If nothing else, I imagine they have enough batteries on site to shut the
thing down.
> 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. ;-)
Everybody says this, but I have to wonder how bad it might have been if not
for the hype and terror and everyone fixing everything because of that. I'd
have felt the same way if I didn't see everyone in the FAA jumping up and
down and cheering when 12:00 passed without anyone crashing.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> 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.
Huh? I once looked over the shoulder of a municipal sparky here (municipal
electrician) who was working on a control unit for a traffic light in my
town. Sure looked digital to me - chips, transistors, capacitors - couldn't
spot any huge relays or stuff like you'd expect. And as far as I know, in
some large US cities, fire-engines, for example, have transponders that will
"flip" traffic lights for them as they approach. Not sure how you can do
that electro-mechanically.
>> - 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.
Yes... again I must be clouded by my experience and what goes on here. Our
one nuclear plant had all its experienced operators fired a few years ago
and replaced with "affirmative" people - so I wouldn't be so sure. In the
first world, you're hopefully right.
>> - water supply
>
> This involves computers somehow?
Not here, but in first world countries I think so.
>> - 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.
A dying breed... my dad is a radio ham, but nobody younger than him are
taking up the hobby anymore. The general answer is "dude! it's so easy- just
use the net!" - no need for astronomically expensive HF sets, a morse-code
exam, etc.
>> - 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.
Granted.
>> - 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.)
We once had this situation here when the town was faced with a week or more
with no power. The supermarket guys had to have the emergency services act
read to them to release any food. Their answer to why not was exactly what I
said - they couldn't track what was being sold, and the managers simply
refused to effectively corrupt their database as to stock contents. Could
have also just been an a-hole of a manager, but it made me think.
>> - access to your money
>
> That could be fun. :-D
Yep - another issue I had to write a contingency plan on once. Everything
would soon revert to cash, with all the concomitant stuff of extra police
and army to prevent robberies, more security in general (since no plastic or
debit cards could be used) 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.
>
> 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. ;-)
Dude! I worked my *ss off - our town council here had a "just in case..."
attitude. Guess who had to help draft contingency plans?
>> 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?
Hehe probably not.
---
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> 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. ;-)
It wasn't so bad *because software was fixed*.
Nobody knows what could have happened if people had ignored the problem.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Stefan Viljoen 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! :)
>
> I'm wondering... All those absurdly fat people? Would they even *need*
> to eat?
Brains don't work from fat. They *need* sugar.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> 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. ;-)
>
> It wasn't so bad *because software was fixed*.
>
> Nobody knows what could have happened if people had ignored the problem.
Well, our F/EMS emergency dispatching system for months afterward (until the
company that supplied it fixed it) had its statistics for 1999/2000
completely screwed up. It'd give negative values for ambulance kilometers
traveled, for example... and no, you couldn't just flip the sign to get the
right answer.
I guess if it hadn't been for all the Y2k hype beforehand, other stuff might
have gone awry as well.
--
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I'm wondering... All those absurdly fat people? Would they even *need*
>> to eat?
>
> Brains don't work from fat. They *need* sugar.
...which is why the liver metabolises fat into sugar?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stefan Viljoen schrieb:
> 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.
Exactly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible schrieb:
>> 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?
Guess what: The fattest people out there - the type who are /literally/
too fat to even get out of bed - actually frequently /die of starvation/.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I'm wondering... All those absurdly fat people? Would they even *need*
>> to eat?
>
> Guess what: The fattest people out there - the type who are /literally/
> too fat to even get out of bed - actually frequently /die of starvation/.
Dehydration or vitamin deficiency I could believe, but *starvation*??
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible schrieb:
> The last set of traffic lights I stopped at doesn't even detect whether
> there's any traffic. The lights just change every 45 seconds. Even at
> 2AM when there are no cars, every 45 seconds the lights change. What do
> you need a computer for?
But you do know that there /are/ traffic lights that are a bit more
sophisticated than that, no? ;-)
Some cities actually have all their main roads' traffic lights networked
somehow.
> I guess it depends on whether you're talking about *computers* not
> working, or "anything that requires electricity".
Now if a computer /hacker/ can down a power grid (as has happened
already; or was it a virus? Don't recall), then one is not so far from
the other, is it?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New schrieb:
>> 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. ;-)
>
> Everybody says this, but I have to wonder how bad it might have been if
> not for the hype and terror and everyone fixing everything because of
> that. I'd have felt the same way if I didn't see everyone in the FAA
> jumping up and down and cheering when 12:00 passed without anyone crashing.
I had been in the business of Y2K auditing for a short time; from what
I've seen, it was pretty much hype after all.
