 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
