One In Eight Chance of a Financially Catastrophic Solar Storm By 2020

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

One In Eight Chance of a Financially Catastrophic Solar Storm By 2020

Posted by Soulskill on Friday March 2, 2012 @03:54AM from the movie-rights-already-sold-to-syfy dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A privately employed solar scientist named Pete Riley estimates there's a 12 percent chance of a massive solar storm comparable to the Carrington Event in 1859 which resulted in breathtaking aurorae across the United States and other temperate regions of the globe. The electromagnetic surge from the 1859 event caused failures of telegraph systems across Europe and North America. A similar storm today could knock out power grids, GPS and communication satellites, data centers, transportation systems, and building and plumbing infrastructures and wreak $1 trillion or more of economic damage in the first year alone, according to a 2008 report from the National Academy of Sciences."

284 of 337 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

What are the chances by eternaldoctorwho · 2012-03-02 03:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

that it will happen in 2012?
1. Re:What are the chances by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-02 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  Higher than usual as 2012 is the year of solar maximum.
2. Re:What are the chances by Krneki · 2012-03-02 03:57 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  that it will happen in 2012?
  12,5%
  
  --
  Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
3. Re:What are the chances by DamageLabs · 2012-03-02 03:59 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Let me just check my Mayan calendar...
  Oh yes, there it is.
4. Re:What are the chances by hcs_$reboot · 2012-03-02 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  ((12 - 2)/12) / (2020 - 2012) * 12 % ?
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
5. Re:What are the chances by Hentes · 2012-03-02 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  7/8, of course.
6. Re:What are the chances by na1led · 2012-03-02 04:17 · Score: 2
  
  It will happen on 12/12/12
  
  --
  -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
7. Re:What are the chances by buchner.johannes · 2012-03-02 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  Let me just check my Mayan calendar...
  Oh yes, there it is.
  Is this a leap year?
  
  --
  NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
8. Re:What are the chances by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-03-02 04:39 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Let me just check my Mayan calendar...
  Oh yes, there it is.
  Is this a leap year?
  Why? Do leap years make you jumpy?
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
9. Re:What are the chances by jeffmeden · 2012-03-02 05:04 · Score: 2
  
  Higher than usual as 2012 is the year of solar maximum.
  Actually we don't know if it is the solar maximum... The sun is very periodic but it is still a bit unpredictable as to when exactly the periods start and stop. The only way to know is if in 2013 it shows the telltale slowdown of the decline cycle (that is, if we are still here...)
10. Re:What are the chances by NFN_NLN · 2012-03-02 05:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Actually we don't know if it is the solar maximum... The sun is very periodic but it is still a bit unpredictable as to when exactly the periods start and stop. The only way to know is if in 2013 it shows the telltale slowdown of the decline cycle (that is, if we are still here...)
  Interesting, this is the same strategy employed by economists. It seems most of them won't recognize an economic bubble when they're in one... but after the "telltale slowdown" is becomes extremely obvious in hind-sight.
11. Re:What are the chances by tnk1 · 2012-03-02 05:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Which is strange, because I knew we were in a bubble while it was going on. When the houses around me started selling for $150,000 more than I bought mine for in a matter of a couple years, with no real underlying changes to the economy, it was pretty darn obvious there was a bubble.
  Economists aren't that dumb, they're either being hopelessly optimistic that economics has suddenly discovered perpetual motion, or they were just keeping their mouths shut lest they be the guy who went down in history as the one popping the bubble and starting the inevitable recession.
12. Re:What are the chances by Muad'Dave · 2012-03-02 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Not according to the NOAA/Space Weather Prediction Center. Close, though. Solar flux has been terrible lately - 10m was wide open back in late October with flux values of 140 or higher. We're barely above 100 right now with a massive contest on for this weekend. Durn it!
  
  --
  Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
13. Re:What are the chances by Scott+Tracy · 2012-03-02 05:36 · Score: 2
  
  Nope, 1.5% -- it's a 1 in 8 chance *over* 8 years
14. Re:What are the chances by dcollins · 2012-03-02 05:45 · Score: 2
  
  Or possibly:
  (c) Their bosses are telling them to shut up and play nice because there are bets currently on the table.
  (d) The media mostly only reports the "up, up, up" stories and not the serious critics.
  
  --
  We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
15. Re:What are the chances by TheRealMindChild · 2012-03-02 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  So the risk is spread evenly, at remarkably convenient divisions of one year? Back to math class for you!
  
  --
  
  "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
16. Re:What are the chances by daem0n1x · 2012-03-02 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  wreak $1 trillion or more of economic damage in the first year alone
  No problem, we've seen that before. The governments will spend countless amounts of taxpayer's money to bailout the Sun. Then the Sun will declare that we are in debt for living above our capabilities and force us to live in austerity.
  If we ever get to 2020, of course.
17. Re:What are the chances by justforgetme · 2012-03-02 06:13 · Score: 2
  
  IIRC there actually is a psychological, medically acknowledged, syndrome that has to do
  with giving up on prosperous concepts/enterprises. In layman's terms it describes optimism
  in a more elaborate language, though it also describes gambler's addiction at some point.
  Can't remember where I have read about it though..
  
  --
  -- no sig today
18. Re:What are the chances by jeffmeden · 2012-03-02 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  Actually we don't know if it is the solar maximum... The sun is very periodic but it is still a bit unpredictable as to when exactly the periods start and stop. The only way to know is if in 2013 it shows the telltale slowdown of the decline cycle (that is, if we are still here...)
  Interesting, this is the same strategy employed by economists. It seems most of them won't recognize an economic bubble when they're in one... but after the "telltale slowdown" is becomes extremely obvious in hind-sight.
  It's a bit more complicated but yeah, sure. Some economists did know we were in a bubble, I remember listening to Marketplace over a year before the financial crisis and on a regular basis they had features on the housing bubble (directly calling it a bubble) and prognostication as to how long it would last and what it would look like when it unwinds. The thing about a bubble is, you are not *certainly* in a bubble until it pops, and you don't really know how big of a bubble it was until after you hit the bottom. Any system with fundamentally un-knowable but mildly predictable bounds (like the sun cycle) will work like this; the only people in the end who were "smart enough to see it" were really just the best guessers.
19. Re:What are the chances by jeffmeden · 2012-03-02 06:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  IIRC there actually is a psychological, medically acknowledged, syndrome that has to do
  with giving up on prosperous concepts/enterprises. In layman's terms it describes optimism
  in a more elaborate language, though it also describes gambler's addiction at some point.
  Can't remember where I have read about it though..
  It could have been the 150 year old book "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" which basically cited the many self-induced economic bubbles/busts up to that point in history, and has been a blueprint for every one of them since. What's interesting is how every time the pattern repeats we swear that a) we didn't "really" see it coming with enough foresight to stop it and that b) we are sure as hell never going to let it happen again. Those two complete fallacies are the cornerstone of our tragic existence.
20. Re:What are the chances by jonadab · 2012-03-02 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  > Interesting, this is the same strategy employed by economists. It seems
  > most of them won't recognize an economic bubble when they're in one
  
  Sometimes the economists do recognize it, and say so, but the rest of the world ignores them. (For one example of this, look up the phrase "irrational exuberance". People paused for about one day and then went right back to buying at increasingly crazy-high prices. And that's Greenspan, who was consistently noted for his abnormally large influence on the market[1]. If anybody *else* had given the "irrational exuberance" speech, nobody would have even paused.)
  
  [1] Way beyond hanging on his actual words, people used to go out of their way to be in position to photograph him on his way in so they could analyze the size of his briefcase for possible clues about his attitude -- if the briefcase was stuffed full, they figured, it might mean he was bringing in a lot of evidence to convince the board that a change was needed. Greenspan later revealed that the size of his briefcase mostly indicated whether he packed his lunch that day or not. In any case, even Greenspan's influence wasn't able to forestall a bubble, because bubbles are a naturally-occurring market force, a normal part of supply and demand -- and as every economist knows, you can't fight natural market forces. Well, you can, but the market forces will win every time.
  
  --
  Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
21. Re:What are the chances by P-niiice · 2012-03-02 07:13 · Score: 2
  
  that's .0041% per day! i think we're safe!
22. Re:What are the chances by khallow · 2012-03-02 07:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Interesting, this is the same strategy employed by economists.
  Is it really that surprising when economists (at least the ones that speak in public and which we see) are merely the modern version of astrologists, soothsayers, and chicken entrails readers? The vast majority of them are paid to make shit up in a way that favors their patron. Every government out there has a staff of them on hand for rationalizing the policy of the day.
  
  It's their job to sell the current propaganda, until that position becomes too untenable to retain credibility.
23. Re:What are the chances by Genrou · 2012-03-02 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  One in a million. We're doomed.
24. Re:What are the chances by jonadab · 2012-03-02 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  (e) Nobody was listening to a single word they were saying because hey, property values were rather obviously going up and up, and anybody who suggested otherwise was clearly just a naysayer foretelling doom and gloom.
  
  I mean, it's also obvious that Social Security (not the basic idea of it, I mean, but the way it's currently implemented) is inherently flawed, and that inevitably some generation or another is eventually going to get caught holding the bag, paying in for thirty years or so only to collect nothing. It's obvious, but if you say it out loud people will look at you like you've threatened to tie them up and messily dismember everyone they care about while they watch. Then they will promptly go about the business of planning their lives around the ability to collect social security in their old age just as if you'd never mentioned anything.
  
  --
  Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
25. Re:What are the chances by garyebickford · 2012-03-02 08:13 · Score: 2
  
  The Economist talked about a housing bubble in 2004. They showed that, worldwide house prices were about twice what is normally justified by rentals, and predicted that if nothing else happened, it would take 14 years for rents to catch up - so don't expect your house to increase in value for that long. Of course then the money-pumpers got involved and we all know what happened next.
  
  --
  It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
26. Re:What are the chances by voidphoenix · 2012-03-02 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  They make Microsoft jumpy.
  
  --
  Excuse me, wtf r u doin?
27. Re:What are the chances by dcollins · 2012-03-02 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  I very much agree -- except that I wouldn't say "we" (i.e., all of us) so much as "the people who pushed and profited from it".
  
  --
  We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
28. Re:What are the chances by shiftless · 2012-03-02 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  . Any system with fundamentally un-knowable but mildly predictable bounds (like the sun cycle) will work like this; the only people in the end who were "smart enough to see it" were really just the best guessers.
  That's nonsense. What about the economy is "unknowable"? Every aspect of how everything in the world works is knowable, if you study it enough to learn. The economy is just such a large and complicated system that consciously knowing every single detail AND keeping it in mind all at the same time is impossible. You certainly can however understand it well enough to see trends and make more or less accurate predictions.
  As for me, in early 2007 I got my first job (and last. *shudder*) as a cubicle drone. At the time and for a long time to come I knew next to nothing about real estate, investing, bubbles, or any of that. On my way to/from work I did see the subdivisions of expensive houses filled with people who couldn't afford furniture. I did see that there was something fundamentally wrong here.
  Later that month I met a wild eyed guy from Washington State who had just paid some ridiculous amount for a house which he expected to re-sell and profit from immensely in a few years. I do remember feeling quite skeptical about the sustainability of this way of living, especially with this guy talking about how the market was just going to keep rising. I remember getting the impression that the guy was basically just a naive follower who was copying what everyone else was doing, and that's probably why I was so skeptical.
  Just prior to this white collar, I worked briefly as a surveyor's apprentice. I walked around out in a field and held a pole for the guy with the instrument to sight in on and take distance and angle readings. Our last job was in a big green field that was being bulldozed to install a subdivision full of cookie cutter houses, which would be expected to sell for $150k+. I remember thinking, WHY in the world would someone pay $150k for a cookie cutter house on a little patch of grass in a cookie cutter neighborhood in Nowhere, Alabama? It sickened me to help destroy a beautiful part of nature for no good reason whatsoever.
  Contractors seemingly made easy money, driving huge trucks and living in huge expensives homes, all because of building neighborhoods full of bland, uninspiring houses. Just because "everyone is doing it" was not enough to convince me this was right. Something seemed fundamentally wrong about the whole scenario, but I couldn't put my finger on exactly what.
  What I felt in all those situations IS knowing. That's what knowing IS. All the evidence was right there in front of my face, just like it was in front of everyone else's eyes too. I saw that the housing market was an unsustainable bubble, even if I couldn't exactly put it into words at the time. It wasn't a "guess" when I decided to not become involved in this wickedness. It was a correct *prediction*. I *knew* this shit was all going to come crashing down on people's heads, I just didn't know exactly how or why.
  For all the people trying to claim they "never saw it coming"? Well....sorry. Clearly these people have terrible vision, instincts, or simply failed to listen to them.
29. Re:What are the chances by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · 2012-03-02 13:30 · Score: 1
  
  Better to ask what the chances are of the History Channel running a special this year on the Mayan calendar running out, with an expert being consulted on the probability of 2012 also having a massive solar storm. Cue footage of forked lightning in three, two...
30. Re:What are the chances by TheTurtlesMoves · 2012-03-02 22:29 · Score: 1
  
  Since number of rare events in a fixed interval is Poisson distributed, or equivalently the time between events is exponentially distributed. Just dividing by 8 is not correct.
  
