Options

Are we too dependent on technology?

124

Posts

  • Options
    MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    If you hit all the major hubs you could seperate the internet into chunks but totally disabling it would be quite a feat.

    If I could find a map of all ISP links on the internet, I would be in a better position to say whether or not there's enough redundancy to keep it running after such an attack.

    I can say that that was almost certainly a design consideration and was accounted for (since the idea behind the internet as we know it was to keep the government in contact with the rest of the country in a major catastrophic attack), but lack the information to be 100% sure.

    MKR on
  • Options
    Rolly RizlaRolly Rizla __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    3lwap0 wrote: »
    As a IT geek, and someone who gravitates towards the finer comforts of life, it's pretty much the complete suck. It would have only had been worse if i'd lost my home, which some folks did. Society can't live without this stuff - which makes me wonder if the oil ever dries up, how really fucked we'll all be.

    Well no, our society is dependent on the existence of such technology, if not their immediate availability (as you said, things have got to look like they'll end/get better).

    But I hardly see how that's related to oil. The only thing oil is going to do is take out our transportation, not our communication. A well prepared state won't notice the loss of oil too much. Of course, convincing anyone to be well prepared (via building electric railroads etc.) is kind of hard.

    What about all the plastics in our technology?

    How are we going to manufacture all these toys we use to communicate without petroleum for plastic?

    EtOH --> (zeolite crystals, 400 degrees) --> CH2=CH2 + H2O

    CH2=CH2 is ethylene, which is the precursor to most modern plastics.

    EDIT: Also, plastic is mostly used to case things rather then actually build them.

    True. I'd much rather my toys be encased in titanium or magnesium, although I've heard something recently about getting plastics from maple trees, which will be good for keep weight down on portable devices.

    I was just playing Devil's Advocate anyways. A truely technologically advanced society shouldn't have to depend on non-renewable resources.

    Society is dependent on tech. People don't have to be, but usually are if they want to function efficently in society.

    Well thanks to entropy it's all going down one way or another. Even with fusion power, we may pretty quickly drain the Earth of Tritium (you have to make it from Lithium, of which we may have only about 25 years supply) unless we can get Deuterium-Deuterium to work.

    I argue it's less about non-renewability as it is about preparation and foresight. The use of fossil fuels was a good idea, the current astigmatism about about ability to keep doing it is retarded.

    Looked up lately?

    Eventually, they'll just start mining the asteroid belt and other mineral deposits.

    We've been dependent on technology since we invented farming and fire.

    Barring a global cataclysm, I don't see it changing in the near future.

    As for fossil fuels, I found this interesting little article in regards:

    http://www.physorg.com/news96631073.html

    Rolly Rizla on
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    MKR wrote: »
    If you hit all the major hubs you could seperate the internet into chunks but totally disabling it would be quite a feat.

    If I could find a map of all ISP links on the internet, I would be in a better position to say whether or not there's enough redundancy to keep it running after such an attack.

    I can say that that was almost certainly a design consideration and was accounted for (since the idea behind the internet as we know it was to keep the government in contact with the rest of the country in a major catastrophic attack), but lack the information to be 100% sure.

    There's plenty of redunacy. It would require a concious simultanious attack on multiple hubs at once. The number of ISP has plummeted in recent years and the internet has become more centralized. If say Verizon, Comcast and time Warner's servers were all hit at once 75% of the tri-state area's internet would probably be crippled.

    As for the government I'm sure they have thier own dedicated lines for redundancies. Dedicated hookups don't go through the morass of consumer hubs regular internet traffic does.

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    MKR wrote: »
    If you hit all the major hubs you could seperate the internet into chunks but totally disabling it would be quite a feat.

    If I could find a map of all ISP links on the internet, I would be in a better position to say whether or not there's enough redundancy to keep it running after such an attack.

    I can say that that was almost certainly a design consideration and was accounted for (since the idea behind the internet as we know it was to keep the government in contact with the rest of the country in a major catastrophic attack), but lack the information to be 100% sure.

