(01-31-2014 03:08 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 02:54 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  IMO the inefficiency of the US Electrical Grid is why it's so resilient. And I think the question of EMP or Solar Discharges is slightly overrated. If it's an EMP (which is currently still a nuclear weapon), unless its dropped directly over a city, its effects will be diffused (inverse square law).

And while any Solar Discharge will definitely disable satellites, one massive enough to effect T&D lines and Comm Line will have a whole host of other problems far more daunting to deal with. (Radiation exposure specifically)

From what I've read, the more efficient we make the grid the more susceptible it is to a solar storm. The last major one that caused problems on the ground happened in the 1800's and caused telegraph operators to be shocked. When something like that happens again I think we will have major issues on our hands. The good news is that with the satellites we have watching the Sun we will have some sort of advanced notice to hopefully protect any vulnerable systems.

Transformers would basically blow up in a domino effect. We'd be back to fire for warmth and open windows to keep cool.

(01-31-2014 03:13 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 03:08 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 02:54 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  IMO the inefficiency of the US Electrical Grid is why it's so resilient. And I think the question of EMP or Solar Discharges is slightly overrated. If it's an EMP (which is currently still a nuclear weapon), unless its dropped directly over a city, its effects will be diffused (inverse square law).

And while any Solar Discharge will definitely disable satellites, one massive enough to effect T&D lines and Comm Line will have a whole host of other problems far more daunting to deal with. (Radiation exposure specifically)

From what I've read, the more efficient we make the grid the more susceptible it is to a solar storm. The last major one that caused problems on the ground happened in the 1800's and caused telegraph operators to be shocked. When something like that happens again I think we will have major issues on our hands. The good news is that with the satellites we have watching the Sun we will have some sort of advanced notice to hopefully protect any vulnerable systems.

8.6 minutes isn't a lot of time to turn stuff off.

The flare that causes all of the damage actually takes about a 4 day ride to make it here... In brief, the first one opens the atmosphere and the second blows through like a sumbitch and blows out anything electrical... Imagine the obamacar drivers' shock. I've HEARD that if you disconnect the battery to your car then it won't be affected... And no I didn't get that off War of the Worlds...

(01-31-2014 02:55 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 02:49 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I read somewhere that text messaging cost a service provider 2 or 3 times as much as talk time does and the majority of your phone bill is based on text usage if you have text messaging. I don't know if it's true or not but sounds plausible at least.

Just the opposite. Texting uses far less bandwidth than voice. It's a huge cash cow for telecoms. I heard the other day that 97% of profits were derived from texting (that may have been for European telecoms). It's been a win-win for them, they LOVE it.

I had texting w/ a company phone. Now that I'm paying my own again, I have a simple flip phone and cheap coverage. To me, just having a cell phone is a huge tool.

I must have remembered what I heard wrong. Interesting stats either way now that texting is becoming so popular

(01-31-2014 04:03 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 02:55 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 02:49 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I read somewhere that text messaging cost a service provider 2 or 3 times as much as talk time does and the majority of your phone bill is based on text usage if you have text messaging. I don't know if it's true or not but sounds plausible at least.

Just the opposite. Texting uses far less bandwidth than voice. It's a huge cash cow for telecoms. I heard the other day that 97% of profits were derived from texting (that may have been for European telecoms). It's been a win-win for them, they LOVE it.

I had texting w/ a company phone. Now that I'm paying my own again, I have a simple flip phone and cheap coverage. To me, just having a cell phone is a huge tool.

I must have remembered what I heard wrong. Interesting stats either way now that texting is becoming so popular

It would have never occurred to me, 10 years ago, that text messages were going to be the next biggest thing, and threat. Hell, we were still buying polyphonic ringtones for our cell phones.

(01-31-2014 04:30 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 04:03 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 02:55 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 02:49 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I read somewhere that text messaging cost a service provider 2 or 3 times as much as talk time does and the majority of your phone bill is based on text usage if you have text messaging. I don't know if it's true or not but sounds plausible at least.

Just the opposite. Texting uses far less bandwidth than voice. It's a huge cash cow for telecoms. I heard the other day that 97% of profits were derived from texting (that may have been for European telecoms). It's been a win-win for them, they LOVE it.

I had texting w/ a company phone. Now that I'm paying my own again, I have a simple flip phone and cheap coverage. To me, just having a cell phone is a huge tool.