  Lets use a binomial distribution approximation since it tends to be more intuitive. Let the probability that a flare will happen in a year is p. Also we assume the probably that 2 flare happen in a year is small enough to ignore. Then the probability that no flares happen in 8 years is (1-p)^8. The probability that just one flare happens is p^8. The probability that n flares happen in 8 years is (8 choose n)p^n(1-p)^{8-n-1}. ie a binomial distribution.
  
  If we equate the chance of no flare happening we get (1-p)^8=1-1/8. Hence p=1.65%. At p=1.5% the probably of no flare happening in 8 years is 88.6% or in other words the probability that at least one flare happens in 8 years is 11.4% (compared to 12.5%).
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
31. Re:What are the chances by MrChips · 2012-03-03 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  that it will happen in 2012?
  12,5%
  Uh, no. It's about 1,66%. That is, if the probably is the same for each of the next 8 years (it isn't) and the probably of it *not* happening in the first year is 98,34%, then the probably of it *not* happening in the next 8 is 0.9834^8 = 87.5%.
What's much more important is... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-02 03:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

... Can it knock out out my PC and if so how can I protect it?
1. Re:What's much more important is... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-02 03:59 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  you must build... an ark, with two of every device
2. Re:What's much more important is... by philip.paradis · 2012-03-02 04:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Make multiple backups of everything you care about, using a mix of different media types. Store your backups in geographically diverse locations, in hardened containers, preferably some of them subterranean. Of course, you're already doing that anyhow, right? Past that, your PC becomes significantly less useful if major communication grids are down/damaged, at least if you like the Internet.
  
  --
  Write failed: Broken pipe
3. Re:What's much more important is... by Chrisq · 2012-03-02 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  you must build... an ark, with two of every device
  I've heard that one of each Apple device will do.
4. Re:What's much more important is... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-02 04:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Just need two bits, a true and a false. From that, you can rebuild everything.
5. Re:What's much more important is... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-02 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  They're willed into being by the divine and righteous might of Saint Jobs. Duh.
  Strange... you act like you've never read the Good iBook, anonymous iCitizen. I wonder why that is...
6. Re:What's much more important is... by Oswald+McWeany · 2012-03-02 04:32 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  But how will I prevent my Androids trying to attack my Apples? Surely if you put two androids and two apples on the same ark the androids will attempt to eat the apples!
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
7. Re:What's much more important is... by X0563511 · 2012-03-02 04:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yes.
  Turn it off when you're not using it and disconnect it from power and communications (eg disconnect the power cord and network cable). Since if something Bad Happened, it's likely going to come in through the AC or in through the DSL/Cable/Sat modem - same as any other power surge.
  In these storms, what happens is that long lines (data and power transmission) resonate more or less with the "fun" and so you get powerful AC currents induced into them. The smaller wires in your peripherals and inside the computer are too small (so they resonate too high frequency) and so shouldn't be directly vulnerable. It's those large AC voltages coming in from those long lines that release the magic smoke.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
8. Re:What's much more important is... by todrules · 2012-03-02 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Or 1,024 PCs, because that's all that we'll ever need.
9. Re:What's much more important is... by robthebloke · 2012-03-02 04:57 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Yes. I saw a documentary on the history channel about this. According to the program, the best protection is to get two sticks of Hazel, and use them to douse for ley lines near your house. Any device within 50 meters of a ley line should be protected using a conical cosmic ray deflector, which should be gently placed on top of the gadget, with the tip pointing skyward (don't point it at the ground, you'll just wake up the sleeping aliens!). Be warned that this won't fully protect your touchscreen devices though. There's something odd about capacitive devices, which will require your pet cat to be earthed at all times before they are fully protected. Those cuddly critters are serious conductors of cosmic rays. I've also gone to the extent of hanging some garlic on my front door too. Not sure what that does, but I figured it couldn't hurt....
10. Re:What's much more important is... by watermark · 2012-03-02 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  What media is immune to solar flares and EMPs? Optical Media? Flash Memory?
11. Re:What's much more important is... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2012-03-02 05:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Store your backups in geographically diverse locations, in hardened containers, preferably some of them subterranean. Of course, you're already doing that anyhow, right?
  Storing back-ups in hardened containers in subterranean bunkers? No, I'm not, and somehow I doubt most other people here are either.
  Backing things up safely, securely and frequently is surprisingly hard for individuals to do given all the technical wonders we have in the world today.
  (In case anyone's knee is jerking, please read the actual terms and check the actual reliability stats of any Internet-based back-up service you're about to recommend before you post it. Chances are, you'll never make the post.)
  
  --
  If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
12. Re:What's much more important is... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-02 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Storing them in hardened containers? No thanks, I think a regular Disc backup should work just fine. I doubt a solar storm would put out an EMP big enough to destroy the data on them and if it is, I think we will have MUCH worse things to deal with than just lost data and downed electronics.
13. Re:What's much more important is... by Waffle+Iron · 2012-03-02 05:18 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  you must build... an ark, with two of every device
  I assume it has to be an arc-proof ark?
14. Re:What's much more important is... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-02 05:18 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Because the Good iBook costs about twice as much as it should, and there are other books out there that are better for much less.
15. Re:What's much more important is... by couchslug · 2012-03-02 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  It can't do much to DISCONNECTED SPARE equipment. Magnetic field crossing large powerlines can affect connected gear, but gear is cheap and spares make sense against ordinary threats.
  I burn everything I care about to DVD or CD at low speed and make multiple backups anyway, have lots of live CD/DVDs (Linux and PE-ish) to boot from anyway, and a bunch of spare PCs anyway.
  For those with storage space, solar panels can charge car and truck batteries which can run your computer off an inverter if the 'puter doesn't draw much. Plenty for notebook use.
  All the shit prepared techies have to cope with ordinary power loss plus a bit of forethought should be sufficient.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
16. Re:What's much more important is... by Mindcontrolled · 2012-03-02 05:28 · Score: 2
  
  Clay tablets. True preppers learn cuneiform. Are you prepared, brother?
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
17. Re:What's much more important is... by tnk1 · 2012-03-02 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  BURN the Heretic!
18. Re:What's much more important is... by Phil06 · 2012-03-02 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  No, you need True, False, and Null
  
  --
  "...and yet, I blame society" Duke - Repo Man
19. Re:What's much more important is... by tnk1 · 2012-03-02 05:36 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Screw that, don't buy into this so-called 'conical cosmic ray deflector', which is probably some sort of fraudulent device.
  Everyone knows that only Real Brazilian Power Crystals(tm) can actually help with this. Even the FDA would not deny that it is possible in English to have said that these crystals were very efficacious for dealing with solar storms and rheumatism.
20. Re:What's much more important is... by Zeromous · 2012-03-02 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  You should at least do this when you have a large thunderstorm or expected solar event of this magnitude.. or you can always do what we do at the big data center when our UPS gets tripped (no diesel available).
  Turn off breakers that supply your equipment, in case power surges suddenly.
  
  --
  ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
21. Re:What's much more important is... by networkBoy · 2012-03-02 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  Flash is certainly the least immune as it relies on stored charge and a CME chucks tons of charge at the the earth.
  Phase change memory is robust against such events, but is still in its infancy as a technology.
  I would go with platter HDDs stored in Mu metal boxes as the most likely to survive.
  A generator and my PCs would keep me happy. I have 12 TB of data (reference material, masters thesis, e-books, etc.) that should suffice while the internet rebuilds...
  -nB
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
22. Re:What's much more important is... by element-o.p. · 2012-03-02 06:02 · Score: 2
  
  Wasn't it an Apple that messed everything up in the first place? ;)
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
23. Re:What's much more important is... by number17 · 2012-03-02 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  Its as easy as printing out all the 1's and 0's then just scanning them back in!!
24. Re:What's much more important is... by philip.paradis · 2012-03-02 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, most people aren't. However, depending on how much you value the data in question, it's remarkably easy and cost effective these days. You really don't have to go for the full blown bunker approach, either. Waterproof, reinforced enclosures measuring perhaps thirty cubic feet in volume and situated fifteen feet below ground aren't terribly difficult to construct.
  While my original post was of course made partly in jest, the balance is quite serious. People need to understand that the safety of their data is their responsibility, and take adequate measures to ensure that safety according to the value of said data.
  
  --
  Write failed: Broken pipe
25. Re:What's much more important is... by hairyfeet · 2012-03-02 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Bah, all you need is go go juice and guns, didn't you people see that incredible masterpiece of modern cinema, Mad Max? Hell you got the gas you can even run a generator and play your porn...err i mean watch movies. No gas no videos for you!
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
26. Re:What's much more important is... by X0563511 · 2012-03-02 06:41 · Score: 2
  
  Yep. Keep in mind we usually know such a storm is coming with a day or so of notice - usually the solar ejecta is moving far slower than light, so we see the flare before the charged particles affect us.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
27. Re:What's much more important is... by roc97007 · 2012-03-02 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  I grounded my pet cat in mid-January just to be safe. He's getting really pissed off.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
28. Re:What's much more important is... by jonadab · 2012-03-02 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, there are at least four possibilities: True, false, undefined, and non-existent. (Yes, I do use Perl, why do you ask? And yes, I've been known to write functions that sometimes return a true value that evaluates to 0 if used as a number.)
  
  --
  Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
29. Re:What's much more important is... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2012-03-02 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Waterproof, reinforced enclosures measuring perhaps thirty cubic feet in volume and situated fifteen feet below ground aren't terribly difficult to construct.
  I think perhaps you and I have very different ideas of what "difficult" means in this context!!
  That said, I very much agree with your real point.
  
  --
  If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
30. Re:What's much more important is... by Bemopolis · 2012-03-02 08:41 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Yes, but only because Eve was holding it wrong.
  
  --
  "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
31. Re:What's much more important is... by voidphoenix · 2012-03-02 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  Carve out your data in stone. That should be solar-storm-proof. :)
  
  --
  Excuse me, wtf r u doin?
32. Re:What's much more important is... by LordLimecat · 2012-03-02 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  If you have properly protected your electronics, you should be fine.
33. Re:What's much more important is... by Oceanplexian · 2012-03-02 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Or even better: Optical Media
  
  Apocalyptic solar storm crisis averted.
34. Re:What's much more important is... by mcgrew · 2012-03-02 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Magnetic media are also subject to erasure by EMF. Optical media is the way to go.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
35. Re:What's much more important is... by I+Read+Good · 2012-03-02 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  Wooosh!
36. Re:What's much more important is... by networkBoy · 2012-03-02 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  Hence storage in a Mu Metal case.
  Flash is hurt by charged particles, so a high enough energy particle striking anything you store it in can cause a secondary spray, which will affect the flash. HDDs are magnetic, so the secondary spary issue is not as bad. The magnetic field is blocked by a suitably designed Mu case.
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
37. Re:What's much more important is... by jafac · 2012-03-02 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  Fuck that.
  I'm building an Arc. And Seven Halos.
  
  --
  
  These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
38. Re:What's much more important is... by KingBenny · 2012-03-02 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  plaster the walls with tin foil or have a giant microwave oven constructed to serve as your living room or office tho that might make you feel a little uncomfortable
  
  --
  Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
39. Re:What's much more important is... by Jmc23 · 2012-03-02 16:43 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah right, everybody knows you just have to put everything within a copper pyramid topped by an orgone collector to be safe.
  
  --
  Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
40. Re:What's much more important is... by TheTurtlesMoves · 2012-03-02 22:14 · Score: 2
  
  All of it. A geomagnetic storm has zero effect on small things. You need loops of conductors kilometers long before you get any problems. HDD and the like are a bit smaller than that.
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
41. Re:What's much more important is... by Calos · 2012-03-03 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  Just buy rad-hard flash. Sure, it's not as dense, sure, it's expensive... but it is rather robust against radiation. They put it in satellites.
  Not sure what kind of shielding they give it though.
  
  --
  I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
42. Re:What's much more important is... by CSMoran · 2012-03-03 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  No, you need True, False, and Null
  Or True, False and FileNotFound. http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/What_Is_Truth_0x3f_.aspx
  
  --
  Every end has half a stick.
43. Re:What's much more important is... by toddestan · 2012-03-03 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  You'll also want off-line backups of your data, as it is vulnerable whenever it's on your computer when it's plugged in and running, or any other system that is plugged in and running, such as another off-site server that's always running. It shouldn't matter what the off-line backup is, as the solar storm shouldn't affect external hard drives that are disconnected, or tapes, or optical media. If you go with external drives you might want to consider two sets of drives, as if you only have one backup drive you would be potentially vulnerable to losing everything if you're running the backup when the storm hits.
convert to electric, quick! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-02 03:59 · Score: 1, Funny

Quick! Let's sell our gasoline fuel cars and buy electric cars! That way when the power grid is knocked out we'll be stranded!