    There's plenty of redunacy. It would require a concious simultanious attack on multiple hubs at once. The number of ISP has plummeted in recent years and the internet has become more centralized. If say Verizon, Comcast and time Warner's servers were all hit at once 75% of the tri-state area's internet would probably be crippled.

    As for the government I'm sure they have thier own dedicated lines for redundancies. Dedicated hookups don't go through the morass of consumer hubs regular internet traffic does.
    Right but even then, it'd be hard to keep it down for long - the protocol is very resilient.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Well, there's a difference between a guy in a coma and an Olympic gold medalist. If you hit enough spots on the backbone (which probably wouldn't be too hard, Frontline had a docu on it a few years back) it would nock the internet down to the point where my cable connection would be worse off than my parents dial-up runs now. That would, depending on the areas hit, lead to catastrophic damage that would be wide ranging. NYSE, for instance, being brought down for days or weeks would have major economic backlash that would take a long time to recover from.

    moniker on
  • Options
    JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Place at the tableRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    Being dependent on something you're capable of creating is not a bad thing.

    Thing is we've become so specialzed as indidvudals you'd need an awfully large number of experts to totally recreate all our technology

    The communications stuff we could live without. Commerce would just get more localized. The real issue hasn't been mentioned yet. Food. There's large parts of our world, namely the large cities, that really don't produce any food of their own. We're highly reliant on an industrialized food industry to make and deliver enough food to our urban centers. A breakdown of that would be survivable but would lead to mass famine and probably a large exodus out of the cities

    Good point. Cities in particular would be a complete mess without electricity. And this exodus into natural areas for sustenance would likely drain those natural resources quickly. People would whipe out millions of animals out of hunger, raid eachothers crops, etc. I'd give it a month or so.

    We wipe out entire species on a daily basis. What's your point?

    We do? I thought most of those late 80s/early 90s figures on daily extinction had been sort of discredited.

    I'm someone who could live without modern technology. I could live with just bows and axes and such. I really, really don't want to, though. It's only rewarding in that deep, satisfying "Aren't I just so in touch with the earth" way for about 9 weeks.

    JohnnyCache on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    We wipe out entire species on a daily basis. What's your point?

    We do? I thought most of those late 80s/early 90s figures on daily extinction had been sort of discredited.[/QUOTE]

    You should inform the director of the Field Museum about this since he is, apparently, ingnorant.
    Scientists estimate we’ve lost 30,000 species in the last year.
    The normal rate of extinction is one species every four years. But at our current rate, we’re losing 82 species every day, 4 species every hour. And because the Earth is home to far more species than we’ve identified, there are surely many species going extinct unnoticed.

    moniker on
  • Options
    GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    We do? I thought most of those late 80s/early 90s figures on daily extinction had been sort of discredited.

    You mean in the way that global warming was discredited?

    Glyph on
  • Options
    MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Well, there's a difference between a guy in a coma and an Olympic gold medalist. If you hit enough spots on the backbone (which probably wouldn't be too hard, Frontline had a docu on it a few years back) it would nock the internet down to the point where my cable connection would be worse off than my parents dial-up runs now. That would, depending on the areas hit, lead to catastrophic damage that would be wide ranging. NYSE, for instance, being brought down for days or weeks would have major economic backlash that would take a long time to recover from.

    It wouldn't take too long for the routers to find new links around affected areas. :P

    You might be interested in this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Gateway_Protocol

    MKR on
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Thing is large ISPs also have large tech dept's with their highest level guys pretty much on call 24/7. I used to work at an ISP and thing like this did happen. A connection to a large provider or central server would go south and large portions of the Internet would be inaccessible to our network or would move very slowly. In almost every case the problem would be solved within a few hours

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    MKR wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Well, there's a difference between a guy in a coma and an Olympic gold medalist. If you hit enough spots on the backbone (which probably wouldn't be too hard, Frontline had a docu on it a few years back) it would nock the internet down to the point where my cable connection would be worse off than my parents dial-up runs now. That would, depending on the areas hit, lead to catastrophic damage that would be wide ranging. NYSE, for instance, being brought down for days or weeks would have major economic backlash that would take a long time to recover from.

    It wouldn't take too long for the routers to find new links around affected areas. :P

    You might be interested in this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Gateway_Protocol

    I'm afraid I don't see how a routing protocol would bypass the issue of destroyed fiber optic lines....

    moniker on
  • Options
    MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Well, there's a difference between a guy in a coma and an Olympic gold medalist. If you hit enough spots on the backbone (which probably wouldn't be too hard, Frontline had a docu on it a few years back) it would nock the internet down to the point where my cable connection would be worse off than my parents dial-up runs now. That would, depending on the areas hit, lead to catastrophic damage that would be wide ranging. NYSE, for instance, being brought down for days or weeks would have major economic backlash that would take a long time to recover from.

    It wouldn't take too long for the routers to find new links around affected areas. :P

    You might be interested in this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Gateway_Protocol

    I'm afraid I don't see how a routing protocol would bypass the issue of destroyed fiber optic lines....

    It would find routes around the destroyed links.

    Plus as nexuscrawler said, the ISPs have on-call techs that would be watching, so even in the unlikely event of a failure that can't be routed around, new fiber could be laid quickly.

    MKR on
  • Options
    JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Place at the tableRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    We do? I thought most of those late 80s/early 90s figures on daily extinction had been sort of discredited.

    You mean in the way that global warming was discredited?

    Name the species killed this week, please. This month. This year.

    If we're losing 30,000 species a year, what are they?

    If we're killing 30,000 species a year, we should have wiped out the 1-10 million species on the planet (estimates vary that much) in the century of industry we've just seen. If we're killing 30,000 a year NOW, we were killing more decades ago.

    JohnnyCache on
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    MKR wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Well, there's a difference between a guy in a coma and an Olympic gold medalist. If you hit enough spots on the backbone (which probably wouldn't be too hard, Frontline had a docu on it a few years back) it would nock the internet down to the point where my cable connection would be worse off than my parents dial-up runs now. That would, depending on the areas hit, lead to catastrophic damage that would be wide ranging. NYSE, for instance, being brought down for days or weeks would have major economic backlash that would take a long time to recover from.

    It wouldn't take too long for the routers to find new links around affected areas. :P

    You might be interested in this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Gateway_Protocol

    I'm afraid I don't see how a routing protocol would bypass the issue of destroyed fiber optic lines....

    It would find routes around the destroyed links.

    Plus as nexuscrawler said, the ISPs have on-call techs that would be watching, so even in the unlikely event of a failure that can't be routed around, new fiber could be laid quickly.

    Actually I was talking primarily of software issues not actual wiring. Laying fiber is a very time consuming process.

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    We do? I thought most of those late 80s/early 90s figures on daily extinction had been sort of discredited.

    You mean in the way that global warming was discredited?

    Name the species killed this week, please. This month. This year.
    moniker wrote: »
    Scientists estimate we’ve lost 30,000 species in the last year.
    The normal rate of extinction is one species every four years. But at our current rate, we’re losing 82 species every day, 4 species every hour. And because the Earth is home to far more species than we’ve identified, there are surely many species going extinct unnoticed.

    I'm afraid I don't know their names, if that is your main concern.

    moniker on
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    the real question is how tasty and/or cute are they?

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    We do? I thought most of those late 80s/early 90s figures on daily extinction had been sort of discredited.

    You mean in the way that global warming was discredited?

    Name the species killed this week, please. This month. This year.

    If I'm not mistaken, most of them are ones we haven't even gotten around to naming. Nice try, eagle eye.

    Glyph on
  • Options
    MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    MKR wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Well, there's a difference between a guy in a coma and an Olympic gold medalist. If you hit enough spots on the backbone (which probably wouldn't be too hard, Frontline had a docu on it a few years back) it would nock the internet down to the point where my cable connection would be worse off than my parents dial-up runs now. That would, depending on the areas hit, lead to catastrophic damage that would be wide ranging. NYSE, for instance, being brought down for days or weeks would have major economic backlash that would take a long time to recover from.

