Submitted by Soupjoe5 t3_z4oukl in Futurology
Iz-kan-reddit t1_ixsn0k1 wrote
Heinlein had a short story with these.
There were accidents where the beam went off kilter and scorched plenty of land and people, but it was considered an acceptable risk because the power was so cheap.
totemo t1_ixtfqc7 wrote
Asimov did a version of this story called [Reason](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_(short_story)).
valkoholic t1_ixtk21b wrote
It was a GI Joe episode as well.
TheUmgawa t1_ixu5bq0 wrote
Ooh, when do scientists predict we’ll get a Pyramid of Darkness?
iNstein t1_ixt4cx8 wrote
They have accouted for that and eliminated the risk. Read the article or even the summary posted here.
Iz-kan-reddit t1_ixt7lus wrote
The powers that be in the book were also sure before they started the project that there wouldn't be problems.
In any case, you're taking an offhand reference to a sci-fi book way too seriously.
quettil t1_ixu66rg wrote
You know that science fiction isn't real?
Iz-kan-reddit t1_ixvfbc6 wrote
No shit, Sherlock. You're a bright one.
iNstein t1_ixt9uol wrote
> In any case, you're taking an offhand reference to a sci-fi book way too seriously.
I'm not the one that referenced it as tho it had any validity. You even go so far as to defend it lol.
Iz-kan-reddit t1_ixtb2xk wrote
>I'm not the one that referenced it as tho it had any validity.
I made a reference. I never claimed it was a valid critique of the technology.
iNstein t1_ixu7gbu wrote
> The powers that be in the book were also sure before they started the project that there wouldn't be problems
This is called a defence. Arguing on the books behalf is defending the message.
Iz-kan-reddit t1_ixvf96l wrote
>Arguing on the books behalf is defending the message.
?!? You must have been looking at a different post. There wasn't any arguing on the book's behalf anywhere around here.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments