politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New Midterms survey finds the Democrats making progress in 69
Comments
-
0
-
This is well worth a click by everybody. It's a time-lapse of the launch.Pulpstar said:@Rcs1000 Did you enjoy last night's SpaceX light show
?
https://imgur.com/gallery/O1UNOuW0 -
Craig Murray is going to have a busy day.......Foxy said:It seems one of my colleagues has been a bit naughty whilst sightseeing:
https://twitter.com/Jim_Cornelius/status/1049385054680571905?s=190 -
That's actually a good bet - but will it be a 'better' world?MTimT said:
The change coming from the confluence of IT, big data, nano and synbio will eclipse any change mankind has previously witnessed. The 'natural' world will effectively cease to exist.SeanT said:
I think we've had a relative 40 year lull in life-changing innovation, but that's only compared to the incredible period that began with the industrial revolution in England. Recall that before then, life barely changed for most of humanity over many many centuries.JosiasJessop said:Pah. That's nothing.
My great-granddad lived from the 1870s to the mid-1960s. In that time he saw:
* cars introduced.
* planes flying.
* World wars
* telephones
* Jet planes
* nuclear power / weaponry
* Indoor toilets becoming common + labour-saving home devices - e.g. washing machines
* the end of the steam age
* Extension of the right-to-vote to women and others.
* Man in space and (nearly) man on the Moon.
* the pill and sexual liberation (though I doubt he *experienced* that).
+ many more.
We're going through an era of rapid change, but it is nothing like as compressed change as he experienced. My dad was taught to plough with horses; my great-granddad (still alive and healthy) was one of the last captains to be trained professionally to sail sail, steam and diesel ships.
In my 45 years, what have we had? Computers and t'Internet.
Things are changing, but nowhere near with the effect that those changes had, socially and economically.
But all the signs are we about to get another burst of truly rapid, bewildering change, from EVs to AR, to VR to AI to Blockchain to wearable tech to driverless vehicles to chips in our heads, on and on and on. It's gonna start coming at us very soon.0 -
Better for our robot overloads, certainly.JosiasJessop said:
That's actually a good bet - but will it be a 'better' world?MTimT said:
The change coming from the confluence of IT, big data, nano and synbio will eclipse any change mankind has previously witnessed. The 'natural' world will effectively cease to exist.SeanT said:
I think we've had a relative 40 year lull in life-changing innovation, but that's only compared to the incredible period that began with the industrial revolution in England. Recall that before then, life barely changed for most of humanity over many many centuries.JosiasJessop said:Pah. That's nothing.
My great-granddad lived from the 1870s to the mid-1960s. In that time he saw:
* cars introduced.
* planes flying.
* World wars
* telephones
* Jet planes
* nuclear power / weaponry
* Indoor toilets becoming common + labour-saving home devices - e.g. washing machines
* the end of the steam age
* Extension of the right-to-vote to women and others.
* Man in space and (nearly) man on the Moon.
* the pill and sexual liberation (though I doubt he *experienced* that).
+ many more.
We're going through an era of rapid change, but it is nothing like as compressed change as he experienced. My dad was taught to plough with horses; my great-granddad (still alive and healthy) was one of the last captains to be trained professionally to sail sail, steam and diesel ships.
In my 45 years, what have we had? Computers and t'Internet.
Things are changing, but nowhere near with the effect that those changes had, socially and economically.
But all the signs are we about to get another burst of truly rapid, bewildering change, from EVs to AR, to VR to AI to Blockchain to wearable tech to driverless vehicles to chips in our heads, on and on and on. It's gonna start coming at us very soon.0 -
A friend of mine advises companies, public authorities and various umbrella bodies on digital and technological transformation. He reckons that people are only just waking up to the urban air pollution thing, but that one hard hitting government ad campaign probably clears the way for EV incentives and other such mitagatory measures. One thing they have focus grouped is likening walking down an urban street to swimming in a public swimming pool full of shit. Air pollution has been tolerated so long because, mostly, you can’t see it.SeanT said:
Absolutely right. The idea we walked around cities with these horrible noisy machines - cars and buses and lorries with internal combustion engines - all pumping out life-shortening pollution, will soon enough seem as bizarre as the idea people used to smoke in cinemas or on airplanes, and everyone else just had to suck it up (literally)Anazina said:
Nah. Electric cars will eclipse conventional engines in new sales within 10 years, I think. The concept of filling up a car with fuel then burning it in city centres so people breathe it will soon seem as mad as smoking 20 a day. The tech is already there for most users. Prices will come down readily.JosiasJessop said:
You're intelligent enoughrcs1000 said:
That wasn't my point.JosiasJessop said:A BMW M3 costs £58k. I know you're rich and successful (and good on you for that), but that's an unimaginable amount for most people to consider spending on a car - especially when it is sub-optimal in other ways. After all, we keep on discussing how difficult it is for 'ordinary' people to afford the deposit on a house.