    It wouldn't take too long for the routers to find new links around affected areas. :P

    You might be interested in this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Gateway_Protocol

    I'm afraid I don't see how a routing protocol would bypass the issue of destroyed fiber optic lines....

    It would find routes around the destroyed links.

    Plus as nexuscrawler said, the ISPs have on-call techs that would be watching, so even in the unlikely event of a failure that can't be routed around, new fiber could be laid quickly.

    Actually I was talking primarily of software issues not actual wiring. Laying fiber is a very time consuming process.

    Well yeah, but it probably wouldn't depend on that since any organization that absolutely must be online 24/7 (like NYSE) is going to have a few redundant links from different ISPs. In a worst case scenario, they could afford to set up a satellite link to a place where there's no problems and use it until new fiber can be laid.

    MKR on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    the real question is how tasty and/or cute are they?

    Well, if they were too tasty...that might be why they went extinct in the first place.
    :P

    moniker on
  • Options
    GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    the real question is how tasty and/or cute are they?

    Well, if they were too tasty...that might be why they went extinct in the first place.
    :P

    Didn't we just establish that the Dodo tasted godawful?

    Glyph on
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    the real question is how tasty and/or cute are they?

    Well, if they were too tasty...that might be why they went extinct in the first place.
    :P

    What would happen if the cutest and tastiest animal were one and the same?

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    the real question is how tasty and/or cute are they?

    Well, if they were too tasty...that might be why they went extinct in the first place.
    :P

    Didn't we just establish that the Dodo tasted godawful?

    Yes, but you forgot to take into account just how fugly they are.

    moniker on
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    the real question is how tasty and/or cute are they?

    Well, if they were too tasty...that might be why they went extinct in the first place.
    :P

    Didn't we just establish that the Dodo tasted godawful?

    Yes, but you forgot to take into account just how fugly they are.

    corollary: If stupid and uncute gets you extinct how do wiggins and kusu continue to exist?

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Place at the tableRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    We do? I thought most of those late 80s/early 90s figures on daily extinction had been sort of discredited.

    You mean in the way that global warming was discredited?

    Name the species killed this week, please. This month. This year.

    If I'm not mistaken, most of them are ones we haven't even gotten around to naming. Nice try, eagle eye.

    No, glyph, really. Think about what you're being told. Estimates of total biodiversity say there's somewhere between 1 and 15 million total species.

    We're killing 30,000 a year.

    Using an estimate of 10 million - that's fair - we've killed 12% of global biodiversity since 1970, 25% since 1946, god knows how many during the two great wars - so how come out of the literally millions of species wiped out, we can't name a few? That's assuming the high end estimate of 10 million species is true. Some people say there are 1 million species - in which case we've gone through them all twice.

    How can we kill 10 percent of the biosphere without radically destablizing it? Even if these are all minor variations of lower species, why haven't we seen the ripple effect after 110+ years?

    JohnnyCache on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    We do? I thought most of those late 80s/early 90s figures on daily extinction had been sort of discredited.

    You mean in the way that global warming was discredited?

    Name the species killed this week, please. This month. This year.

    If I'm not mistaken, most of them are ones we haven't even gotten around to naming. Nice try, eagle eye.

    No, glyph, really. Think about what you're being told. Estimates of total biodiversity say there's somewhere between 1 and 15 million total species.

    We're killing 30,000 a year.

    Using an estimate of 10 million - that's fair - we've killed 12% of global biodiversity since 1970, 25% since 1946, god knows how many during the two great wars - so how come out of the literally millions of species wiped out, we can't name a few? That's assuming the high end estimate of 10 million species is true. Some people say there are 1 million species - in which case we've gone through them all twice.

    Seriously, inform the Field Museum's director of your incredible logic and maths right now, because apparently he's just some rube spreading lies. Personally I had my doubts when the exhibit claimed the earth was older than 6,000 years. This is just proving how foolish 'scientists' are with their 'facts' and 'observations.'

    moniker on
  • Options
    JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Place at the tableRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    We do? I thought most of those late 80s/early 90s figures on daily extinction had been sort of discredited.

    You mean in the way that global warming was discredited?

    Name the species killed this week, please. This month. This year.