Brilliant.
1. Re:convert to electric, quick! by Hatta · 2012-03-02 04:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Your car is already an electromechanical device. EMP would disable modern gasoline vehicles just as surely as it would electric vehicles.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
2. Re:convert to electric, quick! by Endimiao · 2012-03-02 04:04 · Score: 2
  
  Your forgetting what starts your car engine (battery)
3. Re:convert to electric, quick! by AngryDeuce · 2012-03-02 04:07 · Score: 2
  
  Wouldn't the amount of electronics in today's cars render them vulnerable as well?
  Or do we only have to worry about EMP in that regard?
  Either way, the production and transport of gasoline will be impacted as well, obviously. I wouldn't be surprised if the government nationalized all the gasoline reserves just to make sure they've got enough to power the Humvees that would surely be dispersed all over the United States in this scenario. I imagine Martial Law would be declared nationally pretty soon after a disaster of this magnitude.
4. Re:convert to electric, quick! by CanHasDIY · 2012-03-02 04:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Your car is already an electromechanical device. EMP would disable modern gasoline vehicles just as surely as it would electric vehicles.
  Which is a big part of the reason I love my old, beat up, carburated pickup.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
5. Re:convert to electric, quick! by robthebloke · 2012-03-02 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  Unless you've got an immobiliser installed.
6. Re:convert to electric, quick! by Gordonjcp · 2012-03-02 04:23 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  There's a lot to be said for contact breaker ignition. Of course, diesels are even better. I've driven a diesel car with no functioning electrical system of any kind (although I don't recommend it due to the absence of brake lights).
  The scariest part was getting it started. Yes, sure, it'll push start but until the engine has been running for 15 seconds (big heavy old Citroen CX 25DTR Turbo) there is no hydraulic pressure for the steering or braking system... Better hope the handbrake will stop it before the back wall of the yard does!
7. Re:convert to electric, quick! by EllisDees · 2012-03-02 04:38 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Solar flare != EMP
  While the power grid would be knocked out by a massive solar flare, your electric car would be just fine. Unless it happened to be plugged in when the power grid was fried...
  
  --
  -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
8. Re:convert to electric, quick! by X0563511 · 2012-03-02 04:39 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Good thing this storm isn't an EMP effect.
  What happens is you get large induced currents/voltages in transmission lines (power, cable etc) which smoke things connected to them. This happens because they resonate with the solar radiation.
  Small shit like the wires and traces inside of your car resonates at far too high a frequency for that to happen.
  As for GPS etc - those die because they are in orbit, either outside the majority of the earth's EM field's protection - or their path happens to make that same protection their death-sentence as it tends to concentrate the radiation into distinct bands/layers.
  The sun would still be the sun, and the GPS satellite would be the ant. The earth's EM field would be the magnifying glass. Poof.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
9. Re:convert to electric, quick! by X0563511 · 2012-03-02 04:40 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Solar storms do not resemble EMPs.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
10. Re:convert to electric, quick! by X0563511 · 2012-03-02 04:42 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Solar storms do not resemble EMPs.
  But, like you said - all the other infrastructure that would release magic smoke will certainly cause more than enough trouble.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
11. Re:convert to electric, quick! by scubamage · 2012-03-02 04:42 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  That depends on the type of flare. A charged magnetic emission like the one in the article would likely send enough electrons flying that it would in fact be an EMP.
12. Re:convert to electric, quick! by scubamage · 2012-03-02 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  A magnetic pulse should induce voltage on pretty much any wire though, or am I wrong?
13. Re:convert to electric, quick! by silentbrad · 2012-03-02 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Haven't you seen War of the Worlds? Even gasoline fueled cars will be affected. Except, of course, the vehicle of the one mechanic on Earth who remembers the solenoid. But don't worry, he can be out-acted by an eight year old.
14. Re:convert to electric, quick! by 21mhz · 2012-03-02 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Too bad they stuck computers in all of the gasoline cars, non of them work after an emp pulse ether.
  Well, there is also a good chance that gasoline, not solar outbursts, will be the worst problem in 2020.
  
  --
  My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
15. Re:convert to electric, quick! by EllisDees · 2012-03-02 04:51 · Score: 2
  
  No, it wouldn't. Read X0563511's post one down for an explanation of why.
  
  --
  -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
16. Re:convert to electric, quick! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-02 04:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I'm in the EMP business. A colleague of mine sat in a running (modern) car while it was flashed in a simulator. Nothing happened.
17. Re:convert to electric, quick! by X0563511 · 2012-03-02 05:00 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Yes, but such a tiny amount that it shouldn't cause trouble.
  You run into issues when they are resonant (or near resonant) because that allows standing waves to form - and the stuff that makes it in through the magnetosphere is the lower frequency (longer wavelength) stuff.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
18. Re:convert to electric, quick! by RockClimbingFool · 2012-03-02 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Small electronics don't have enough wire length in them to induce a current large enough to do damage.
19. Re:convert to electric, quick! by SuricouRaven · 2012-03-02 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Only a diesel, and even then it's difficult. A petrol engine needs a little charge in the battery for the ignition to run. Not that it matters, solar effects aren't going to fry any cars. They don't work like that.
20. Re:convert to electric, quick! by Gordonjcp · 2012-03-02 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  Right tyres *and* the right alloys - did you know you can't fit aftermarket alloys to them? Or, you *can*, but they won't last long. I know someone who fitted some very nice BBS alloys (BMW M5 ones as I recall) and went for a "spirited" drive around some country twisties. They all ended up seriously bent out of shape.
  Lateral cornering forces of 0.98G will do that, apparently.
21. Re:convert to electric, quick! by MagusSlurpy · 2012-03-02 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  You work for Iran, eh?
  
  --
  My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
22. Re:convert to electric, quick! by Chris+Burke · 2012-03-02 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  What happens is you get large induced currents/voltages in transmission lines (power, cable etc) which smoke things connected to them. This happens because they resonate with the solar radiation.
  It seems pretty unlikely that changes in the electron flux from the flare would match the resonant frequency of any given transmission line. Since they're all different lengths, it can match some but necessarily can't match most of them.
  Seems like the big problem is simply power lines (and other long wires) acting like antenna for a huge induced current regardless of matching resonant frequency or not.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
23. Re:convert to electric, quick! by CohibaVancouver · 2012-03-02 05:25 · Score: 2
  
  A petrol engine needs a little charge in the battery for the ignition to run. Not that it matters, solar effects aren't going to fry any cars. They don't work like that.
  Very little, though. I've push-started petrol cars with batteries flatter than pancakes. I suspect the alternator provides a bit of oomph as well once you pop the clutch.
24. Re:convert to electric, quick! by daem0n1x · 2012-03-02 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  But not Diesel ones. We in Europe will still drive to work while you Americans go back to horse and carriage :-)
25. Re:convert to electric, quick! by SuricouRaven · 2012-03-02 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  In princible you could push-start it without a battery, you just need a capacitor - it only has to store enough energy for a few sparks. The only practical use I can see for this would be running a car in temperatures so low that batteries wouldn't function. The petrol won't freeze until -80c, so if you want to modify your common car to run in the antartic that might be the way to do it.
26. Re:convert to electric, quick! by AdamThor · 2012-03-02 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Well, anything you plug into the wall will use the electrical grid as an antenna. If your car doesn't plug in it's got an advantage over your computer.
  
  --
  -- "Oh. This guy again."
27. Re:convert to electric, quick! by X0563511 · 2012-03-02 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't have to be perfect, it's an "analog function"
  The closer to the wavelength or a multiple of it the wire is, the less "loss" in the wire's absorption of the signal.
  It's basically the same as matching an antenna:
  I have an antenna on my car that is only 0.25 the frequency I transmit. The car's conductive plane (roof) forms an electromagnetic mirror, meaning that I have a 0.5 antenna. I can still transmit, but a significant amount of energy is wasted when compared to a perfectly matched 1 antenna.
  Now, since you don't use energy to receive on passive antennas and you use an amplifier in the receiver to bring it up to usable strengths, this kind of matching isn't important - but if the antenna DOES match, you get a stronger signal directly out of it. This is, in effect, exactly what happens with solar radiation and conductors. The small wires in devices are so far away from matching that almost nothing gets in - but the long wires are much closer, and absorb much more of the 'signal'
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
28. Re:convert to electric, quick! by X0563511 · 2012-03-02 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  bah. slashdot ate my lambdas. there's supposed to be one behind each of those "0.25" "0.5" and "1" in my post.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
29. Re:convert to electric, quick! by scubamage · 2012-03-02 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  Got it - so utility lines, HFC networks, etc - they'll have some major concerns. Basically anyone with multi-mile runs of copper.
30. Re:convert to electric, quick! by element-o.p. · 2012-03-02 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  Think of it this way. When you have a sufficiently long wire, for example, inside the generator at your local power utility, the induced voltages and currents can be quite high -- high enough to kill you. On the other hand, if you have a sufficiently short wire, such as in the pickups of my electric guitar, the induced voltages and currents are much, much less potent -- in fact, you can't even feel the current from my Strat unless it has been amplified first.
  
  Ditto for the wires in the power grid compared to the wires in your car or your PC.
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
31. Re:convert to electric, quick! by roc97007 · 2012-03-02 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  How do you get the glow plugs warm with no electricity? Rub two sticks together?
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
32. Re:convert to electric, quick! by WaffleMonster · 2012-03-02 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  Your car is already an electromechanical device. EMP would disable modern gasoline vehicles just as surely as it would electric vehicles.
  This is a myth.
  http://www.empcommission.org/docs/A2473-EMP_Commission-7MB.pdf
33. Re:convert to electric, quick! by element-o.p. · 2012-03-02 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  You can pushstart a car to start it.
  Sometimes. Modern vehicles use electrical power for essential functions *besides* turning the starter motor, for example, fuel injection and generating spark.
  
  I once toasted the alternator on my '97 Eagle Talon and didn't realize it, since the car had no volt/ammeter. I drove it for a day or two on battery power, but finally, the battery died, and the EFI stopped working reliably. I was able to limp into a parking lot before the car died completely, but it was surging pretty badly before I got it parked. If the battery is sufficiently dead or the alternator is not working, you can push the car all day, but it isn't ever going to start.
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
34. Re:convert to electric, quick! by element-o.p. · 2012-03-02 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  I've push-started petrol cars with batteries flatter than pancakes. I suspect the alternator provides a bit of oomph as well once you pop the clutch.
  Your battery was only MOSTLY dead. If it was ALL dead there would be only one thing to do: call a tow truck (with apologies to Rob Reiner).
  
  It worked for you because 1) the alternator was still working and 2) the battery may not have had enough current to turn the starter, but it did have enough to generate an electromagnetic field in the alternator -- perhaps weakly at first, but the longer it runs, the stronger it will get as the battery charges. If the battery is *completely* flat, however, the alternator isn't going to generate any current, and SuricouRaven is correct. Ask me how I know ;)
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
35. Re:convert to electric, quick! by WaffleMonster · 2012-03-02 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't the amount of electronics in today's cars render them vulnerable as well?
  Due to requirements for EMF rejection modern vechicles are EMP resistant. Don't let the electronics = vulnerable meme fool you.
  
  Or do we only have to worry about EMP in that regard?
  The rapid initial pulse of an EMP is the most destructive to localized electronics as this offers the highest level of damage via induced currents.
  Sun burps are mostly a danger to transmission systems as it is sustained but lower energy over a much longer period of time.
36. Re:convert to electric, quick! by dryeo · 2012-03-02 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think you can push start a modern diesel with electronic fuel injection without a battery.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
37. Re:convert to electric, quick! by dryeo · 2012-03-02 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Why call a tow truck? The one time I killed my battery so dead that push starting didn't work, I just whipped out my jumper cables, stood by my truck with them visible and a good Samaritan stopped and helped me out pretty quick. I've also stopped and given jumps to people who didn't have jumper cables.
  As a kid we were poor, my dad picked up a '37 Morris and it was 6 months before he could afford a battery. It always started and ran fine with a little cranking. Advantages of a generator instead of an alternator or perhaps it had a magneto.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
38. Re:convert to electric, quick! by SuricouRaven · 2012-03-02 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  You'd also need some way to put the starting charge in, but that's easy enough: A tiny dynamo on a hand crank. It wouldn't be the first time you've had to turn a handle to start a car.
39. Re:convert to electric, quick! by atisss · 2012-03-02 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  You don't drive to North. Unless it's -5C outside you should be able to start it by just cranking longer. Unless your piston rings are worn out and engine is leaking - pressure would generate necessary heat.
40. Re:convert to electric, quick! by roc97007 · 2012-03-02 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, my girlfriend owned a Rabbit diesel in sunny California, and that car was harder than hell to start at any temperature below 60 degrees f. I know that the glow plugs don't actually ignite the diesel, but it never occurred to me that you could start the engine without them.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
41. Re:convert to electric, quick! by X0563511 · 2012-03-02 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  Yep.
  You might find this interesting/related: Using Mains Wiring as an Antenna
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
42. Re:convert to electric, quick! by atisss · 2012-03-02 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  So it probably had some problems with fuel supply, filters, or glow plugs weren't working at all? Any of those in combination with bad compression would mean trouble. Good diesel engine should be at least 15:1, or 20:1.
  Glow plugs and fuel heaters are necessary for real winters. This year, I had some issues with battery not giving enough juice, but managed to start my Frontera diesel at -30C (-22F).
43. Re:convert to electric, quick! by element-o.p. · 2012-03-02 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  If the alternator is dead, jumper cables won't do you any good (which was the case in the example I provided). If it's just a dead battery, then yeah, jump starting the car is fine -- I just left listing every possible case and selecting the appropriate option for solving the problem as an exercise for the reader ;)
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
44. Re:convert to electric, quick! by roc97007 · 2012-03-02 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  I think the problem was, it was a 1979 Rabbit Diesel.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
45. Re:convert to electric, quick! by dryeo · 2012-03-02 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  I drove over a hundred miles once with a dead alternator, actually 300 miles but it took 200 miles for my battery to die. Luckily I was traveling with a friend in another car. Raided some speaker wire and used it every 25 or so miles to charge my battery from my friends car. Jumpers would have worked better but it was a lot cheaper then a tow considering how far from a town I was. Also being an old Datsun it was easy to find another alternator in the middle of nowhere.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
46. Re:convert to electric, quick! by jafac · 2012-03-02 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  My diesel Jetta, I can push start, and it will nominally *run*. But the fucking ECU is damn crotchety as hell. I will likely get crappy mileage, no power, no boost from the turbo, because if the ECU goes, there's no MAP, and no input from the MAF. Way to go Volkswagen.
  (actually, my '72 aircooled would have run started and run just fine.)
  