Come back when you get a Ford Fiesta-like replacement at sub-£20k. That's an 'ordinary' car. We may not be too far off.
My point was this:
In 2000 snip.
I honestly cannot see mass-market EVs taking off without a drastic new battery tech - and that'll probably be away from Li-Ion.
(*) There are others, such as safety and longevity.
The health benefits of banning petrol/diesel cars are alone so enormous they overcome even major economic drawbacks. Like you I think in 10 years EVs will dominate in cities, in 20 years or so there will be no petrol/diesel vehicles at all, in most towns. A massive revolution which will transform lives (and the urban experience). Like the replacement of the horse.0 -
I have a distant direct relative who fought as a Proddy French Huguenot officer in the battle of the boyne, and whose son lived to 106.
But what hasn't changed is our birthright of a body and a brain to exercise.
Not a car. Not the latest mac ipad. Etc.0 -
That's exactly right. Of course in the UK similar covenants (if not quite as batshit) are pretty common too, but as the idea of creating HOAs to receive the benefit of and enforce the covenants never caught on, they are usually only to the benefit of the developer and so often fast become unenforceable. This is because either, in the case of old development, the developer no longer exists, or in the case of new development, the developer has no interest in enforcing the covenants once all of the development has been built and sold off.Ishmael_Z said:
They are if the developer sells off plots with restrictive covenants in the sale documents , and presumably also if homeowners voluntarily make such covenants as a condition of joining the association (cue tiresome analogy about the EU).Anazina said:dixiedean said:
Many homeowners associations also insist on plain lawns. No veg growing, or gardens in an English sense. Also for aesthetic reasons...Cyclefree said:
Aesthetic reasons?!rpjs said:
For aesthetic reasons mostly. We're not allowed to fence or hedge in our property as well.Foxy said:
Why?rpjs said:
It's illegal to put your clothes out to dry in many, if not most places, in the US, including where I live.geoffw said:
In 1994 Palo Alto celebrated its centenary and the local rag explained to readers what life was like 100 years ago. One of the astonishing examples of pioneer life was that families hung out their washing on lines to dry.Cyclefree said:>
. . .- And washing lines instead of tumble dryers. They appear to have vanished and yet they are free and dry washing far better than expensive dryers.
. . .
For a country that calls itself the "Land of the Free" the US has a myriad of petty regulations.
Why aren’t there laws banning those obese Americans waddling around the place, then?
A washing line is a thing of great beauty by comparison.
And hedges are great for wildlife.
Honestly, the Americans voting for Trump was bad enough. But this .... well.......it’s the limit.
Presumably homeowners associations’ guidelines aren’t legally enforceable?
Historically a lot of these sort of covenants were used in the US to prevent the selling on of properties to non-white and Jewish purchasers, and when we lived in the UK the c.1900-vintage terraced house we owned in Medway had covenants against parking caravans or erecting "booths" or other temporary structures which clearly meant "no gypsies".0 -
Oh, I can see them becoming ubiquitous eventually - especially with incentives. It's just that I can't see a majority of new cars being EVs within ten years - that's far too soon. (add necessary caveat): especially without incentives.rcs1000 said:
We've had this argument, and I think my point is a simple one. If the cost/efficiency of electric cars is improving even 1% faster than internal combustion engines (and I think it's improving faster than that, and will continue to improve faster than that), then they will eventually be 100% of the market.JosiasJessop said:You're intelligent enough to know the potential flaws in assuming that trend will continue.
But the point is we're where we were with flash vs HDD's twenty years ago: Flash performs better in many ways, but is vastly more expensive and has other disadvantages. And besides, it's a specious comparison: as you alluded to earlier, the silicon domain is different wrt performance increases - see Moore's Law. Changes in battery chemistry have been *far* slower. In fact, a good proportion of the performance increases we've seen will be down to better knowledge of how a chemistry performs, and of hardware/software that 'drives' the battery in such a way as to maximise performance.