    If I'm not mistaken, most of them are ones we haven't even gotten around to naming. Nice try, eagle eye.

    No, glyph, really. Think about what you're being told. Estimates of total biodiversity say there's somewhere between 1 and 15 million total species.

    We're killing 30,000 a year.

    Using an estimate of 10 million - that's fair - we've killed 12% of global biodiversity since 1970, 25% since 1946, god knows how many during the two great wars - so how come out of the literally millions of species wiped out, we can't name a few? That's assuming the high end estimate of 10 million species is true. Some people say there are 1 million species - in which case we've gone through them all twice.

    Seriously, inform the Field Museum's director of your incredible logic and maths right now, because apparently he's just some rube spreading lies. Personally I had my doubts when the exhibit claimed the earth was older than 6,000 years. This is just proving how foolish 'scientists' are with their 'facts' and 'observations.'


    Yes, the man in power over the illustrious field museum MUST be right, even if what he's telling you makes little sense. I mean... a scientist said it! He's got a white coat for god's sake! How DARE I. What a scintillating rebuttal. I like how you reinforced it by insinuating that if I question obviously specious figures, I must be a creationist. Also, I am giddy over the conceit that the director of the museam writes the website copy himself.

    Did you note the key disclaimer in the copy - "Scientists estimate"?

    You don't wonder how the estimation is performed, or how it can conflict so crassly with the same scientists' estimate of the total number of species?

    JohnnyCache on
  • Options
    GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    You know what else pisses me off? Evolution. It's just a theory after all, NOT truth. Amazing the avenues these activist 'scientists' take to promote their secular agendas. They should all be sailed over the edge of the Earth.

    Glyph on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    MKR wrote: »
    Actually I was talking primarily of software issues not actual wiring. Laying fiber is a very time consuming process.

    Well yeah, but it probably wouldn't depend on that since any organization that absolutely must be online 24/7 (like NYSE) is going to have a few redundant links from different ISPs. In a worst case scenario, they could afford to set up a satellite link to a place where there's no problems and use it until new fiber can be laid.

    You'd like to think so, and it may well be now since this is over 4 years old, but check this out. Ch 2 hits on the more important aspect of where the internet is.

    moniker on
  • Options
    JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Place at the tableRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    You know what else pisses me off? Evolution. It's just a theory after all, NOT truth. Amazing the avenues these activist 'scientists' take to promote their secular agendas. They should all be sailed over the edge of the Earth.

    Hey, dipshit, I'm not a creationist. Nor am I some sort of bizzare anti conservation captain planet villian. But I'm here to tell you - that number is generated by stats wrapped around stats and may not be an accurate model of the extinction of a single species, much less 30,000 every year.

    I'm asking you to think for yourself and reconcile those numbers before you believe and recite them.

    JohnnyCache on
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Things like the NYSE probably function more along the lines of the government agencies. Hardline(t1s, t3s, oc3s, etc) connections directly connecting them to other places where communication is absolutely necessary. Those type of connections are hardly fail-safe but they're almost independent of service interruptions and those do get 24/7 techs to repair them.

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    You know what else pisses me off? Evolution. It's just a theory after all, NOT truth. Amazing the avenues these activist 'scientists' take to promote their secular agendas. They should all be sailed over the edge of the Earth.

    Hey, dipshit, I'm not a creationist. Nor am I some sort of bizzare anti conservation captain planet villian. But I'm here to tell you - that number is generated by stats wrapped around stats and may not be an accurate model of the extinction of a single species, much less 30,000 every year.

    I'm asking you to think for yourself and reconcile those numbers before you believe and recite them.

    Relax. Just a few results from some lazy googling:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,1993622,00.html
    Dams, pollution and over-fishing have wiped out a third of the fish species in the Yellow river - China's second longest waterway - the state media reported today.

    http://www.thedaily.washington.edu/article/2007/2/1/extinctionOfSpeciesNeedsAttention
    The IUCN released its last report in 2004, and the report noted a rather alarming trend. According to the organization, “Recent extinction rates far exceed the rates of extinction in the fossil record. Extinction rates based on known extinctions of birds, mammals and amphibians over the past 100 years indicates that current extinction rates are 50 to 500 times higher than rates in the fossil record. If possibly extinct species are included, this increases to 100 to 1,000 times natural (background) extinction rates.”