  --
  
  These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
47. Re:convert to electric, quick! by element-o.p. · 2012-03-02 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  Also being an old Datsun it was easy to find another alternator in the middle of nowhere.
  I also suspect that "being an old Datsun" is why it worked: odds are, that car was carbureted rather than fuel injected. Had it been fuel injected, you would have been hosed, just like I was in my Talon. Fortunately, I had almost made it home, so my wife picked me up, I pulled the battery, took it home, put it on a charger, then drove back to my car a couple of hours later, reinstalled the battery and drove home.
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
48. Re:convert to electric, quick! by jaymemaurice · 2012-03-02 18:55 · Score: 1
  
  probably can with ether or other fuel/starting fluid directly into the intake... where are myth-busters when you need them?
  
  --
  120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
49. Re:convert to electric, quick! by dryeo · 2012-03-02 20:01 · Score: 1
  
  You're thinking about glow plugs, which pre-heat the combustion chamber allowing for easier starting with a cold engine. Ether does help get around this though it is hard on the engine. It causes knocking much like pinging in a gas engine. There have also been diesels designed with an ether injector for starting purposes.
  I was talking about the actual fuel pump which is designed to inject high pressure vaporized diesel fuel into the combustion chamber at the ideal time. Traditionally these were purely mechanical, driven of the camshaft (or crankshaft) with its own little camshaft and poppets to time the fuel delivery.
  As far as I know, modern diesels have replaced this with electronically operated fuel pumps. These have the advantage of having better timing at various RPMs. The mechanical fuel pump had little if any advance in timing which is why, especially in large diesels, you had to operate the engine in a very narrow RPM range.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
50. Re:convert to electric, quick! by dryeo · 2012-03-02 20:14 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, after posting I realized I should have mentioned the only working electrical was spark with everything else turned off.
  When the alternator died in my F150 with fuel injection I still managed to drive 20 or 30 miles including a couple of restarts. The battery was pretty low after I got home but took a charge allowing me to drive to get another alternator. Once again a manual so I could often use gravity to start it and it was old enough I could turn of the lights etc.
  The big thing with a dead alternator is diagnosing it before killing the battery. Easy with an amp metre, not much harder with a volt metre though my F150's volt metre reads differently at various times due to corrosion or bad connection in the instrument cluster. Idiot lights also sometimes work though I had at least one alternator failure where the only instrument sign was the idiot light not lighting with the ignition switch on but the engine not running. This is very easy to miss.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
51. Re:convert to electric, quick! by jaymemaurice · 2012-03-03 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  No, I'm thinking about when your modern diesel engine bursts an oil seal and blows itself up even when the injectors have long stopped delivering fuel...
  
  --
  120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
52. Re:convert to electric, quick! by toddestan · 2012-03-03 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  I can guarantee you that a strong enough EMP would kill a modern diesel car just like it would a gasoline car. It's the ECU and associated electronics that are most likely going to be affected. Of course, older diesel cars would not be affected, but the same thing more or less applies to older gasoline cars too.
53. Re:convert to electric, quick! by CohibaVancouver · 2012-03-04 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  Like my 'old Datsun' back in the day, it probably also had a mechanical (as opposed to electric) fuel pump.
54. Re:convert to electric, quick! by Gordonjcp · 2012-03-04 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  You can, but until there's hydraulic pressure (after about 10-15 seconds, if the car has been parked up until the accumulator has gone down totally) then the brakes won't work.
By Any Other Name by RapidEye · 2012-03-02 04:03 · Score: 5, Funny

So, is "privately employed solar scientist" a euphemism for "crackpot scientist"?

--
"Murderer? Well, that's a harsh word. I prefer to think of myself as a Mortality Technician."
1. Re:By Any Other Name by phrostie · 2012-03-02 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  It was that Climatologist or convert to Scientologist.
  at least he has standards.
2. Re:By Any Other Name by Coisiche · 2012-03-02 04:22 · Score: 2
  
  Well,
  
  "privately employed"
  suggests that he is in the employ of some entity which derives income from some source.
  I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest it is from something that you would want to alleviate your share of the potential trillion dollar damage bill.
The Problem with Trying to Prepare for This ... by eldavojohn · 2012-03-02 04:04 · Score: 2

... Can it knock out out my PC and if so how can I protect it?
It's sort of a slippery slope toward insanity ...

--
My work here is dung.
If only :) by giampy · 2012-03-02 04:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually a 1T$ investment to rebuild all the electrical infrastructure would be just great both for the infrastructure AND for the economy.

--
We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
1. Re:If only :) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-02 04:24 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  if you believe the broken window fallacy.
  I somehow can't believe that destroying trillions of dollars worth of real goods/ wealth is going to make us better off. but hey keep listening to the Keynesians. they predicted the crash.... oh wait, they didn't. they explained the crash... Oh wait, they didn't do that either. they have since fixed the crash with the50k plus per American that they prescribed.... oh wait, that didn't work either.
2. Re:If only :) by phantomfive · 2012-03-02 04:29 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  That's the broken window fallacy. It would immediately suck $1Trillion out of the economy that would have been spent other ways, it would prevent a lot of useful work from being done while the infrastructure was down, and it would most likely be rebuilt in a crappy, haphazard way, not in some nice, well-designed way that would make everything better.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
3. Re:If only :) by DreadPiratePizz · 2012-03-02 04:42 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Broken window fallacy.
4. Re:If only :) by X0563511 · 2012-03-02 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  Well, at least it will give us all something to do :P
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
5. Re:If only :) by danlip · 2012-03-02 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention how much it would suck for the rest of the economy to not have electricity for a few years; and not to mention how hard it is to rebuild all that stuff when you don't have electricity.
6. Re:If only :) by smg5266 · 2012-03-02 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe it will put most people out of work, but I'd bet the demand for engineering/IT would go way up? Hopefully
7. Re:If only :) by tlhIngan · 2012-03-02 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  What I don't get is why can't we turn the grid completely off?
  we can see when these storms happen (because they emit light), and the charged particles that cause all the problems take a little while to reach us (hours/days).
  If we know it's going to cause a huge problem with the electrical grid, can't we just, uh, turn it off? Sure there'll be massive blackouts, but I'm sure that's better than the damage these storms can cause (the damage occurs at the transformers). Especially since replacing the equipment costs lots and has months of lead time as they're all handmade.
  At the very least, it seems cheapest to find ways to take down the large transcontinental cables (which will be the ones that generate the largest stray currents) and temporarily ground the cables.
  I know generators and such can't be suddenly powered off, but if we have sufficient warning, we can start blacking out and creating power islands and separating grids out so the damage incurred will be minimal.
  Think about it - a lot of nuclear power plants require poewr from the grid for backup cooling, and those go through the vulnerable transformers - this happens and blows the transformer out (which takes weeks/months to replace) and you've got a meltdown.
  So a coordinated way to turn off the grid, suffer a blackout for a few days is far better than suffering from no power for a few months (the more warning we have, the faster it'll come up again). And essential services can prepare - backup power lasting days is still easier to obtain than ones lasting months.
8. Re:If only :) by Chris+Burke · 2012-03-02 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  Turning off the grid doesn't help; it's the induced currents in the power lines that are the problem and they will happen whether or not there's any man-made power flowing in the wires.
  To protect the grid you'd have to physically disconnect components from the power lines. Not simple to do with short notice.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
9. Re:If only :) by Mindcontrolled · 2012-03-02 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  If you refrain from rebuilding a window that is already broken from wear and tear because that would be "the broken window fallacy", you should reconsider your "knowledge" of economics. No one suggests to break the electrical grid in order to create make-work. It is already broken in a significant way - and not only with regard to solar storms. The OP, as I understand it, is advocating grid rebuilds now, not after they have been fried by a Carrington event.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
10. Re:If only :) by tnk1 · 2012-03-02 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe it will put most people out of work, but I'd bet the demand for engineering/IT would go way up? Hopefully
  Yes, all that fatty white meat will taste really good for when all the food supply disappears overnight because all the support infrastructure took a nose dive. Consider the simple lack of a working refrigerator and then stop hoping for the end of the modern world.
11. Re:If only :) by glodime · 2012-03-02 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for pointing this out. You saved me some typing.
12. Re:If only :) by glodime · 2012-03-02 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  No it isn't. It is maintenance and infrastructure investment. It is only the broken window fallacy if you intentionally break it only to fix what was intentionally broken.
13. Re:If only :) by phantomfive · 2012-03-02 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  If you are saying that the economy would be improved because a disaster destroyed $1trillion worth of infrastructure, then yes, you have fallen into a variation of the broken window fallacy. It doesn't make much difference if a solar storm breaks the window, or a person with a rock.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
14. Re:If only :) by Shadowmist · 2012-03-02 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  What I don't get is why can't we turn the grid completely off?
  we can see when these storms happen (because they emit light), and the charged particles that cause all the problems take a little while to reach us (hours/days).
  If we know it's going to cause a huge problem with the electrical grid, can't we just, uh, turn it off?
  
  No we can't. If you ever read Clarke's Rendevous with Rama series the prologue to the second book reveals what kind of damage we had from just a momentary failure of stock market computers. Our modern high tech society is simply too intertwined and complex. We can't just "stop it" for a few days any more than you can stop a human heart for that long. A couple of years ago the entire north east region went down because one single tranformer had a blowout which might have been caused by a solar event. Can you imagine the impact of every transformer on the planet blowing simultaneously? The sheer amount of work it would take to replace even a fraction of them? And this would be without any core of civilization actually being functional. We had a Carrington event today, forget about your precious hard drive or computer. You'd be much more worried about finding out if you were going to eat again after your local supplies run out. Such an event right now would be nothing less than the end of technological civilization on this planet, and given that we've already extracted all the easily available oil on this planet, there would be no future bootstrapping of a new one.
15. Re:If only :) by glodime · 2012-03-02 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  The economy is improved compared to not fixing that which is broken. There is no option for it not to break or wear down (it seems like this is the fallacy of those that insist on dismissing rebuilding as a broken window fallacy). If it costs less to reinforce or extend the useful life of infrastructure than to replace after a breakdown the economy is improved. The economy can also improve with any effective infrastructure or capital improvements. However, costs may out weight the benefits.
16. Re:If only :) by Xandrax · 2012-03-02 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  It would never happen. The jobs coming from that $1T would, due to the nature of the work, mainly go to men.
  For examples of what would happen in the real world, have a read about the feminist pushback to, and subsequent removal/reduction of, the male-friendly portions of the stimulus package that was passed; and that happened even though men were hit far harder by the recession than women.
17. Re:If only :) by khallow · 2012-03-02 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  We don't know that the grid is "broken" in this sense. This guy is hoping that it is so that the trillion dollar repair can fix the economy. It definitely is the broken window fallacy in action.
18. Re:If only :) by khallow · 2012-03-02 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  The economy is improved compared to not fixing that which is broken.
  Keep in mind that the original poster talked about the economic gain from that trillion dollar repair. That's the broken window fallacy right there.
19. Re:If only :) by mcgrew · 2012-03-02 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  The net result is loss of the total wealth, but those of us who actually work for a living would be making money hand over fist. There would be one hell of a labor shortage, and it's the 1%ers who would hurt for a change.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
20. Re:If only :) by glodime · 2012-03-02 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  There is potential for economic gain here. The broken window fallacy assumes negligible improvements over replacements and opportunity costs. This assumption does not necessarily hold in practice, though it certainly could.
21. Re:If only :) by phantomfive · 2012-03-02 14:04 · Score: 1
  
  We have something, then it's destroyed. Now we have less. It seems obvious, I don't understand why people don't get it.
  
  Sure, we can replace it, but we could have used those resources to make something even better. Instead we just spent a trillion dollars to end up with what we had before (maybe a little better, but not a trillion dollars better).
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
22. Re:If only :) by glodime · 2012-03-02 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  The broken window fallacy is an argument for not breaking things. It is not an argument for not rebuilding them once broken. Nor is it an argument against replacing things before their useful life has expired.
  
  Instead we just spent a trillion dollars to end up with what we had before (maybe a little better, but not a trillion dollars better).
  This is a key assumption that the broken window fallacy requires to be true. It isn't necessarily true. Though it often is.
  Also economic regions (smaller than global) are open systems. It is possible that the region with the broken windows can benefit at the expense of the rest of the larger system as a result of the windows breaking.
23. Re:If only :) by phantomfive · 2012-03-02 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  Well you know, it wouldn't be too hard to cause a trillion dollars worth of damage to our national infrastructure. Are you suggesting we do that?
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
24. Re:If only :) by giampy · 2012-03-02 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  No the point is that that T$ would NOT get spent any other way but sit idle in banks (well, more or less) until we decide to start another war. OF COURSE it would be much better for the economy to have a 1T$ investment on, say, technology, without having to sustain the damage in the first place. But apparently we have lost the political capability of doing that after we landed on the moon.
  I was half-joking in the original post, but if you think about it, either way you put it it would be a tremendous immediate loss of value, but it would then put everybody to work and cause some redistribution from people who have lost value to people that work for a living. And we will end up with a much better infrastructure at the end.
  
  --
  We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
25. Re:If only :) by phantomfive · 2012-03-02 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  I was half-joking in the original post
  I figured so, but who am I to give up a chance for mod points? :)
  
  but it would then put everybody to work and cause some redistribution from people who have lost value to people that work for a living. And we will end up with a much better infrastructure at the end.
  It is tempting, but if it were truly better, consider that we could easily accomplish the same goal now simply destroying the infrastructure ourselves, and rebuilding it. What is wrong with that idea? Alternately, we could just hire people to dig holes and fill them up. How many people could society hire to do that? Also worth considering is that none of the government's money is sitting in a bank, in fact the opposite.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
26. Re:If only :) by khallow · 2012-03-02 19:13 · Score: 1
  
  There is potential for economic gain here.
  What would be a better? A grid with an expensive flaw or one without?
  
  The original poster states that sinking a trillion dollars into the grid would be good for both the grid and the economy and makes that statement in response to a potential trillion dollar disaster.
  
  I see two problems with the observation. First, spending $100 to prevent $100 in damages from an infrequent accident is not a good use of money. At 12% chance of a trillion dollars in damages over twenty years that's an expected cost of six billion dollars per year. It's not financially worth a trillion dollars to evade.
  
  Second, the poster made that observation in response to a disaster. We have a huge disaster and then we spend a bunch of money to stimulate the economy. If these improvements really were improvements, then why aren't they already being done? Answer is that either they aren't or they aren't sufficient improvements over the current infrastructure to justify the cost. At that point, you're solidly in the territory of the broken window fallacy when someone hopes that a disaster occurs so that the existing grid infrastructure, the obstacle to installing a new and improved grid, is removed.
27. Re:If only :) by toddestan · 2012-03-03 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  The broken window fallacy assumes that we would be better off if the money was invested in something else other than fixing the (intentionally) broken window. If we sunk $1T into rebuilding the grid, we would probably end up with an improved electric grid. But that doesn't automatically mean that we should sink $1T into the grid, if that money could be better spent elsewhere. That's the fallacy.
28. Re:If only :) by glodime · 2012-03-03 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  The original poster is arguing for improvements to national infrastructure. If a large disaster created the need for significant repair to the infrastructure there may be political will to improve the infrastructure further than a simple replacement. This leaves a possibility that the broken window fallacy would not hold in such a case.
  There would be no clear outcome to such an event. You assume that improvements "aren't sufficient improvements over the current infrastructure to justify the cost." But there could simply be a lack of awareness or political obstacles preventing improvements. However, I agree with the two problems that you highlighted. There is a good chance that your assumptions hold.
29. Re:If only :) by glodime · 2012-03-03 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  What makes you think that I'm suggesting that?
  The broken window fallacy is an argument for not breaking things. So we probably shouldn't cause a trillion dollars worth of damage to our national infrastructure. I don't think that I would need an allegory of breaking windows to be convinced of that.
30. Re:If only :) by khallow · 2012-03-03 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  The original poster is arguing for improvements to national infrastructure.
  Improvements which aren't valuable enough to do. Most of the grid is not owned by governments, but rather by businesses. One doesn't need political will for this.
  
  You assume that improvements "aren't sufficient improvements over the current infrastructure to justify the cost."
  
  My assumption is conditional on the improvements not being performed in the absence of a disaster. That makes it pretty strong. Either the grid is being improved, in which case a disaster is not needed to do it. Or it's not being improved because (this is the assumption) the improvements are not worth the effort or cost. In either case, we don't have the grounds for a disaster helping the US economy and the broken window fallacy applies.
31. Re:If only :) by phantomfive · 2012-03-03 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Because if you think fixing the infrastructure would improve the economy, then it would make sense to break it first so we can fix it. Especially since we can pay people to break it, generate economic growth that way as well.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
32. Re:If only :) by glodime · 2012-03-03 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  Improvements which aren't valuable enough to do. Most of the grid is not owned by governments, but rather by businesses. One doesn't need political will for this.
  This is a naive view of the electric power distribution market. It is almost exclusively a market of regulated regional monopolies with price controls.
  My assumption is conditional on the improvements not being performed in the absence of a disaster. That makes it pretty strong. Either the grid is being improved, in which case a disaster is not needed to do it. Or it's not being improved because (this is the assumption) the improvements are not worth the effort or cost. In either case, we don't have the grounds for a disaster helping the US economy and the broken window fallacy applies.
  Agreed. If your assumptions hold, the broken window fallacy applies. Your assumptions are reasonable, but not necessarily true. There may be other reasons why improvements are not being made, e.g. perhaps a sunk costs fallacy is preventing meaningful consideration.
33. Re:If only :) by glodime · 2012-03-03 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Because if you think fixing the infrastructure would improve the economy, then it would make sense to break it first so we can fix it.
  This is a leap in logic that I'm not making. It is a non sequitur. It is the essence of the broken window fallacy.
34. Re:If only :) by phantomfive · 2012-03-03 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  The cause of the destruction is irrelevant.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
35. Re:If only :) by khallow · 2012-03-03 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. If your assumptions hold, the broken window fallacy applies. Your assumptions are reasonable, but not necessarily true. There may be other reasons why improvements are not being made, e.g. perhaps a sunk costs fallacy is preventing meaningful consideration.
  Of course. But it'd be more productive to find scenarios where this doesn't work instead of just saying that assumptions sometimes aren't true. For example, one such scenario is that there may be in many circumstances no ROI for a business to invest in its power grid. That is, the benefit of improvements are substantial, but because not enough of those benefits accrue to the business running the grid, they aren't done.
36. Re:If only :) by giampy · 2012-03-03 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  we could easily accomplish the same goal now simply destroying the infrastructure ourselves, and rebuilding it.
  or by simply rebuild it. We in fact could, but as i said we have lost the political will to start these big scale projects.
  
  we could just hire people to dig holes and fill them up
  or simply pay people to do nothing at all. To be clear, that would be among the worst possible investments, but as long as people will readily spend those money that would create demand for products, and therefore business investments and everything else. In this economy, i maintain the overall effect would still be slightly positive. Of course there will also be a raise in inflation down the line, but we will be slightly better off by then, if anything because inflation will help with the debt (which will matter less).
  Note that this would be actually bad for the people and institutions who own that debt, which they call in fact credit, because their assets would be devalued. Which in fact is the very reason why we are not politically capable of doing anything like that, while at the same time the government did not blink twice before handing over a trillion dollars to save the banks a couple of years ago.
  Also note, the money base has nearly triplicated in these couple of years, (quantitative easing, stimulus package and so on). A lot of that money is in fact sitting idle in banks, or invested back in treasures, but it is NOT circulating, at least in the US, because business are not willing to borrow those money to expand their capability when they in fact face a shrinking demand for their products.
  
  --
  We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
37. Re:If only :) by phantomfive · 2012-03-03 14:19 · Score: 1
  
  OK, seems like you know a lot about economics.
  
  or simply pay people to do nothing at all....Which in fact is the very reason why we are not politically capable of doing anything like that
  Interestingly, we did do exactly that, first when Bush sought to increase demand by giving everyone a tax rebate, and secondly when Obama did the same thing. Bush's was a lot more flashy and fun, however.
  
  The results suggest it didn't really have much of an effect.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
38. Re:If only :) by giampy · 2012-03-04 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  I am not an economist but i have been studying economics (mostly basic Macro) during the last few years. Having a simple mathematical model such as IS-LM makes it a little easier to think clearly about this stuff.
  I am not sure about the effect that you would expect from tax breaks, but consider that tax breaks are not exactly the same as "just paying people", because a lot of tax breaks go to people who don't really need to spend money right away (like for example the unemployed) and therefore get saved, so they don't contribute to increase demand. This was especially true in the Bush years.
  Also consider that the Obama stimulus and federal tax breaks were (and still are) offset by a lot of cuts and layoffs at the state level. Still, things are very slowly getting better, so perhaps the worst part is over assuming Europe doesn't break down.
  
  --
  We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
39. Re:If only :) by phantomfive · 2012-03-04 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  Well, what about the Carter stimulus, when he tried the same thing? I'm not sure there many stimulus ideas that have a stimulus multiplier of greater than 1. If you can devise a stimulus plan that would actually have a stimulus multiplier of greater than 1, I'd be interested in seeing it. (incidentally, when I say Bush tax rebates, I'm not talking about all of his cuts; and with the Obama cut, I'm not talking about all his stimulus; and same with the carter payroll tax. Of course it's hard to extricate any particular spending from the total economy, but it doesn't seem like any of those had a stimulating effect greater than its cost).
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
40. Re:If only :) by giampy · 2012-03-06 16:06 · Score: 1
  
  I have no idea about the carter stimulus.
  Basic Macroeconomics theory says that any spending in which the state intervenes on the market by hiring people to do some job has multiplier greater than one. of course how much greater depends on the job and the situation.
  If you google around, actually see for example this:
  http://www.wellesley.edu/Economics/weerapana/econ202/econ202pdf/lecture%20202-16.pdf
  in page 2 the multiplier is greater than one because b is positive.
  See also the equations in here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_multiplier
  This very basic models might be, and actually are, oversimplified, but during the crisis made correct prediction, e.g. about the rate while many other models had nothing to say or made completely wrong predictions.
  By the way, see the bump in here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt.png
  that was the spending for WW2, arguably while those were money spent to DESTROY things, it served to reboot the whole US industry, getting the US (and the whole world including especially europe) out of a depression/stagnation and arguably into 20 a path of 20 years of solid growth. I'd argue the multiplier was greater than 1 :)
  
  --
  We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
41. Re:If only :) by phantomfive · 2012-03-06 19:21 · Score: 1
  
  By the way, see the bump in here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt.png [wikipedia.org] that was the spending for WW2, arguably while those were money spent to DESTROY things,
  Come now, you should do better than than that. You should know you can't look at a spending alone and know if it was a good investment. You have to compare how much the government spent with how much the economy grew. In 1943, for example, government spending increased over 110%, and yet the GDP actually shrank slightly. Remember, even with the best data, you must compare how much the government spent with how much the GDP changed.
  
  Basic Macroeconomics theory says that any spending in which the state intervenes on the market by hiring people to do some job has multiplier greater than one. of course how much greater depends on the job and the situation.
  Basic Macroeconomics theory is often wrong, that's why we have advanced macroeconomic theory. To evaluate any stimulus spending, you must consider four things: 1. how much the economy grew, 2. how much was spent, 3. the amount lost in administration costs (ie, the IRS and other bureaucracy), and 4. the amount drained from the economy when the government took it. If you don't consider these four things, you are spitting in the wind.
  
  That should be intuitively obvious if you think about it for a while. Consider the case where the government hires a worker to dig holes, and fill them up again. The immediate economic growth from the hole digging is zero, because nothing of value was produced (there may be some growth when he spends his money). Taken to the extreme, if the government hires everyone to dig holes, nothing of value will be produced by anyone. These examples should give you intuition on when government hiring helps, and when it hurts.
  
  Consider where the money comes from for government spending. They don't print it. They suck it out of the economy by borrowing it from banks and businesses. Those businesses and banks don't keep their extra cash in a vault, of course. They store it in the form of short term loans to the government. There is an argument to be made that if the government didn't keep borrowing, those companies and banks would be forced to use their money in more useful ways (hire people, etc).
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
42. Re:If only :) by giampy · 2012-03-08 15:32 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry for the late answer i had no time to pee in the last couple of days :)
  
  You have to compare how much the government spent with how much the economy grew
  Yes it is the G/GDP ratio, that is important, of course, and in fact that picture shows exactly the G/GDP ratio, and over the following few years the GDP increased largely beacuse of government demand, so ... I don't get what you are trying to say here.
  
  Basic Macroeconomics theory is often wrong
  Well you have to start from somewhere. Of course every theory gets refined to hopefully represent reality better. Besides saying that something is wrong without providing evidence that a refined model can do better is not really a constructive approach.
  OTOH this is Slashdot so we can all get some slack here :)
  But, are you saying that advanced macro says the opposite of basic macro ? I really don't think that's the case.
  Your point #4 is called "crowding out" and it is considered in the ISLM model. It does decrease the effectiveness of the multiplier, but it's still greater than one. Also crowding cannot occur if there is a consistent excess of savings over investments as in this recession.
  
  Taken to the extreme, if the government hires everyone to dig holes, nothing of value will be produced by anyone.
  Yes but it won't hurt anyone either. In other words, in this simple model in which people don't need to eat or consume, G (government expenditure) = Y (GDP) = T (taxes) and the multiplier is exactly one, as a raise in G is equal to a raise in GDP. All income gets spent in taxes, and there is no real economy. There is a demand for holes, from "we the holediggers", which is met with a supply of holes, and holes would be all that is valued and produced in this kind of civilization.
  As soon you get consumption into the equation, with the very reasonable and empirically proved assumption that C(Y) has positive slope (people consume more when they have more money to spend), then GDP = Y = G + C(Y-T) its easy to see that the multiplier is greater than one (solve for Y and get the derivative wrt G). Once you pull in also investments, savings and the LM equation you can see that the multiplier decreases, (in normal situations) because of crowding out, as you mentioned. If you allow for the government to run deficit so taxes can be deferred in the future, and account for inflation then the multiplier actually goes up again.
  People trying to actually calculate the multiplier from data seemed to get a value of 1.3 or 1.37, i don't remember now, but i can look for the papers.
  Anyway the bottom line is that if you hire unemployed people to do actually something more valuable than holes, and use money that are invested in low yield long term bonds (== sitting idle for all practical purposes), or even better not invested or spent at all, and allow for taxes to be paid later, maybe over 30 years, then common sense says that a lot of value is produced at a very small cost and the multiplier should be much greater than one.
  
  --
  We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
43. Re:If only :) by phantomfive · 2012-03-08 18:51 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry for the late answer i had no time to pee in the last couple of days :)
  No pressure, the point is to enjoy conversing, and maybe if we're lucky learn something.
  
  Yes but it won't hurt anyone either. In other words, in this simple model in which people don't need to eat or consume, G (government expenditure) = Y (GDP) = T (taxes) and the multiplier is exactly one, as a raise in G is equal to a raise in GDP. All income gets spent in taxes, and there is no real economy. There is a demand for holes, from "we the holediggers", which is met with a supply of holes, and holes would be all that is valued and produced in this kind of civilization.
  Do you understand the difference between spending and production? Government spending (or any spending) itself does not increase the GDP, only production does. Thus if the government hires someone to do something that is worthless, (which is what is normally meant by digging holes and filling them up again), then the GDP is not changed at all, because nothing is produced. Government spending by itself (or spending by anybody) does not increase GDP, unless something is actually produced. This is an important point.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
44. Re:If only :) by giampy · 2012-03-09 15:19 · Score: 1
  
  So the GDP is "the market value of all the final goods and services newly produced on domestic soil during a given time period".
  So if i buy from you a service and i pay you with a dollar, then that dollar gets accounted in the GDP. (BTW this would be accounted under "consumption" (C). If you sell the same service to a business it's called investment (I), if you sell it to the government is called government expense (G), and finally if you sell it overseas it's called net export (NX)).
  If i give the same dollar to you as a gift then no, it's not part of the GDP. If i decide that digging hole is a service and you dig a hole for me and i pay you a dollar it does go in the GDP. And this is true whether i am the government, a business, a consumer, or a foreign entity.
  So if I am the government and you dig a hole for me and i pay you then it goes into the GDP directly. When you spend part of that dollar on other things that part goes in the GDP as well. So the multiplier of digging holes cannot be less than one (if i am doing the math right, in this simple model is 1/(1-Cy) with Cy = dC/dY between 0 and 1).
  If I the government give you money for free then it's called a tax rebate, you will spend part of that dollar, and (only) that part goes in the GDP.
  So in that simple aggregate model the multiplier is Cy/(1-Cy), which is less then one if Cy is less than 0.5, basically depending if on average people spend that dollar right away or not.
  Now, here is the important point, if you are not rich and are "budget constrained", chances are that you WILL spend almost the whole dollar right away on a car, a beer, or whatever is of value to you. So if i give 10$ to the poorest half of the population and they spend them right away on whatever is of value to them, then essentially those 10$ go directly in the GDP and if you consider that the liquor stores and car shops in turn spend part of that money then the multiplier is probably still greater than one.
  Actually this has been a good exercise for me to think about this concepts in order to explain them. Thanks :)
  
  --
  We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
45. Re:If only :) by phantomfive · 2012-03-11 11:39 · Score: 1
  
  No, you're incorrectly using the expenditure method of measuring the GDP. The basic underlying assumption of the expenditure method for measuring GDP is that everything produced must be bought by somebody. Nobody is buying holes, nobody wants them because they are just filling them up again.
  
  From the holistic viewpoint, which you should always examine as a check for any math, surely you can see that digging a hole no one wants and then filling it up again is producing nothing of value for the economy.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
46. Re:If only :) by phantomfive · 2012-03-12 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Incidentally, on a completely unrelated note, saw this analysis of the economic crisis that is a bit unusual and I thought you might find interesting. Enjoy.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
47. Re:If only :) by giampy · 2012-03-12 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  No, you're incorrectly using the expenditure method of measuring the GDP
  In this model everything that is produced is bought. And in fact it is a reasonable assumption that always holds for services and almost always holds even for physical stuff that actually gets produced, especially given the decreasing size of inventories nowadays. More and more stuff is produced literally only "after" it gets bought. In fact the expenditure method is the most accurate and the de-facto-standard way of measuring the GDP.
  
  Nobody is buying holes, nobody wants them because they are just filling them up again.
  Not true. The government in this case is buying refilled holes.
  
  surely you can see that digging a hole no one wants and then filling it up again is producing nothing of value for the economy.
  Again, someone wants that refilled hole. And by definition something "has value" when it is bought. Regardless on whether you can use it later, or how does it look, or any other consideration.
  Besides, who are you to tell that something that gets bought and sold "has no value" ? There are people spending a lot of money on sex hot lines, for example. Those money gets accounted in the GDP. I personally see this as "nothing" or even negative produced value, (if anything for the waste of time). And i am sure that one can find a lot of crazy examples in which people buy the most useless services and crap, but, again who am I to establish (against the used definitions and conventions by the way) that something that gets sold and bought has "no value" ??
  And finally, even if you want to see this as money for nothing, that is a negative tax, so nothing gets bought from the government, then the second part of the previous post applies, and as i said (but you can do the math yourself) under some conditions (basically if you give money to the right people) the multiplier is still greater than one.
  I'll try to get to the article later, it looks interesting.
  
  --
  We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
48. Re:If only :) by phantomfive · 2012-03-12 15:35 · Score: 1
  
  Again, someone wants that refilled hole. And by definition something "has value" when it is bought. Regardless on whether you can use it later, or how does it look, or any other consideration. Besides, who are you to tell that something that gets bought and sold "has no value" ? There are people spending a lot of money on sex hot lines, for example.
  People want sex hotlines, and they are willing to pay for them. That is their decision.
  
  The government doesn't want holes. It might even be difficult to find a place for people to dig them. The government wants jobs. It is paying for people to have jobs, not to dig holes. So it doesn't matter if you pay them to dig holes, or to sit down and do nothing, or to stay home and watch TV. The effect on the economy is the same (unless, perhaps, if you value a filled in hole more than you value a watched TV. In which case I can sell you the best filled in holes money can buy. And also some high-quality stereo cables).
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
49. Re:If only :) by giampy · 2012-03-13 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  The government doesn't want holes. It might even be difficult to find a place for people to dig them. The government wants jobs.
  So what ? It does not matter what any entity "wants" to the effect of the GDP. It only matters what gets bought and sold and for what price. If some entity is paying people to do a job, regardless on how useful or useless the job is, that money gets accounted in the GDP. That's just the way it is.
  Essentially, it really depends on how the transaction is accounted for. If it's considered as a purchase then it goes in the GDP. If it's listed as a transfer, (that is a gift) then not. However, the multiplier can be greater than one even in the second case, if people spend more than 50% of those money right away on purchases.
  
  --
  We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
50. Re:If only :) by phantomfive · 2012-03-15 18:28 · Score: 1
  
  It only matters what gets bought and sold and for what price. If some entity is paying people to do a job, regardless on how useful or useless the job is, that money gets accounted in the GDP
  This is the kind of thinking that causes people to think mortgage backed securities filled with NINJA loans are a good idea.
  
  Incidentally, I did some searching, and found an economist (Robert J Barro) who estimates the WW2 to be 0.8. He's probably right.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Plumbing? by tverbeek · 2012-03-02 04:05 · Score: 2

Has plumbing really become dependent on electronic control systems? Or does this phenomenon somehow affect gravity too?

--
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
1. Re:Plumbing? by eternaldoctorwho · 2012-03-02 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  I would think that electronically controlled sewage treatment plants are at risk. Most people don't think about where their poo goes, but once it starts going nowhere, it will pile up very quick for communities.
2. Re:Plumbing? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-02 04:12 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Has plumbing really become dependent on electronic control systems? Or does this phenomenon somehow affect gravity too?
  Plumbing consists of pipes running for long distances in straight lines (i.e. antennas). Magnetic storms can cause currents to run through these pipes resulting in electrical damage. In addition, for buried pipes, the magnetic storm can cause their relative voltage to shift, resulting in massive corrosion. This is of particular concern with respect to oil and gas pipelines.
3. Re:Plumbing? by BradleyUffner · 2012-03-02 04:19 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I would think that electronically controlled sewage treatment plants are at risk. Most people don't think about where their poo goes, but once it starts going nowhere, it will pile up very quick for communities.
  That's alright, I live on top of a hill.
4. Re:Plumbing? by necro81 · 2012-03-02 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Has plumbing really become dependent on electronic control systems? Or does this phenomenon somehow affect gravity too?
  Rivers will still flow, if that's what you are talking about. And if you have an elevated storage tank or around your house, you'll be alright for a while. But municipal water systems require electrical power to clean water, pressurize the pipe network, operate distribution valves, and treat sewage. Out in the boonies most folks have a well, which generally requires electricity, too.
5. Re:Plumbing? by Roberticus · 2012-03-02 04:46 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I would think that electronically controlled sewage treatment plants are at risk. Most people don't think about where their poo goes, but once it starts going nowhere, it will pile up very quick for communities.
  That would make this hypothetical event a literal shitstorm.
6. Re:Plumbing? by 21mhz · 2012-03-02 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  I think sewers are designed to have a gravity-only spill mode, but the routing of the sewage, and the degree of its treatment in this mode might be, erm, less than optimal.
  
  --
  My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
7. Re:Plumbing? by SuricouRaven · 2012-03-02 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  Blockages on hilled sewers have happened before. The result is unpleasant. Just imagine all the toilets running backwards.
8. Re:Plumbing? by element-o.p. · 2012-03-02 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  Have you ever looked at the plumbing coming out of a boiler? The maze of wires and copper pipes is truly breathtaking...and that's just inside my house. I can't imagine the boiler of a commercial building.
  
  Short answer: Google "zone valve powerhead"
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
9. Re:Plumbing? by LanMan04 · 2012-03-02 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Magnetic storms can cause currents to run through these pipes resulting in electrical damage.
  Electrical damage to what? The pipes themselves? My super-duper-Japanese-electronic-ass-cleaning-toilet?
  Seriously, what that's electronic is connected to my pipes? And NO, my house's electrical system is NOT grounded to pipes...
  
  --
  With the first link, the chain is forged.
10. Re:Plumbing? by tverbeek · 2012-03-02 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, so this is just "the whole power grid is going to explode and we'll be back to 1900 again" Y2K doomsaying again. Got it.
  
  --
  http://alternatives.rzero.com/
11. Re:Plumbing? by Carnildo · 2012-03-02 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  Electrical damage to what? The pipes themselves? My super-duper-Japanese-electronic-ass-cleaning-toilet?
  A thousand miles of gas pipeline can easily build up an electrical potential of tens or hundreds of thousands of volts. Any conductive object near the pipe is at risk of damage from electrical arcing. We're not talking about "minor voltage surge burns out circuits" here, we're talking "minor lightning strike melts shut-off valve".
  
  --
  "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
With a bit of luck... by hcs_$reboot · 2012-03-02 04:05 · Score: 4, Funny

...a Solar eclipse will happen at this very time.

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
1. Re:With a bit of luck... by Cstryon · 2012-03-02 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  An eclipse by an asteroid...Would be both awesome....and the suck.
  