Yes, there might have been some bad surprises here and there, and
possibly even a few isolated cases of /real/ shit happening, if the
issue hadn't been raised at all. But the level to which it was
ultimately raised was way out of proportion.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stefan Viljoen schrieb:
> Yes... again I must be clouded by my experience and what goes on here. Our
> one nuclear plant had all its experienced operators fired a few years ago
> and replaced with "affirmative" people - so I wouldn't be so sure. In the
> first world, you're hopefully right.
Uh... /very/ bad idea...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody schrieb:
> Can you imagine all the sudden productivity increase we would experience? No
> cell phones, no youtube, no computer games, no pov-ray, no newsgroups! With
> that kind of manpower available, we'd take no time reviving those dormant
> technologies. Also, don't forget that much of that is still alive in the
> third world to varying degrees.
Would be an interesting twist: First world being thrown back behind the
third world...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Would be an interesting twist: First world being thrown back behind the
> third world...
Where the hell is the *second* world, anyway??
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> I'm wondering... All those absurdly fat people? Would they even *need*
>>> to eat?
>>
>> Brains don't work from fat. They *need* sugar.
>
> ...which is why the liver metabolises fat into sugar?
Hmm... I recalled that if sugar was high, the liver converted sugar into
fat, but if sugar was low, it didn't convert fat back into the same kind of
sugar, and neurones notably couldn't use that.
I must be mixing it up with something else...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:37:59 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Would be an interesting twist: First world being thrown back behind the
>> third world...
>
> Where the hell is the *second* world, anyway??
The USSR member nations and their allies, IIRC.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>> Would be an interesting twist: First world being thrown back behind the
>>> third world...
>> Where the hell is the *second* world, anyway??
>
> The USSR member nations and their allies, IIRC.
Yes, I guess so (except that it's no longer USSR anymore). China, too, I
think.
As a random guess, I'd say Latin America might mostly fall in that
category, too.
India? Pakistan?
I guess the boundaries have also shifted since the term was coined.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 schrieb:
>> Guess what: The fattest people out there - the type who are
>> /literally/ too fat to even get out of bed - actually frequently /die
>> of starvation/.
>
> Dehydration or vitamin deficiency I could believe, but *starvation*??
Yeah. Can't dig up the article, but that's what they said, to my own
surprise.
I can't remember why exactly that was, but it seemed logical at the time
I heard it. Maybe it was something about an underlying cause for both -
an inability to convert fat back to anything useful or the like.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:32:43 +0100, clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>
>>>> Would be an interesting twist: First world being thrown back behind
>>>> the third world...
>>> Where the hell is the *second* world, anyway??
>>
>> The USSR member nations and their allies, IIRC.
>
> Yes, I guess so (except that it's no longer USSR anymore). China, too, I
> think.
China might be, The reference I found was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Second_World
> As a random guess, I'd say Latin America might mostly fall in that
> category, too.
Nope, that's counted as third world according to the reference page.
> India? Pakistan?
Also third world.
> I guess the boundaries have also shifted since the term was coined.
Very possibly - it's an economic delimiter, and could well have changed.
I note that Cuba (I'm guessing from the picture) is in the 2nd world as
well.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson schrieb:
> China might be, The reference I found was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Second_World
Interesting...
>> I guess the boundaries have also shifted since the term was coined.
>
> Very possibly - it's an economic delimiter, and could well have changed.
> I note that Cuba (I'm guessing from the picture) is in the 2nd world as
> well.
... judging from the Wikipedia articles, that's exactly what it is
/not/, even though at least the term "third world" is commonly used in
Germany synonymously for "developing world" (which is how I have alway
percieved it).
Instead, according to the 'pedia, it is indeed a political division,
more or less precisely defined as capitalist-democratic countries,
communist countries, and all the rest.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:15:00 +0100, clipka wrote:
> ... judging from the Wikipedia articles, that's exactly what it is
> /not/, even though at least the term "third world" is commonly used in
> Germany synonymously for "developing world" (which is how I have alway
> percieved it).
>
> Instead, according to the 'pedia, it is indeed a political division,
> more or less precisely defined as capitalist-democratic countries,
> communist countries, and all the rest.
I was thinking more of the "Three Worlds Theory", which cited it as a
politico-economic division. Under that theory, though, the USSR would
(I'd think) count as a first world country (as one of the superpowers).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> I'm wondering... All those absurdly fat people? Would they even *need*
>>>> to eat?
>>> Brains don't work from fat. They *need* sugar.
>> ...which is why the liver metabolises fat into sugar?
>
> Hmm... I recalled that if sugar was high, the liver converted sugar into
> fat, but if sugar was low, it didn't convert fat back into the same kind of
> sugar, and neurones notably couldn't use that.
>
> I must be mixing it up with something else...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatty_acid_metabolism
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>
>> The first one always has some bugs in it, often for its entire service
>> life. Children are a good example of this.
>
> ...WTF?! o_O
You clearly don't have children.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Stefan Viljoen schrieb:
>
>> Yes... again I must be clouded by my experience and what goes on here.