I must have remembered what I heard wrong. Interesting stats either way now that texting is becoming so popular

It would have never occurred to me, 10 years ago, that text messages were going to be the next biggest thing, and threat. Hell, we were still buying polyphonic ringtones for our cell phones.

Cell phone companies rely on customer ignorance to make all that money off of texting. I think texts are like .20cents each if one does not have an all inclusive, etc plan. Many, many, many people don't have such a plan and either don't know or are to ignorant to simply switch into on of the all inclusive plans.

(01-31-2014 04:32 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 04:30 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 04:03 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 02:55 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 02:49 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I read somewhere that text messaging cost a service provider 2 or 3 times as much as talk time does and the majority of your phone bill is based on text usage if you have text messaging. I don't know if it's true or not but sounds plausible at least.

Just the opposite. Texting uses far less bandwidth than voice. It's a huge cash cow for telecoms. I heard the other day that 97% of profits were derived from texting (that may have been for European telecoms). It's been a win-win for them, they LOVE it.

I had texting w/ a company phone. Now that I'm paying my own again, I have a simple flip phone and cheap coverage. To me, just having a cell phone is a huge tool.

I must have remembered what I heard wrong. Interesting stats either way now that texting is becoming so popular

It would have never occurred to me, 10 years ago, that text messages were going to be the next biggest thing, and threat. Hell, we were still buying polyphonic ringtones for our cell phones.

Cell phone companies rely on customer ignorance to make all that money off of texting. I think texts are like .20cents each if one does not have an all inclusive, etc plan. Many, many, many people don't have such a plan and either don't know or are to ignorant to simply switch into on of the all inclusive plans.

It also depleats your ability to have a face to face conversation. I know I'll roll through about 4,000 texts per month to my mom and my GF and sending obama/liberal jokes to Dixie...

This thread, while an interesting read, has strayed a bit.

But, I'll add this more to the OP. We have rather large gaps in the generations in my family- my Grandfather passed away at 100 around 1985 when I was still a teen.

Years later we were moving my Mother from the house we grew up in after my Father passed away. We came across some of my Fathers High School stuff from before he volunteered for WWII in 1944 @ 17 YO's. The subjects were philosophy, geology, physics, whatever math it was, probably calculus, literature AND English, and a couple others I can't recall.

This was after I had graduated College and without any question at all, what I pored over was far and away more rigorous, in depth, detailed and whatever other adjective you'd prefer than anything I had encountered throughout early College stuff. I'd say it was on par to what would be expected of 400 level or even graduate level work these days.

It was actually pretty incredible and some of it frankly confounding. I found myself hours later still sitting in a dusty attic just reading this stuff in amazement. He was, again 17 at the time of this work, I was 28 when reading it.

The St Paul school system was no joke, at least back then!

(01-31-2014 12:11 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 12:03 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 10:29 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 10:25 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 10:23 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Texting, emailing, FORUM discussions, social media. I mean, I could be wrong but I'm pretty certain that people don't hand write letters anymore.

I agree. I have a feeling someone a century from now will hardly be able to comprehend today's English. Much like it's a pain to read Shakespear written in the English of that day.

Shakespeare came from the 16th Century though, and the United Kingdom. As far down as our language context steadily falls, there's absolutely NO telling how horrid it will be in five more centuries. Or hell, even one more century.

That's how language works.

Shakespeare was seen to be a mockery of the language and the art of theatre at the time. He literally made up his own words and his own grammar.

I think the general point here is that people are typically less intelligent than they were just a century ago. There are too many substances that dumb us down(media, drugs) and too much machinery that does the thinking for us. When you stop using a muscle, it shrinks.

There is a top 1 percent of intelligence in this world that the 99 percent relies on to function. In 1895, everyone was required to be part of the percentile. Today's American has a fraction of mental power that past Americans built this nation on.

In 1895 there were still a lot of uneducated and moderately educated people who didn't go to school through the 8th grade. They had to quit school in grade school and go to work to help support their families. Neither of my grandparents born in the early 1900s completed the 8th grade.

Just to make sure everyone understands.

This test is in fact a legit test from 1895. The part about it being an 8th grade test is totally made up.

It's another one of those "it's on the internet so it must be true" gems.

(02-01-2014 10:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Just to make sure everyone understands.

This test is in fact a legit test from 1895. The part about it being an 8th grade test is totally made up.

It's another one of those "it's on the internet so it must be true" gems.

How about you stop complaining and prove to us you can pass it.