  --
  Indoctrinate : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments Educate : to develop mentally, morally, or aestheti
2. Re:With a bit of luck... by bjdevil66 · 2012-03-02 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if one knew exactly where the solar eclipse was going to be at the exact moment the storm struck, then THAT area - if they could disconnect from the rest of the world - would be safe. The rest of the world would still be hosed.
  A good time would be August 21, 2017, in the late morning - at least if you're in the continental United States... (or maybe May 20th of this year or Oct 14th, 2023, but those annulars wouldn't be as fun to watch)..
3. Re:With a bit of luck... by hcs_$reboot · 2012-03-02 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure about that. The Solar eclipse effect is only (totally) visible from a rather small area on Earth. But the solar storm could be absorbed for a good part by the Moon itself. The storm is not (only) made of light, as it takes much more than 8 minutes to reach us.
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Maybe they should save us with Gamemaker. by GmExtremacy · 2012-03-02 04:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

Using Gamemaker, they can put off the problem with its extreme slowness.
If it WERE true by dmomo · 2012-03-02 04:06 · Score: 3, Funny

I would retitle this submission "One in twenty chance of naturally-caused
economic stimulus by 2020".
1. Re:If it WERE true by FooAtWFU · 2012-03-02 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  You should ask Japan how effective the "economic stimulus" from their earthquake/tsunami has been working out for them. Or ask Thailand about their floods. Or ask Florida about how much good old Hurricane Andrew pumped up their economy.
  I mean, if your post were modded Funny instead of Insightful that would be one thing...
  
  --
  The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Be Prepared... by jolyonr · 2012-03-02 04:07 · Score: 5, Funny

Print out your porn.

--

Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
1. Re:Be Prepared... by ah.clem · 2012-03-02 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  MOD THIS UP!!
  
  --
  "Life is not magic." Dr. Ron Weiss - "If we don't play God, who will?" Dr. James Watson
2. Re:Be Prepared... by Mindcontrolled · 2012-03-02 04:22 · Score: 2
  
  Do you know how much space a single hour of hires porn takes when converted into a flip-book? And how am I supposed to flip said book while perusing it in the intended manner? True preppers stash at least one concubine together with the dried food and the ammo.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
3. Re:Be Prepared... by X0563511 · 2012-03-02 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  Bonus points: if the shit really hits the fan, the concubine could serve as an emergency food source.
  As bait. Really. Not what you're thinking, you sick freak! :P
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
4. Re:Be Prepared... by jolyonr · 2012-03-02 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  > if the shit really hits the fan,
  Shit hitting the fan won't matter so much if the fan isn't spinning.
  
  --
  
  Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
5. Re:Be Prepared... by hamburger+lady · 2012-03-02 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  you can have my worn-out issue of Completely Ruined Junk #28 when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
  
  --
  
  ---
  Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
6. Re:Be Prepared... by zill · 2012-03-02 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  My fan is diesel powered, you insensitive clod!
A lot of confusion. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-02 04:07 · Score: 5, Informative

I think a lot of people are very confused.
This won't directly break your car or your computer. It affects long runs of conductive cable.
It will break power distribution and telecom. It might break your computer if it's plugged in, but absolutely will not break your computer if it is not plugged in. Likewise with cars. If you own an electric car, just hope that it's unplugged when this happens.
1. Re:A lot of confusion. by hcs_$reboot · 2012-03-02 04:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Likewise, it will not break satellites if they're unplugged?
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
2. Re:A lot of confusion. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-02 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  It might break your computer if it's plugged in, but absolutely will not break your computer if it is not plugged in.
  What if I've got a UPS/surge protector?
3. Re:A lot of confusion. by na1led · 2012-03-02 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, any electronic device can blow without it being plugged into an outlet. Electronics can receive high voltage from electro magnetic waves in the air, which can overload capacitors. There are already devices on the market that use similar technology to charge electronics without wires. Not to mention the effects an EMP would have on magnetic media, such as Hard Drives, Tapes, SSD/Flash memory. I'm sure if the earth was exposed to a strong enough EMP, it would take out 90% of electronics.
  
  --
  -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
4. Re:A lot of confusion. by flyingfsck · 2012-03-02 04:35 · Score: 2
  
  If you live in the UK, South Africa or Australia, then just turn the wall switch of your satellite off, but if you live in the USA or Europe, then please unplug the lead from the wall and don't forget to roll up the 30,000km power cord...
  
  --
  Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
5. Re:A lot of confusion. by EllisDees · 2012-03-02 04:42 · Score: 2
  
  A solar flare is not an EMP. It would only take out things that have long stretches of conductive material, like the power lines.
  
  --
  -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
6. Re:A lot of confusion. by necro81 · 2012-03-02 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  This won't directly break your car or your computer. It affects long runs of conductive cable.
  
  It will break power distribution and telecom.
  Well, gosh, I guess that's alright then. I mean, who in this day and age needs the power distribution and telecom networks.
7. Re:A lot of confusion. by X0563511 · 2012-03-02 04:47 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Nope - because satellites don't get all the protections of being in the atmosphere. They get raw solar radiation.
  Down here in the dirt, it's only the (relatively) low frequency stuff that makes it through - and that's the stuff that long runs of wire pick up (or any long conductor - metallic piping could potentially pick it up too)
  If they are lower in orbit, they are still at risk - since the EM of the Earth actually focuses the incoming radiation into bands/layers that the satellite might pass through. Think "ant under a magnifying glass".
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
8. Re:A lot of confusion. by X0563511 · 2012-03-02 04:49 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  You're going to get some odd waveforms coming in - the UPS will only save you if it isolates the load instead of just switches to a battery. The surge protector isn't going to help much. Those are meant to suppress "lengthy" transients and overvolts, quick spikes can still break shit but not pop the protector.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
9. Re:A lot of confusion. by X0563511 · 2012-03-02 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Solar storms are not EMPs.
  About the capacitors etc - they are resonant at far too high a frequency for solar radiation to be a real danger to them.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
10. Re:A lot of confusion. by Anne_Nonymous · 2012-03-02 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  So Skynet will be wounded but not dead?
11. Re:A lot of confusion. by na1led · 2012-03-02 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  CME or EMP produce similar effects. They both produce intense electro magnetic radiation.
  
  --
  -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
12. Re:A lot of confusion. by EllisDees · 2012-03-02 05:11 · Score: 2
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse
  "The E3 component is very different from the other two major components of nuclear EMP. The E3 component of the pulse is a very slow pulse, lasting tens to hundreds of seconds, that is caused by the nuclear detonation heaving the Earth's magnetic field out of the way, followed by the restoration of the magnetic field to its natural place. The E3 component has similarities to a geomagnetic storm caused by a very severe solar flare. Like a geomagnetic storm, E3 can produce geomagnetically induced currents in long electrical conductors, which can then damage components such as power line transformers.
  Because of the similarity between solar-induced geomagnetic storms and nuclear E3, it has become common to refer to solar-induced geomagnetic storms as "solar EMP."At ground level, however, "solar EMP" is not known to produce an E1 or E2 component."
  E1 being the type of pulse that knocks out small electronics.
  
  --
  -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
13. Re:A lot of confusion. by SuricouRaven · 2012-03-02 05:18 · Score: 2
  
  Electrically, surge protectors are basically two diodes back-to-back. They'll provide some protection - hopefully the crucial miliseconds it'll take for a circuit breaker to trip. Not enough for a really nasty surge, but better than nothing.
14. Re:A lot of confusion. by Rockoon · 2012-03-02 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  ..or the earths iron core.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
15. Re:A lot of confusion. by hcs_$reboot · 2012-03-02 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  36,000+km. Yes, I'm being picky.
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
16. Re:A lot of confusion. by gboss · 2012-03-03 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, they are usually MOVs.
17. Re:A lot of confusion. by SuricouRaven · 2012-03-03 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  You're right, but an MOV is itsself not too dissimilar to two diodes back-to-back. I just described it that way because just about everyone on Slashdot should know how a diode works, but an MOV is a more obscure component.
Forgive me, but... by JustAnotherIdiot · 2012-03-02 04:09 · Score: 1

I've heard every other year that there's going to be a devastating solar storm that will change electronics forever, or whatnot.
I'm almost as tired of hearing this as I am of hearing the constant "We solved the energy crisis!" stories.

--
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
1. Re:Forgive me, but... by leonardluen · 2012-03-02 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  just like all the other doomsayers, one time they might actually get it right by pure chance and then everyone will have forgotten about all the other times they were wrong.
2. Re:Forgive me, but... by EllisDees · 2012-03-02 04:47 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The difference is that this sort of thing has happened before, and not that long ago (1859).
  "Telegraph systems all over Europe and North America failed, in some cases even shocking telegraph operators. Telegraph pylons threw sparks and telegraph paper spontaneously caught fire."
  The world was much less wired in 1859 than it is today. At a minimum, the power grid would be fried for months. I certainly wouldn't want to live somewhere like the Southwest part of the US, where if the power is gone you can't get water and the gas pumps stop working, so you can't go somewhere else.
  
  --
  -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
3. Re:Forgive me, but... by __aaeihw9960 · 2012-03-02 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Proving a doomsayer in my family wrong is actually how I started getting interested in probability theory (and changed the course of events through my life).
  He was wrong, by the way. I didn't get an STD.
4. Re:Forgive me, but... by phantomfive · 2012-03-02 06:33 · Score: 2
  
  Note that the wires in 1859 weren't very well protected against such things. Our current power/telephony system would have survived the 1859 event much better than it did in 1859. There were still coming to terms with the idea of AC current in 1859. We've learned a lot since then.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
BS Flag by jasnw · 2012-03-02 04:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

OK, I throw the BS flag all over this one. I've been in this business (space weather) for over 40 years, and one of the biggest problems in the whole field are these "OMG the F-ing SKY is FALLING" pronouncements from self-proclaimed space weather experts (or NASA scientists, which is just sad). What this guy has done is a typical "lies, damn lies, and statistics" analysis of the worst sort, and he even kinda admits this with the caveat at the end of TFA's abstract in Space Weather. This is not to say that a big Carrington-magnitude storm came along it wouldn't cause havoc, it most certainly will, but there's only been one of these in our recorded history. That seems to fall well outside the realm of useable predictability. It's in a class of problems the weather service folks who try to predict 100-year floods know all too well. If you only see one instance of something in your record, at best you can say that you get one of those beasts every record-length/2 years (if that). This guy is just blowing smoke to advertise his business.
1. Re:BS Flag by rndmtim · 2012-03-02 04:20 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  There was an event in the 1920's (less than the 1859 event) and another in the 1990's (less than the 1920's event but it took down pieces of the Quebec grid). Doesn't do anything to help measure the frequency of the 1859 level events. Also, it kind of doesn't matter, since power facilities like the one I work at are required to prepare for things like the "maximum possible flood" not a "500 year flood". If your sample set has at least one of these, and we can't quantify it to be say less than a 1 in 10000 - and we certainly can't - then we should be working on this problem. Not as if the sky is falling, but we've been working on changing out some stuff in my plant for a decade, so we definitely should get on it, since remediation is going to take a long time, and the consequences would be very bad.
2. Re:BS Flag by u38cg · 2012-03-02 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  Is there good data for storm frequency segmented by size? If there is, it would seem fairly straightforward to estimate the probability of outsize events.
  
  --
  [FUCK BETA]
3. Re:BS Flag by Mindcontrolled · 2012-03-02 04:25 · Score: 2
  
  Well, it is dubious at best to put a number on it like the guy did, but we know for certain that a) Carrington events happen and b) our infrastructure is not set up to handle it. Given the possible catastrophic consequences, it is at least prudent to consider how to handle such an event.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
4. Re:BS Flag by na1led · 2012-03-02 04:30 · Score: 2
  
  Your analogy is like many businesses who fail to backup their data because they think a disaster isn't going to happen to them. We've only been using computers for the past 50 years, and computers today are far more susceptible to damage than ever before. Everyone ignores the danger until it hits them, happens all the time.
  
  --
  -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
5. Re:BS Flag by Black+Parrot · 2012-03-02 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  Also, it kind of doesn't matter, since power facilities like the one I work at are required to prepare for things like the "maximum possible flood" not a "500 year flood".
  Noah could have saved himself a lot of trouble by just crashing at your facility instead of building an ark.
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
6. Re:BS Flag by geoskd · 2012-03-02 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  computers today are far more susceptible to damage than ever before. Everyone ignores the danger until it hits them, happens all the time.
  They are? Funny, but I thought the chips had a higher transient voltage tolerance than ever before, I remember the bad old days when you really did have to wear a wrist strap when handling PCBs. I haven't used one in almost a decade, and I haven't had a DOA board since before I stopped. I know the power supplies have much better overload and fault tolerance and recovery than ever before. Switching Transistors can handle 600V under normal operating conditions now. 10 years ago, 300V was the norm. Seems like newer bus specs are also much more fault tolerant than they were before. I remember old school SCSI having a bitch of a time if the terminators were not perfect, but I haven't had cabling issues since LVDS. MTBF is way up on everything else. Hell even a bad memory chip on a modern drive is not a fatal error anymore.
  
