The microwave thing? I couldn't even guess, though I personally wouldn't want to stand next to it even if it works. A big microwave emitter on the battlefield is just asking to catch a HARM.
It really doesn't seem like anyone knows for sure what to do about drones right now.
Large, non-nuclear EMPs mostly use explosives. Covering a large battlefield means you're essentially bringing a massive, single-use explosive charge to the battlefield, staying uncomfortably close enough to benefit from it, and trying to set it off at exactly the right time, because they're not reloadable. And your enemy is probably thrilled you're doing this, because it saves them from hauling their own explosives there. (On that note, why are you sitting on this thing instead of dropping it on the enemy?)
This is in addition to whatever shielding you brought, which is likely bulky and conspicuous. And you're probably not doing combined arms, because shielding infantry and light vehicles from massive explosions is, it is fair to say, something of an unsolved problem.
But wait, you might be thinking. I know there are non-explosive ways to generate EMPs. Yes, there are, but you need a power source for those, and if you have a really good, portable one of those and a consistent supply of fuel to run it, you probably have better uses for it, like powering a modest laser. Oh, also, you're 100% sure your shielding works perfectly, right? You'll find out quick if you don't.
Environmentalists are fond of saying that “There is no second Earth“. They are wrong! Here’s why:
There is an entire second Earth right here on Earth.
Second Earth is a waterworld. It’s the vast Pacific Ocean that covers half the planet.
Well, he's a little fuzzy on the concepts of halves and wholes, but let's hear him out on colossal geoengineering projects.
Nobody:
Absolutely nobody:
The ghost of Sam Hughes: Okay but have you considered
[The AI]’s going to fall in love with you
Fortunately for everyone, they went out of business before a mandatory reporter had to make the weirdest call ever to CPS.
If the process is freezing and then reviving a dead human, then no. The (interesting, valuable) research on living fish, rabbit brains, and invertebrates is not that, and quite different from the product companies are asking tens of thousands of dollars for.
I also think it's important not to conflate suspended-animation-type cryonics that involve freezing and reviving a living creature with what this is originally about, i.e., freezing a dead creature to preserve it for resurrection using unspecified, hypothetical technology. As far as I'm aware, all cryonics companies freeze people upon death, and none are freezing living humans.
Going back to my original question whether a company is proven or not, have any of the companies freezing pets brought them back successfully? It doesn't have to be a German shepherd or anything big like that--something small like a rabbit will do.
Call me a stickler, but I do think it's important to have completed at least one successful run to call a process "proven."
Okay, but I don't think people are skeptical about the possibility of freezing people. The resurrection part and the (un)likelihood of a company lasting the centuries this might take are the parts that are a tougher sell.
Like, I don't really object in principle to someone basically running a Kickstarter for immortality, but the track record of delivery is pretty dire, no? The number of early cryonics businesses/orgs that went bankrupt (and what happened to their clients) definitely does not inspire confidence.
Aren't they all unproven, though?
Sure, paying Alcor $30k to keep your body frozen indefinitely is probably a better use of your money than, say, paying your neighbor to do it in his garage freezer, but they have virtually the same expertise in getting you ambulatory again.
Ah, right, I guess that's why other vending machines never caught on. Why spend $2 on a Snickers at work when a quick trip to the grocery store can get you candy for way less?
What you're overlooking this time is vending machines sell convenience, not just single-serving portions. The fact that very few customers really need ammo without leaving the store/mall is indeed why this is a questionable business model and not just a sketchy one.
I'm puzzled, though, by the belief that hunters are more likely to make overpriced, impulse purchases of ammo than mass shooters. I'm even less inclined to buy that than ammo from a vending machine.
You're forgetting mass shooters, i.e., the people who don't care if they're identified or if they're getting a good price. Safe to say they're not worried about their credit rating if the plan is to take on a SWAT team in 20 minutes.
Some ships do have emergency antimatter generators per the TNG Technical Manual, but they're hideously energy-intensive to run--something like a 10:1 ratio of deuterium used for each unit of antimatter. They only make sense to run in the rare situation you absolutely need to warp to safety when you somehow have deuterium and a warp core but no antimatter.
But holodecks apparently have their own infinite power supply incompatible with any other Starfleet technology, so perhaps Voyager used the holodeck replicators to generate deuterium to run their antimatter generator whenever the Doctor isn't practicing his sermons.
Efficiency would be abysmal even by the normal standards of this process, but it beats walking back to the Alpha Quadrant.