Robert Heinlein defined the difference between a physicist and an engineer as something like this - warning, mild misogyny ahead:

"Put an engineer and a physicist across the room from a beautiful woman, and tell them that if they approach the woman each step must be no larger than half the distance of the previous step. The physicist gives up because he knows he can never reach her, while the engineer starts walking because he knows he can get close enough for all practical purposes".

I once worked for an engineer who previously had a physicist working for him. The physicist couldn't understand why a couple of 6-volt lantern batteries in series wouldn't start his car - after all, they were putting out 12 volts...

Do you mean like Debian Testing, (Jessie), that broke both my sound and my ability to suspend during the last dist-upgrade? Or do you mean like Debian Stable, (Wheezy), which won't work with my wired network hardware so I can't even install it in my new machine without a bunch of CD's and a few prayers? Or perhaps you mean Ubuntu, (I moved to Xubuntu when I got fed up with trying to get Debian working), which prompts me to reboot after updates a couple of times a week like some crappy Windows box?

I don't think I could ever really go back to Windows, (especially given my recent experiences with 8.1 on my GF's new laplet), but recently there have been days when I've toyed with the idea...

That's why we need crowdfunding campaigns in the 'free' world that are directed at collecting money to fight 'everything you see are belong to us' law suits like the one this bit of nonsense is just begging for. And while we're at it maybe we can crowdfund campaigns to convince people to boycott organizations run by shitheads who try to claim ownership of the whole world by raising their hind legs and pissing on everything in sight like dogs that need obedience training.

BTW, the irony of a crowdfunding campaign to convince the crowd to do something is not lost on me.

I suppose this qualifies as News for Nerds, but really, don't we have better things to talk about than the "premium feel" of a gadget? I don't see much in the way of fun so far in the comments, and it's not like this latest bit of shiny is going to have any significant impact on anyone beyond Samsung's shareholders.

TFA seems more like a Slashvertisement than a news piece to me.

While I agree that the loss of the 'Net could be part of the regression to a Dark Age, I suspect that it would be a secondary symptom and a component of a cascade failure of civilisation, rather than a precipitant. Even if major solar activity took down most of the Web and destroyed a lot of the infrastructure, we would be in a position to re-build it. It would cost us a lot of productivity and lives, but I think we'd return to the status quo fairly quickly.

On the other hand, the worldwide socio-political situation is highly unstable and getting worse. The result of this turmoil could eventually be the loss of a major portion of 'Net connectivity, and this would hasten the descent into further chaos from which we might not recover for decades or perhaps centuries.

So really, I think the scenario you're suggesting is a kind of a chicken and egg proposition. Personally, I'd like to see humankind concentrate on economic/social/political stability first. If we can get our shit together on that front we'll be less vulnerable to disasters such as the loss of critical infrastructure. As it stands I feel we're at a tipping point. Any major disaster - a world-wide plague or environmental catastrophe, or yes, the loss of the Internet, could put us over the edge.

You can also do something you probably DON'T want to do with it, namely waiting for what seems an eternity while it reboots on those occasions when a reset is required or you have a brief power failure.

'minuscule', (with a 'u'), is the original spelling, and is still preferred: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/...

You said it yourself - the technology hasn't changed in 100 years. It was never designed with terrorism and climate change in mind. To continue relying on a grid that is vulnerable to cascade failures and can be taken down by an ice storm, (or a few well-placed bombs), thereby rendering a large part of the continent powerless, is silly and irresponsible.

Sure, continuous improvements are being made to the grid, and tech advances are making it more reliable and less vulnerable. But the complexity of the newer control systems constitue their own Achilles heel - see 'requisite variety' to understand why. The grid will never be as resilient and fault tolerant as widespread local power generating capacity will be.

Add in the fact that distributing solar capacity is more efficient than centralizing it, then consider the carbon footprint of coal-fired plants, and solar plus batteries starts to look damned good.