>> Our one nuclear plant had all its experienced operators fired a few years
>> ago and replaced with "affirmative" people - so I wouldn't be so sure. In
>> the first world, you're hopefully right.
>
> Uh... /very/ bad idea...
You don't say. Fortunately I live about 1300km from these reactors. And
UPWIND!
The thing is, the Koeberg Nuclear Power Station is very "Chernobyl-ly" if I
can call it that. It (like all SA power stations) runs flat-out ALL THE TIME
- if it is shut down for any reason, we usually have nationwide power cuts
and "load-shedding" to prevent our national grid imploding. So there is
intense pressure NEVER to shut it down, for any reason, even for absolutely
critical maintenance that could have an enormous safety impact.
And it is -old-, built in the late 1960's.
And it has quite incompetent operators / controllers. (And maintainers -
they once dropped a -wrench- into a turbo-generator there - can you believe
such incompetence around a device costing 10s of millions of dollars and of
national strategic importance? We had load-shedding for two weeks after
that!)
And it has managers more interested in affirmative action than safety.
:)
One of the joys of living here, I guess! I've personally seen affirmative
action with concomitant incompetence kill -many- people while still in the
fire services - but this one could be a REAL score for our government's
policy of "empowerment and affirmative action at ANY cost" - including
having a nuclear accident if that is what is "required" to have people of
the right ethnic background in responsible positions. So be it!
Unfortunately my mother lives quite close to this potential radiological
horror, and whenever I visit there I find myself checking each morning if I
can hear birds singing... If I can't, its probably too late to get the hell
out of Dodge anyway.
--
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> somebody schrieb:
>
>> Can you imagine all the sudden productivity increase we would experience?
>> No cell phones, no youtube, no computer games, no pov-ray, no newsgroups!
>> With that kind of manpower available, we'd take no time reviving those
>> dormant technologies. Also, don't forget that much of that is still alive
>> in the third world to varying degrees.
>
> Would be an interesting twist: First world being thrown back behind the
> third world...
I really enjoyed V for Vendetta where "The Voice of London" talks about the
"degenerates of America." Kind of an "oh how the might have fallen" kind of
comment.
Imagine Sweden begging us for... erm... begging us for...
Nope sorry, I can't imagine the third world being able to offer any products
(except unrefined ores and some diamonds) to anybody.
Thing is, if this happens the first world will in short order start up
alternative technologies (like bringing steam power back) while the third
would will do what it always does - beg from and blame everything on the
First World.
--
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:37:59 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>>> Would be an interesting twist: First world being thrown back behind the
>>> third world...
>>
>> Where the hell is the *second* world, anyway??
>
> The USSR member nations and their allies, IIRC.
E. g. not quite as poor, and not constantly begging for handouts. And not
increasing in population as quickly. And not as corrupt.
--
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>
>> China might be, The reference I found was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>> Second_World
>
> Interesting...
.
.
.
> /not/, even though at least the term "third world" is commonly used in
> Germany synonymously for "developing world" (which is how I have alway
> percieved it).
Tee hee hee - I've always loved that term "developing world".
--
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12-11-2009 14:58, John VanSickle wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> John VanSickle wrote:
>>
>>> The first one always has some bugs in it, often for its entire
>>> service life. Children are a good example of this.
>>
>> ...WTF?! o_O
>
> You clearly don't have children.
I don't remember if his sister is older. If so, I am pretty sure he
thinks the second one has more bugs. If not, he might just feel offended. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> I don't remember if his sister is older.
No.
> If so, I am pretty sure he
> thinks the second one has more bugs. If not, he might just feel
> offended. ;)
I have written medical statements to say I'm defective. :-{
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12-11-2009 23:01, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>
>> I don't remember if his sister is older.
>
> No.
I don't?
>> If so, I am pretty sure he thinks the second one has more bugs. If
>> not, he might just feel offended. ;)
>
> I have written medical statements to say I'm defective. :-{
So, a nice example of John's theorem in that case.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:05:16 +0200, Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:37:59 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>>>> Would be an interesting twist: First world being thrown back behind
>>>> the third world...
>>>
>>> Where the hell is the *second* world, anyway??
>>
>> The USSR member nations and their allies, IIRC.
>
> E. g. not quite as poor, and not constantly begging for handouts. And
> not increasing in population as quickly. And not as corrupt.
Well, I think some of the third world countries might have something to
say about "constantly begging for handouts"....many of those countries
have deep pride and prefer to do it themselves - sometimes to their
detriment (like not exporting goods).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I was thinking more of the "Three Worlds Theory",
I thought that was an invention of Marx, so I'd guess it precedes
"Communism" per se, yes?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:44:56 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I was thinking more of the "Three Worlds Theory",
>
> I thought that was an invention of Marx, so I'd guess it precedes
> "Communism" per se, yes?
Yeah, civics was never really my strong point... :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