  -=Geoskd
  
  --
  I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
7. Re:BS Flag by ediron2 · 2012-03-02 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, it's straightforward to **EXTRAPOLATE**. Any scientist or engineer or accountant or actuarial or applied math nerd can tell you sixteen zillion ways to do so -- easy peazy!
  Of course, ma nature has to agree to your mathematical model.
  And she doesn't.
8. Re:BS Flag by na1led · 2012-03-02 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Hard Drives 20 years ago rarely went bad, infact many of them still function today. Memory and Storage Media is a lot more fragile today because we push the envelope in capacity.
  
  --
  -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
9. Re:BS Flag by somename · 2012-03-02 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  I imagine solar storm of similar magnitudes as the on in 1859 would be recorded in history around the world as it would be a visibly noticeable event around the globe. Has solar storm of similar magnitude ever been noted in the history past couple thousand years, i.e. record of observable Aurorae near equator, bright night skys, etc? Just being curious.
10. Re:BS Flag by rndmtim · 2012-03-02 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly, some of our engineers would want to talk about that seriously.
11. Re:BS Flag by Carnildo · 2012-03-02 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  Based on the pattern of isotope abundances in ice cores, a Carrington-type event happens about once every 500 years.
  
  --
  "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
12. Re:BS Flag by u38cg · 2012-03-02 22:49 · Score: 1
  
  Who said anything about extrapolation? It simple seems pretty intuitive that storms of a certain size arrive according to *some* sort of point process - perhaps Poisson, perhaps something else - and fitting some sort of distribution to outsize storms is certainly possible.
  
  --
  [FUCK BETA]
How Ridiculous do you Want to be? by logicCenter · 2012-03-02 04:11 · Score: 1

This kind of event is going to knock anything out that can conduct electricity. The telegraph lines overloaded and caught fire in 1859. Your data isn't safe, if it's on a hard drive, CD, SSDs, the cloud etc.
I can almost see people selling space in deep underground caves for people to put their data in.
In a similar vein on what they are selling for nuclear/world destruction. http://www.terravivos.com/secure/solution.htm
At the end of the day, there isn't a hole deep enough with the ability to self sustain long enough to evade what nature has in store. So let's just deal with it if and when it happens!
1. Re:How Ridiculous do you Want to be? by logicCenter · 2012-03-02 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  At the end of the day, there isn't a hole deep enough with the ability to self sustain long enough to evade what nature has in store.
  Is it just me, or is this comment crying out for a goatse link ?
  Not intending to, just making an example. Their website is ridiculous, you can tell they are targeting the most obsessively worried clientele. The business of the world ending just doesn't seem to end.
2. Re:How Ridiculous do you Want to be? by SDrag0n · 2012-03-02 04:26 · Score: 2
  
  I could be wrong (I wasn't ever a huge fan of studying physics) but from my basic engineering physics class, wouldn't a Faraday cage block this?
  
  --
  I don't have time to make a sig
3. Re:How Ridiculous do you Want to be? by wisnoskij · 2012-03-02 04:31 · Score: 2
  
  "This kind of event is going to knock anything out that can conduct electricity. The telegraph lines overloaded and caught fire in 1859. Your data isn't safe, if it's on a hard drive, CD, SSDs, the cloud etc."
  Why are CDs on that list? CDs do not use electricity or magnetism.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
4. Re:How Ridiculous do you Want to be? by logicCenter · 2012-03-02 04:34 · Score: 2
  
  I could be wrong (I wasn't ever a huge fan of studying physics) but from my basic engineering physics class, wouldn't a Faraday cage block this?
  Yeah, that's what most hardening entails. For example,your hard drive is encased fully by metal, but that little circuit board underneath it isn't. Another thing that I have no way of speculating on is just how much energy will be raining down, it could just vaporize the Faraday cage if there's enough energy behind it. That would be intense for sure.
5. Re:How Ridiculous do you Want to be? by Black+Parrot · 2012-03-02 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  This kind of event is going to knock anything out that can conduct electricity. The telegraph lines overloaded and caught fire in 1859. Your data isn't safe, if it's on a hard drive, CD, SSDs, the cloud etc.
  CDs conduct electricity?
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
6. Re:How Ridiculous do you Want to be? by logicCenter · 2012-03-02 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  This kind of event is going to knock anything out that can conduct electricity. The telegraph lines overloaded and caught fire in 1859. Your data isn't safe, if it's on a hard drive, CD, SSDs, the cloud etc.
  CDs conduct electricity?
  Ever put one in a microwave?
7. Re:How Ridiculous do you Want to be? by xtal · 2012-03-02 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  Put your data in an old ammo box and store it in the basement.
  If it gets flashed from induced fields through that, you won't be worrying about the data. You'll be worrying about food.
  
  --
  ..don't panic
8. Re:How Ridiculous do you Want to be? by X0563511 · 2012-03-02 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  Yea, but if it can't handle the amount of energy getting dumped into it... well, it might get warm inside that cage is all I am saying.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
9. Re:How Ridiculous do you Want to be? by geoskd · 2012-03-02 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Why are CDs on that list? CDs do not use electricity or magnetism.
  Pop a CD in a microwave oven on high for 15 seconds and watch what happens. Then you'll understand why CDs are on the list.
  
  To be perfectly clear however, if the sun ever starts putting out EM power at that level, and the right frequencies, we have bigger problems than a little data loss...
  
  -=Geoskd
  
  --
  I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
10. Re:How Ridiculous do you Want to be? by wisnoskij · 2012-03-02 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  It is just a bunch of pretty normal metal and plastic as far as electromagnetism is concerned. Any solar flare that would destroy a CD would likely kill every living being on earth.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
11. Re:How Ridiculous do you Want to be? by Kryptonian+Jor-El · 2012-03-02 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  Burn your shit to a couple Blu-ray disks I'm more worried about corporate data than personal honestly. Imagine if Microsoft didn't have backups that were solar-proof and lost the source to their OS
  
  --
  All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
Repent, repent! by flyingfsck · 2012-03-02 04:31 · Score: 1

The world is going to end tomorrow! Repent, repent...

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Can we grab tons of energy? by GerardAtJob · 2012-03-02 04:32 · Score: 1

I don't know what I'm talking about at all, since physics isn't my field at all, but could it be possible to use this event to capture insane amount of energy?

--
I can't call that English ;-)
1. Re:Can we grab tons of energy? by burisch_research · 2012-03-02 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  Capturing the energy is precisely the problem -- there will be WAY too much of it floating about being captured by critical systems. Dissipating it safely would be first prize. As for storing it ... no way. We don't have the technology to store zetajoules of energy!!
  I did a very quick study on capturing the energy from lightning storms. It turns out that where I am (South Africa) has so much lightning that theoretically if we captured all of the energy from every strike, we could power the entire country. (turns out it's about 1:1, oddly enough.) ... but the problem is that you'd have to build seriously enormous capacitors with bus bars the size of ... buses ... and the entire exercise would be insanely expensive as a result.
  Bottom line is that huge bursts of energy are simply not economical to harvest.
  
  --
  char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
Bank, credit card? by wisnoskij · 2012-03-02 04:36 · Score: 1

So do our financial institutions take measures to keep our finance data safe?
Because if we are really talking about every single HDD on earth being destroyed normal data protection techniques are not going to work.
And if that actually happened I don't think civilization would survive.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
It's the hollywood version! by sqldr · 2012-03-02 04:42 · Score: 1

which resulted in breathtaking aurorae across the United States and other temperate regions of the globe.
because the aliens always attack new york first!

--
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
1. Re:It's the hollywood version! by Shadowmist · 2012-03-02 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  which resulted in breathtaking aurorae across the United States and other temperate regions of the globe.
  because the aliens always attack new york first!
  Have you tried getting entertainment in the sticks?
2. Re:It's the hollywood version! by sqldr · 2012-03-02 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  Have you tried getting entertainment in the sticks?
  actually, after watching 28 days later, I doubt that the zombies enjoyed having to start in the grim estates of north east London.* That just made the whole apocalypse scenario even more depressing.
  * Is it me, or are all the urban levels in half life 2 set in a Birmingham industrial estate?
  It's uncanny..
  
  --
  I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
Looking on the bright side by Dunbal · 2012-03-02 04:43 · Score: 1

There's an almost 90% chance that it won't.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Serious question here... by X0563511 · 2012-03-02 04:55 · Score: 1

Unplug is important, not powered.
The long lines (power, cable etc) will pick up the radio signals and any unfortunate device connected to them will experience an AC voltage of potentially considerable potency. Fizzle.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Foreign manufactures by watermark · 2012-03-02 05:01 · Score: 1

All of our electronics are manufactured in foreign countries...We'll be, at best, second in line to get new equipment.
Ding....NOAH! by Overzeetop · 2012-03-02 05:05 · Score: 2

What?
How long can you tread EM waves?

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
You call THAT a financial disaster? Yeah right. by geekmux · 2012-03-02 05:10 · Score: 1

"...A similar storm today could knock out power grids, GPS and communication satellites, data centers, transportation systems, and building and plumbing infrastructures and wreak $1 trillion or more of economic damage in the first year alone"
It's pretty sad that I now laugh at a "mere" $1 trillion as being identified as a "disaster", considering that the US financial sector managed to destroy about $20 trillion globally damn near overnight back in 2008.
Oh well, I'm sure they'll be a bailout for this too, and probably handled just as poorly.
Faraday Cage by WillgasM · 2012-03-02 05:31 · Score: 1

With all the solar activity we've been having lately, I kind of assumed something like this was on the way. I've been toying with the idea of building a faraday cage around my living room. Also, GET OFF MY WiFi!!!
perhaps the Amish will survive by peter303 · 2012-03-02 05:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

I watched an interesting PBS special on the Amish a couple nights ago. It gave me good insight into their lifestyle choices.
During this show I thought about the "2012 problem". If any one would survive a shutdowns of electricity and electronics, these people will However, these people are pacifists an might not do well with armed bands that would arise in the apocalypse.
1. Re:perhaps the Amish will survive by twistofsin · 2012-03-02 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  The Amish may be pacifists but I am not, nor will the many other folks who will be armed and willing to protect people that can help them survive such a catastrophe.
Extended Consequences by willy+everlearn · 2012-03-02 05:40 · Score: 1

OK. Being without electircal power is one thing.
Having to rebuild a lot of tele-comm infrastructure is another.
All the damage aside......
What would the effect of a storm nearing the Carrington size to to nuclear power stations?
Are Nuke plants shielded from EMP?
The best thing for the inside of a man is the outside of a horse.

--
No hour on a horse is ever wasted. Winston Churchill
You're not serious are you? by DerekLyons · 2012-03-02 06:12 · Score: 1

Has plumbing really become dependent on electronic control systems? Or does this phenomenon somehow affect gravity too?
Plumbing infrastructure includes pumps as well as remotely controlled valves, chemical injection, sensors of various types, etc... Why would you think water processing (either raw into drinkable or sewage into disposable) wouldn't be reliant on electronic controls in the first place? This is 2012 after all.
Blackouts happen... by LeadSongDog · 2012-03-02 06:21 · Score: 1

...every few years anyhow. Last time I looked, they don't often cause mass casualties. Of course we might have a minor problem with slashdotters emerging from mom's basement, but that's happended before too.

--
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
Corallary by MickLinux · 2012-03-02 06:32 · Score: 1

Only fools *depend* on predictions that are based on an absence of data, and a lack of understanding of the underlying structures.
That has to do with economics (listening to Greenspan, or to Bernanke, or to politicians ad nauseum on the economy.) It seems to me no coinicidence that although Mutual funds all say "past perfomance is not an indicator of future performance", they all do worse than random on their predictions, thereby indicating that they still believe it is.
But it also has to do with solar storm predictions. By definition, you can't accurately predict outside the envelope. All you *can* do, is say "this is my model, and if it holds, then we are 95% likely to have thus and such a strength solar storm within 5 years, thus and such a strength solar storm within 7 years" and so on. But doing that doesn't predict the solar storm: it validates the model.

--
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
How long is long? by rst123 · 2012-03-02 07:29 · Score: 1

There are many comments on this article that say that only long conductors will be affected by solar storms. However long can mean a lot of different lengths depending on context. So, in this case how long is long? 1 m, 100m, 10 km, ...
Magnetic Storage by DarthVain · 2012-03-02 07:50 · Score: 1

Could you imagine what would happen if all the magnetic storage in the world go knocked out? All that information... Chaos.
Unless by shiftless · 2012-03-02 12:53 · Score: 1

Unless you have a self-energizing alternator, which generates its own field when RPMs get high enough, in which case yes you can indeed push start your car with a totally dead battery.
$1 trillion? by viperidaenz · 2012-03-02 18:39 · Score: 1

For a 1/8 chance?
That's less than 1/13th of US debt isn't it?
Re:A nice outcome of this event: by RockDoctor · 2012-03-03 06:53 · Score: 1

That'll be fine, as long as it fries all the bloody leaky WiFi shit that is driving radio reception to shit.

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"