    This basically means that as of 2004, 15,589 of the world’s species are threatened with extinction.

    Glyph on
  • Options
    MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    Actually I was talking primarily of software issues not actual wiring. Laying fiber is a very time consuming process.

    Well yeah, but it probably wouldn't depend on that since any organization that absolutely must be online 24/7 (like NYSE) is going to have a few redundant links from different ISPs. In a worst case scenario, they could afford to set up a satellite link to a place where there's no problems and use it until new fiber can be laid.

    You'd like to think so, and it may well be now since this is over 4 years old, but check this out. Ch 2 hits on the more important aspect of where the internet is.

    I'll watch it tomorrow and see if the stuff presented in it has held up to the test of time. Right now, Daily Show/Colbert Report, then bed.

    MKR on
  • Options
    JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Place at the tableRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    You know what else pisses me off? Evolution. It's just a theory after all, NOT truth. Amazing the avenues these activist 'scientists' take to promote their secular agendas. They should all be sailed over the edge of the Earth.

    Hey, dipshit, I'm not a creationist. Nor am I some sort of bizzare anti conservation captain planet villian. But I'm here to tell you - that number is generated by stats wrapped around stats and may not be an accurate model of the extinction of a single species, much less 30,000 every year.

    I'm asking you to think for yourself and reconcile those numbers before you believe and recite them.

    Relax. Just a few results from some lazy googling:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,1993622,00.html
    Dams, pollution and over-fishing have wiped out a third of the fish species in the Yellow river - China's second longest waterway - the state media reported today.
    http://www.thedaily.washington.edu/article/2007/2/1/extinctionOfSpeciesNeedsAttention
    The IUCN released its last report in 2004, and the report noted a rather alarming trend. According to the organization, “Recent extinction rates far exceed the rates of extinction in the fossil record. Extinction rates based on known extinctions of birds, mammals and amphibians over the past 100 years indicates that current extinction rates are 50 to 500 times higher than rates in the fossil record. If possibly extinct species are included, this increases to 100 to 1,000 times natural (background) extinction rates.”

    This basically means that as of 2004, 15,589 of the world’s species are threatened with extinction.

    That's a lot less then 30,000 a year. And that's "threatened with" not "gone extinct"

    These general extinction rates are a tripping point of mine because they are extrapolated by calculating the rate of species discovery, applying it to the planet, and then subtracting area used by humans. They aren't based in actual, known extinctions. Textbook excercise in the deployment of statistics to produce an alarm number.

    I don't like to see a single species disappear. One less to kill and eat in case of massive EMP discharge.

    JohnnyCache on
  • Options
    GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I never said 30,000. moniker quoted the site, ask him about it. And even if it isn't 30,000 a year, even 2-3 a day would be in line with "entire species wiped out on a daily basis". I'm sure they're just a few hundred members of some beetle or spider localized to a tree. Don't lose sleep. Plenty of time for all of us to contemplate driving other organisms to extinction when we're in hell. I'm glad I don't believe in an afterlife.

    Glyph on
  • Options
    JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Place at the tableRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    30,000 is the figure the guy you mocked me for not agreeing with trotted out. My point is - the number is made up. It's extrapolated by a very rough method. Things we never discovered aren't getting discovered! Things we have no evidence ever actually existed are gone! What has man wrought? They can claim we destroyed any number of things we never discovered and make a nice sound bite, but why is the effect on the kajillion animals we know about so limited? I mean, circle of life and shit, right? ALL these undiscovered things disappear, and I can only think of like, 3 'real' animals that have gone extinct in the last hundred years (granted, there could be more, I'm just using the squishy little brain here). . .

    Moving back to the thread topic, when it comes to machine uprisings, I've always been more worried about the 'for our own good' type then the evil skynets - like we all get robot butlers, and the damn things decide we'd be safer and happier if we never left the house. . .

