People are making this sound like the end of the world. It would suck, oh my would it ever suck, but we would make it.
We're only talking about a regression of about 50-100 years. Believe it or not, people did manage to survive in 1950, or even 1900. And we'd be even better off than them, because while we wouldn't have all of the cool gadgets, we'd have people who knew how those gadgets worked. The hard part was figuring out all the science behind everything. With that done I think we'd recover rather quickly.
Plus, like someone said in a post farther up, 75% of the world wouldn't even notice.
Hey, I'm an education major! That's not grunt labor:) It's sad, though... I mean, I could probably make due until before the invention of the car (I have some pretty solid mechanic background) but before that, I could teach and maybe write... that's about all.
It is impractical for someone to learn every step in technology that built the foundation for a modern convienence (be in visual programming languages or cars or dishwashers or whathaveyou). It's like asking someone to build an V-8 engine as part of their driving test. It's dumb.
Yes, there still need to be people who can do it, but not many. Technology builds on itself. If we all devoted the time needed to learn machine code, then when would we have the time to build higher level applications?
And let's say you know 8088 assembler... well, can you code in pure machine language? And if so, do you know how to make a microprocessor? And if so, do you know how to smelt the metals needed to make the machines that make the processors? Until we get to reductio ad absurdium.
Of course you don't. At some point your knowledge breaks down. We've become specialized. If not, we'd all be farming and hunting and building our homes, because we wouldn't have any time to do anything else but what was absolutely required for survival.
Umm... if your car is hit by a downed power line, lightning bolt, immersed in water or flipped off its wheels, don't you have bigger problems than your clutch maybe sticking?
I know that all of these nano-gadgets could mean great things for consumers, but Hong Kong is now part of China, is it not? And nano-tech has some real military uses, right?
I mean, maybe it's just me, but I'd really not like to see nano-tech weapons in the hands of the People's Liberation Army. Then again, most commercial technology with real military value is released to the public a decade after it's developed by the defense contractors, so maybe the United States is already there...
OK, so... this is a very cool, but I see little real utility as a military weapon. Remember that artillery is a tactical weapon--that is, it influences the battlefield directly.
EMP weapons make excellent strategic or even operational weapons, as they can do serious damage to non-tactical military power (i.e., by screwing up the support units' ability to support the troops in the field).
But as for supporting the tactical battle, which is fought by infantry, armored fighting vehicles and tube/rocket artillery, I just don't see it being of much use. I'd much rather have HE blast/fragmentation rounds coming down on the bad guys. Hell, even smoke so I can close with the enemy and kill him with personal weapons.
It's a cool toy, but still pretty much just a toy. EMP isn't a tactical weapon of too much use.
Being lit off in the middle of downtown Chicago from the back of a Ryder truck, however, it would be much more effective. Definately a terrorist weapon.
I wish to patent a revolutionary new product from Why-the-Hell-Are-You-in-my-Bed Pharmaceuticals, hereby known as "Beer" (trade name "3,3,2-BREWETHYL-OXYLDRUNKNLAID").
Among it many welcome effects are: increased confidence and self-esteem, apparent indestructibility, apparently increased sex appeal, selective memory loss, increased stumbling efficiency and greatly enhanced regurgitation reflexes.
Some side effects include increased confidence and self-esteem, apparent indestructibility, apparently increased sex appeal, selective memory loss, increased stumbling efficiency and greatly enhanced regurgitation reflexes, but these side effects were only reported in 95% of the test subjects and are the same as the vodka-drinking control group.
So don't be shy, pick up some "Beer" (recommended by 9 out of 10 drunkards without the financial means to buy other liquor) today and benchmark that liver!
Slashdot Mirror
We're only talking about a regression of about 50-100 years. Believe it or not, people did manage to survive in 1950, or even 1900. And we'd be even better off than them, because while we wouldn't have all of the cool gadgets, we'd have people who knew how those gadgets worked. The hard part was figuring out all the science behind everything. With that done I think we'd recover rather quickly.
Plus, like someone said in a post farther up, 75% of the world wouldn't even notice.
Hey, I'm an education major! That's not grunt labor :) It's sad, though... I mean, I could probably make due until before the invention of the car (I have some pretty solid mechanic background) but before that, I could teach and maybe write... that's about all.
It is impractical for someone to learn every step in technology that built the foundation for a modern convienence (be in visual programming languages or cars or dishwashers or whathaveyou). It's like asking someone to build an V-8 engine as part of their driving test. It's dumb.
Yes, there still need to be people who can do it, but not many. Technology builds on itself. If we all devoted the time needed to learn machine code, then when would we have the time to build higher level applications?
And let's say you know 8088 assembler... well, can you code in pure machine language? And if so, do you know how to make a microprocessor? And if so, do you know how to smelt the metals needed to make the machines that make the processors? Until we get to reductio ad absurdium.
Of course you don't. At some point your knowledge breaks down. We've become specialized. If not, we'd all be farming and hunting and building our homes, because we wouldn't have any time to do anything else but what was absolutely required for survival.
Umm... if your car is hit by a downed power line, lightning bolt, immersed in water or flipped off its wheels, don't you have bigger problems than your clutch maybe sticking?
I know that all of these nano-gadgets could mean great things for consumers, but Hong Kong is now part of China, is it not? And nano-tech has some real military uses, right? I mean, maybe it's just me, but I'd really not like to see nano-tech weapons in the hands of the People's Liberation Army. Then again, most commercial technology with real military value is released to the public a decade after it's developed by the defense contractors, so maybe the United States is already there...
OK, so... this is a very cool, but I see little real utility as a military weapon. Remember that artillery is a tactical weapon--that is, it influences the battlefield directly.
EMP weapons make excellent strategic or even operational weapons, as they can do serious damage to non-tactical military power (i.e., by screwing up the support units' ability to support the troops in the field).
But as for supporting the tactical battle, which is fought by infantry, armored fighting vehicles and tube/rocket artillery, I just don't see it being of much use. I'd much rather have HE blast/fragmentation rounds coming down on the bad guys. Hell, even smoke so I can close with the enemy and kill him with personal weapons.
It's a cool toy, but still pretty much just a toy. EMP isn't a tactical weapon of too much use.
Being lit off in the middle of downtown Chicago from the back of a Ryder truck, however, it would be much more effective. Definately a terrorist weapon.
I wish to patent a revolutionary new product from Why-the-Hell-Are-You-in-my-Bed Pharmaceuticals, hereby known as "Beer" (trade name "3,3,2-BREWETHYL-OXYLDRUNKNLAID").
Among it many welcome effects are: increased confidence and self-esteem, apparent indestructibility, apparently increased sex appeal, selective memory loss, increased stumbling efficiency and greatly enhanced regurgitation reflexes.
Some side effects include increased confidence and self-esteem, apparent indestructibility, apparently increased sex appeal, selective memory loss, increased stumbling efficiency and greatly enhanced regurgitation reflexes, but these side effects were only reported in 95% of the test subjects and are the same as the vodka-drinking control group.
So don't be shy, pick up some "Beer" (recommended by 9 out of 10 drunkards without the financial means to buy other liquor) today and benchmark that liver!