|
Collin Jasnoch wrote: _Maxxx_ wrote: Losing knowledge over time certainly has happened in the past
How can you be so certain? If the knowledge was "lost" then it is not likely anyone would know it...
We know that certain things existed from archeological records, but we don't know how to make it or what it means. For example, we know of Greek Fire from the writings of Theophanes and other contemporary accounts, but we don't know what its formula was. Another well known example is Linear A and Linear B, languages that we know exist and have examples of, but don't know how to translate or what the examples mean. I could go on.
So we do know, for a fact, that knowledge has been lost in the past, so it's not unlikely that it could happen again in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
Unless the nanobots were at saturation point (ie you couldn't even breath for the bloody things) there would still be lightning and static electricity, not to mention the basic electric field from charged particles.
As to a technology or physical law being suppressed? Locally, maybe. But we all watched Jurassic Park and we know Mother Nature outwits us eventually anyway.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Look up "Gosh numbers"; I think you'll enjoy.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
You have been watching too much TV lately, haven't you?..  ... There are a lot physics we don't understand, mainly at the subatomic level, where our instruments are not good enough or happen things that don't go accord to our models and theories, that's why some people look for unification theories that are valid for any level from macro to micro (or nano), even the mere existence of the universe is big mistery because with out current knowledge we can't know for certain what happened on the Zero day much less before that.
|
|
|
|
|
Physics according to Hollywood and physics in the normal world are two different entities. Just like software, we can alter virtual worlds to be as we like. If it sells, then that's all that counts.
|
|
|
|
|
So THAT'S the rationale behind the show. Meh. It's like the old anecdote of the acid that will eat through anything: if it eat's through anything, how do you contain it?
So these nanites absorb all electricity ... but what about from each other? What about the bioelectric currents that exist in ALL organisms?
And then there's the Second Law - no matter how efficiently it's absorbed, what do those nanites do with all the waste heat? They have to dissapate it somehow, and that's gonna make them hot.
So if there is a volt/ampere threshold below which the nanites don't operate, then lots of common everyday stuff might still be able to function. But then, absorbing all the high volt/amp stuff would drive the heat dissapation problem up exponentialy - do they only operate in the water or the high altitudes, or high latitudes during winter? Because without cooling, they wouldn't last long. And if you reverse it, if the nanites ONLY function at low volt/amp levels, then the first thing to go would be living organisms, not electric powerplants.
Something has to give. Either way, I'm not buying the premise. Nice to know I can strike that off of my list of shows to Netflix.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rather, I'm disappointed in the writing. It's an interesting premise: all electrical power is rendered non-functional, resulting in the collapse of our technological society. Great. Leave it at that. Don't evern TRY to explain it. Don't make it a "meddling in powers wew don't understand" meme; it works as a post-apocalyptic show just as well. Mixing the two and making it into a morality play is just ... lazy.
Take the re-imaged BSG. There were any number of incongruities in the science in that show, but it was okay, because they didn't even try to justify them. Rather, the sci-fi settng was so much window dressing for the story, which was an exodus story set in space, combined with the "we brought it in our oursleves" message. The "science" was there to help the story along, not to define it.
The list goes on: "Defiance", "Serenity", "Heroes", even "Lost". "Star Trek" and to a lesser extent "Doctor Who" always played fast-n-loose with this concept, but then, they were episodic shows, not serials, so each individual writer had much more freedom to remake the setting to suit his story. But they were all at there best when the sci-fi part of the story was in the background, rather than the forground.
Maybe "Revolution" started out that way, and is otherwise worthy of viewing, but as soon as they have to try to EXPLAIN it, they miss the point.
Good sci-fi is hard to find.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just blame it on the NSA; its more believable.
|
|
|
|
|
Collin Jasnoch wrote: What about the idea that certain laws of Physics only exist because we are suppressed or benefited by tech we simply do not understand?
Uhhh, you kind of lost me there. How would getting any people suppressed affect the laws of Physics? I don't know of anything that can affect the laws of Physics. (We have a long history of misunderstanding them and we still have a long ways to go to understanding all of them. They exist and don't change whether we will or not.) Even the show doesn't posit the suppression of the laws of Physics, it just came up with an idea that is within the realm of possibility even if we currently don't have the tech to produce the effect. All you have to do is short electrical connections to remove electrical capabilities and our current world is severely dependent on it.
That's basically what the nanobots are doing, providing a 0 ohm resistance pathway. (IE a short) That part is totally possible and well known.
Using electricity to transmit information! Preposterous! (In 1250)
|
|
|
|
|
I wanted to find this[^] recipe but I was getting nowhere on Google [other search engines are available] so I searched this wonderful site. Link found and dinner saved.
Proof positive that Chris is way better than Larry and Sergey. 
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
|
I just googled "recipe Langos" got tons of hits.
I also tried "recipe fried hungarian bread" and got tons of links (some the same as above).
Me think you google-fu is just a tad lacking today.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
Oh I get loads of links, but not THAT one.
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds delicious, but a lot of work. 
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Nah, POP.
Make the dough in the bread machine means no effort AT ALL.
Then pull off blobs and flatten them out. Fry, add toppings, enjoy.
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
|
You needed a recipe to make garlic bread? 
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
In a Rod Serling voice, "Ponder if you will, Mr. Wright, the quote just below the line."
BDF
The internet makes dumb people dumber and clever people cleverer.
-- PaulowniaK
|
|
|
|
|
Nagy Vilmos wrote: Codeproject 1 - Google 0
the correct syntax is Codeproject 1-0 Google
|
|
|
|
|
At the very least: a better cook.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
IT Crowd Returns[^]
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh Chan 4 tried turning it off didn't work so they tried turning back on
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds kind of cool. We don't have that in the US. Will it be on Netflix?
|
|
|
|
|
...if I could just figure out how not to fall off the darn thing[^]. 
It was broke, so I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
I can see it going the waz of the Segway[^], seven people think it's great and everyone else a gimmick.
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