    JohnnyCache on
  • Options
    GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I'm not even worried about that. I'm more concerned with nanotechnology that can manipulate matter at the molecular level. All they would need is an order to keep multiplyng and there literally wouldn't be anything left.

    Glyph on
  • Options
    JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Place at the tableRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Well, maybe we would all go on in nanite form, endlessly commingling in a simultanious sexual and intellectual bliss equivalent to posting on this board while having someone lick every particle of yourself.

    JohnnyCache on
  • Options
    SarcastroSarcastro Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    These general extinction rates are a tripping point of mine because they are extrapolated by calculating the rate of species discovery, applying it to the planet, and then subtracting area used by humans. They aren't based in actual, known extinctions. Textbook excercise in the deployment of statistics to produce an alarm number.

    I don't like to see a single species disappear. One less to kill and eat in case of massive EMP discharge.


    I thought this had changed recently, as our satellitte technology and computing science have now evolved to the point where we can catalogue pretty much everything alive on Earth. I believe they are building a worldwide database to this effect, with different nations holding the DB's for specific species.

    I'm sure there are insects and whathaveyou we haven't found yet, but I think we have a pretty good grip on the numbers for anything larger than a football. (Not saying I agree with 30k, just saying there is some pretty reliable info out there now which surpasses mere guesstimation)

    Sarcastro on
  • Options
    SiliconStewSiliconStew Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    MKR wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    It wouldn't take too long for the routers to find new links around affected areas. :P

    You might be interested in this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Gateway_Protocol

    I'm afraid I don't see how a routing protocol would bypass the issue of destroyed fiber optic lines....

    It would find routes around the destroyed links.

    Plus as nexuscrawler said, the ISPs have on-call techs that would be watching, so even in the unlikely event of a failure that can't be routed around, new fiber could be laid quickly.

    Actually I was talking primarily of software issues not actual wiring. Laying fiber is a very time consuming process.

    Well yeah, but it probably wouldn't depend on that since any organization that absolutely must be online 24/7 (like NYSE) is going to have a few redundant links from different ISPs. In a worst case scenario, they could afford to set up a satellite link to a place where there's no problems and use it until new fiber can be laid.

    Having the links rerouted isn't the problem. The issue is the huge volume of traffic that the backbone links carry. If only a handful of those primary links were cut, any given area would lose immediate access to 1/4 to 1/2 of the internet. The routing protocols should find a new path but now those redundant links have to carry all the additional load from the severed links. That would quickly saturate the remaining links causing a huge spike in latency and packet loss for everyone. It'd make you pine for the days of the 1400 baud modem.

    That kind of massive disruption would have a huge economic impact. Reports I've seen say that if a company depends on income via the internet, and their site is down for three days, they are out of business. I would think that even heavy damage could be repaired in 12 to 24 hours. But if the disruption continues for several days, I wouldn't want to even try to calculate the economic losses.

    SiliconStew on
    Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
  • Options
    JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Place at the tableRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    These general extinction rates are a tripping point of mine because they are extrapolated by calculating the rate of species discovery, applying it to the planet, and then subtracting area used by humans. They aren't based in actual, known extinctions. Textbook excercise in the deployment of statistics to produce an alarm number.

    I don't like to see a single species disappear. One less to kill and eat in case of massive EMP discharge.


    I thought this had changed recently, as our satellitte technology and computing science have now evolved to the point where we can catalogue pretty much everything alive on Earth. I believe they are building a worldwide database to this effect, with different nations holding the DB's for specific species.

    I'm sure there are insects and whathaveyou we haven't found yet, but I think we have a pretty good grip on the numbers for anything larger than a football. (Not saying I agree with 30k, just saying there is some pretty reliable info out there now which surpasses mere guesstimation)

    If we have that technology, I haven't heard of it. The latest studies I could find on it over the last few hours all gave a range between 3 and 8 million species. It would take INCREDIBLE sat technology to be able to tell say, species of hummingbirds or fish apart, but if we have it I'd love to read more about it.

    JohnnyCache on
Sign In or Register to comment.