Shift Happens

[Falgaia]

I was shown this video recently by one of my teachers.

This video brings many surprising theories to mind. Out of all of the theories expressed, the only one I knew about was 4:18. To believe that we get more information in a week than the average person in the 1800's is unreal. This truly is the information age.

Also, I find it quite scary that by the time I'm 50, we could have had a Terminator Fallout and the Earth would be controlled by robots. O_O

 

[Fatecrashers]

I thought this thread was going to be about part-time jobs...

But yeah there's a ton of videos out on Youtube similar to the one you've posted, a lot of them more well-made too.

The information about China and India and US jobs in the beginning was weird, it seemed the video was actively trying to scaremonger?

And it devotes a section to MySpace statistics, I'm sorry but this video is already hopelessly outdated.

1.5 exabytes of unique new information generated every year may sound impressive, but how much of that is people tagging each other's photos on Facebook?

And does anyone have any information about the ultra-fast fibre-optic cables that were supposed to have become standard by 2010?

The video even admits at the end that technical predictions farther out than 15 years are hard to make...so you could make up any old statistic then, such as this video has done here.

Just some cynical thoughts I had while watching this video.

 

[mtr]

1/8 of every married couple int he US met online...

What does this have to do with anything?

 

[bombiron]

im thoroughly convinced wwIII will occur, or be starting sometime in my lifetime, the world is just a huge powder keg right now, with tensions between pakistan and israel, iraq/afgi/pakistan vs nato, n/s korea, and to a lesser extent china and india, not to menton the wreck that is parts of south america, i fear very much for the state of our planet

 

[TheMartian]

Swine Flu 2.0 will throw a huge wrench into this statistics

 

[cantab]

And does anyone have any information about the ultra-fast fibre-optic cables that were supposed to have become standard by 2010?

That is starting to show. In the UK, BT and Virgin Media are rolling out 40-50 megabit connections; BT's is certainly fibre (though I'm not sure how far to) and Virgin's might be as well.

The video said little I don't already know.

It also made a common error - confusing England with the United Kingdom.

And it makes some poor comparisons. Luxembourg passed the US in broadband penetration? Luxembourg is TINY! Comparing the USA to Luxembourg is like comparing it to Sheffield.

The references to Myspace perhaps prove the video's point. Myspace is in decline now. If FACEBOOK was a country, it would be number 3. Also the $100 dollar laptop never worked out quite that cheap.

And it places too much emphasis on change. Even in the supposedly hyperspeed-moving world of computing, there are many technological things that have LASTED. The GUI. The keyboard and mouse. TCP/IP. HTML. Unix. Ethernet. Now they're not completely unchanged, but neither are they thrown away wholesale.

 

[Eraddd]

im thoroughly convinced wwIII will occur, or be starting sometime in my lifetime, the world is just a huge powder keg right now, with tensions between pakistan and israel, iraq/afgi/pakistan vs nato, n/s korea, and to a lesser extent china and india, not to menton the wreck that is parts of south america, i fear very much for the state of our planet

Half the world isn't as suicidal as you are. We all know what happens during WWIII: Nuclear War.

 

[Morm]

Half the world isn't as suicidal as you are. We all know what happens during WWIII: Nuclear War.

actually given that we all know the consequences I'd strongly suggest that most countries with nuclear capabilities aren't stupid enough to use them, giving those that would use them no real reason to since it's generally thought of as a retaliatory measure to being nuked first.

If someone were to nuke the USA, for example, I'm certain retaliation would come quite swiftly from the rest of the world and that country would turn into a deconstruction zone, with armies pouring in like a monsoon. There is no real reason to retaliate with nuclear arms when it would effectively seal a world-wide aggression pact against the offenders.

 

[cantab]

I can see a limited nuclear exchange taking place. India vs Pakistan is the most obvious I reckon. North Korea attacking South Korea is I think less likely at present, on a few grounds: North Korea has very few nukes, the Chinese wouldn't tolerate it, and many Koreans (at least in the south; it's hard to get good info from the north) consider themselves ethnically one people.

Another scenario might be Israel using nuclear weapons in retaliation against a large-scale non-nuclear attack by one of its neighbours.

In any of these cases, it could devastate the region and cause a huge amount of international anger, but I don't think China, Russia, and the USA are going to start launching off their whole arsenals. And the destruction might be less than some would expect; the targets would be military bases and possible the enemy capital, not mass destruction of cities.

In the countries not directly affected by the war, I think civil unrest would be highly likely. If India nukes Pakistan, or vice versa, expect to see rioting on an unprecedented scale in every city everywhere with a significant Indian or Pakistani population.

 

[Eraddd]

actually given that we all know the consequences I'd strongly suggest that most countries with nuclear capabilities aren't stupid enough to use them, giving those that would use them no real reason to since it's generally thought of as a retaliatory measure to being nuked first.

If someone were to nuke the USA, for example, I'm certain retaliation would come quite swiftly from the rest of the world and that country would turn into a deconstruction zone, with armies pouring in like a monsoon. There is no real reason to retaliate with nuclear arms when it would effectively seal a world-wide aggression pact against the offenders.

Again, I realize that on a small scale, nuclear war is totally possible, given the current situation of North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, and Iran. But I doubt the entire world would then start pouring nukes out to every country, trying to protect itself. I'd see it as exactly like your example pointed out.

 

[Lee]

If someone were to nuke the USA, for example, I'm certain retaliation would come quite swiftly from the rest of the world and that country would turn into a deconstruction zone, with armies pouring in like a monsoon. There is no real reason to retaliate with nuclear arms when it would effectively seal a world-wide aggression pact against the offenders.

For extended reading on that thought process:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

 

[bombiron]

i never mentioned nukes, but i do not have trouble seeing it happen, of course i dont think it will be an exchange between any major world powers (nato, russia, shina, etc)
but like cantab said, i could see a small scale exchange between pakistan and india

note when i say small i mean SMALL no one should be invisioning hundred of nukes flying through the air, just two or three, people know the consequenses of them

 

[cantab]

I'm certain retaliation would come quite swiftly from the rest of the world and that country would turn into a deconstruction zone, with armies pouring in like a monsoon.

Except for one problem. Would you send ground forces into a country that had nukes and had already demonstrated the willingness to use them?

The only viable attack against such a country would be by using missiles or aerial bombing. And currently no nation has a decent non-nuclear bunker buster. There's assassination, but that can't be done quickly enough to stop the belligerent launching more nukes. A nuclear retaliation is the only viable option.

 

[ginganinja]

Heh I read somewhere that if their was a global conflict then it was highly likely that the 3rd world would rise up and take control of Europe. Basically this Idea was based on history with places like Rome falling to less advanced Civilisations and stuff.

@Cantab: Is their not some kind of missile shield around europe or something. Sothing that will attempt to stop a missile attack if launched br Russia?

 

[Fatecrashers]

@Cantab: Is their not some kind of missile shield around europe or something. Sothing that will attempt to stop a missile attack if launched br Russia?

The missile shield idea has been dropped by the Obama administration in an effort to develop a friendlier relationship with Russia, it might return in the future but don't count on it.

For more information on nuclear armageddon consult the film Dr. Strangelove, it's still relevant after all these years.

 

[cantab]

I don't know if the missile defence ever worked very well. Also there are plenty of countries not covered by it.