A "Carrington-level" event nowadays would most likely be much less disruptive, as back then all the early radio and spark gap stuff was well under 50 MHz, which is where almost all of the natural noise winds up in the spectrum. Ever notice, for example you can hear your shaver motor on an AM radio but not an FM one. This is not due to AM vs. FM, (well, it is a little) but mostly due to the fact that AM is about 1 MHz and FM is about 100 MHz, well above the "static line" around 50 MHz.
It would take a much stronger signal than back then to cause the same level of disruption. Not saying that can't happen, but modern radio communications are quite a bit more robust than they were back over 100 years ago.
The concern is not so much about the disruption of radio communications, but the power grid. Our society might not survive a massive, long-term (months or even years) blackout (a huge number of transformers might be destroyed all at once by the induced EMF).
Memory transistors are about a thousand times larger than CPU transistors. Do try to keep up.
> “If this is your God, he’s not very impressive. He has so many psychological problems; he’s so insecure. He demands worship every seven days. He goes out and creates faulty humans and then blames them for his own mistakes. He’s a pretty poor excuse for a Supreme Being.” — Spock, The God Thing, by Gene Roddenberry
This quote was recently making the rounds on Facebook. It’s taken from a newly discovered script, what The Complete Star Trek Library is calling “Gene Roddenberry’s Last Star Trek Novel.” Roddenberry was an ardent atheist and it appears he was constantly working his critique of religion into the series. The God Thing is a testimony to Roddenberry’s atheistic aims.
http://mikeduran.com/2012/08/star-treks-loopy-deity/
> “We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.”
> It's like when atheists are dumb enough to treat all Christians alike, or Muslims,
No it's not like that at all.
When you join an organization that espouses certain values, then you must agree with those values. Otherwise why would you join?
For example, if somebody joins the KKK, it would hardly be wrong to think that person is a racist. And if somebody joined NAMBLA, then it is fair to believe that person believes it is okay to molest children.
Atheists have no set ideology. For that matter, theists may not either - unless they belong to some organization that has some specified sort of ideology.
But if you are Christian, Muslim, whatever; then you are claiming that you ascribe to those values.
> And of course the excesses of the church pale into insignificance compared with the horrors of Stalin and Mao
Which is "the church?" All religions? Christianity? Catholicism?
Let's remember the Nazis were very Christian, and the holocaust would not have happened without Christianity.
Christianity was also used to justify slavery, and witch burning, among other things.
I have read that throughout Islamic history, about 270 million people were killed for the cause of Islam.
Furthermore, Stalin, and Mao; were not motivated by any sort atheist ideology. If there is such a thing as "atheist ideology."
> The problem is even atheists still feel a need to believe in *something*
Nope.
> with varying details of what they consider "good".
By that you mean: bigotry, misogyny, blood sacrifice, slavery, and war. Also severe punishment for free speech, not worshiping as told. And of course, must give loads of money to those humans who claim to have a direct connection to "god." Finally, do not use reason, do not think critically, just accept everything on faith - that is the ultimate good.
From the article:
> "To which one might reply: Science is all those things. Between holocausts!"
My understanding is: without religion, there would have been no holocaust.
German Christians hated Jews. Hitler was a product of his strongly Christian upbringing. At the time, in Germany, Jew hatred was taught in public schools.
Why on earth would you blame science, and not religion, for the holocaust?
You still need very pure water or you poison the process. Where's that water coming from? How do you collect the gaseous hydrogen? You still need to liquify it and all the emrittlement and cryogenic issues are still there.
Even if hydrogen gas is free, it makes no sense as an energy carrier for cars.
They don't collect the gaseous hydrogen in the electrolyzer; they soak it up with a "liquid sponge" ("a recyclable redox mediator (silicotungstic acid) " according to the article's abstract. In principle at least, hydrogen could be stored and transported in this form (a liquid sponge soaked with hydrogen).; the hydrogen can be catalytically released (wrung out of the liquid sponge) when needed. Whether such a system could be built with a practical size, weight, and cost for use in vehicles is another matter.
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.