There are three main variables for EV car batteries: energy density, cost, and recharge times (*). It can be like squeezing a balloon: you can alter one, but the other two will often worsen. The question is when we existing chemistries will plateau - in effect when the Li-ion equivalent of Moore's Law will end. Perhaps it won't for a while - or perhaps it will.
I honestly cannot see mass-market EVs taking off without a drastic new battery tech - and that'll probably be away from Li-Ion.
(*) There are others, such as safety and longevity.
There's an old technology saying: things take longer than you think they will, but then become more ubiquitous than you could ever imagine. This is one of those things.
The Ford Fiesta is the UKs best-selling car. The base model costs from £13,500 - and unlike the Tesla 3 base model, can actually be purchased. That's the target that matters, and I cannot see it being reached with current battery tech without critically compromising other criteria that matter to people such as range and convenience.
Again, I hope I'm wrong about this. 0 -
I never mentioned 3D printing. But if you go back a few years you'll see me on here saying how wonderfully brilliant it is.SeanT said:
What a farcical argument. 3D printing is so "incredibly difficult and complex" it feels like magic.JosiasJessop said:
I think that's wrong, and the reason is complexity. These systems are *incredibly* complex, and the consequences of them going wrong are massive - and safety is paramount nowadays. It'll come in an exciting dribble, not an ecstatic squirt.SeanT said:
I think we've had a relative 40 year lull in life-changing innovation, but that's only compared to the incredible period that began with the industrial revolution in England. Recall that before then, life barely changed for most of humanity over many many centuries.JosiasJessop said:Pah. That's nothing.
My great-granddad lived from the 1870s to the mid-1960s. In that time he saw:
* cars introduced.
* planes flying.
* World wars
* telephones
* Jet planes
* nuclear power / weaponry
* Indoor toilets becoming common + labour-saving home devices - e.g. washing machines
* the end of the steam age
* Extension of the right-to-vote to women and others.
* Man in space and (nearly) man on the Moon.
* the pill and sexual liberation (though I doubt he *experienced* that).
+ many more.
We're going through an era of rapid change, but it is nothing like as compressed change as he experienced. My dad was taught to plough with horses; my great-granddad (still alive and healthy) was one of the last captains to be trained professionally to sail sail, steam and diesel ships.
In my 45 years, what have we had? Computers and t'Internet.
Things are changing, but nowhere near with the effect that those changes had, socially and economically.
But all the signs are we about to get another burst of truly rapid, bewildering change, from EVs to AR, to VR to AI to Blockchain to wearable tech to driverless vehicles to chips in our heads, on and on and on. It's gonna start coming at us very soon.
And that's leaving aside out susceptibility to another Carrington event.
Basically : the easy changes were those in the industrial revolution. The current changes are incredibly difficult by comparison.
Yet it is already here, and already being used.
https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/first-renishaw-additive-manufacturing-system-installed-at-australian-dental-lab-141206/
It might even save the reefs:
http://theconversation.com/3d-printing-coral-reefs-can-create-new-habitat-but-it-doesnt-tackle-human-destruction-103927
And it's only magic if you know nothing about science and engineering.
0 -
I can believe that very easily.Anazina said:
A friend of mine advises companies, public authorities and various umbrella bodies on digital and technological transformation. He reckons that people are only just waking up to the urban air pollution thing, but that one hard hitting government ad campaign probably clears the way for EV incentives and other such mitagatory measures. One thing they have focus grouped is likening walking down an urban street to swimming in a public swimming pool full of shit. Air pollution has been tolerated so long because, mostly, you can’t see it.SeanT said:
Absolutely right. The idea we walked around cities with these horrible noisy machines - cars and buses and lorries with internal combustion engines - all pumping out life-shortening pollution, will soon enough seem as bizarre as the idea people used to smoke in cinemas or on airplanes, and everyone else just had to suck it up (literally)Anazina said:
Nah. Electric cars will eclipse conventional engines in new sales within 10 years, I think. The concept of filling up a car with fuel then burning it in city centres so people breathe it will soon seem as mad as smoking 20 a day. The tech is already there for most users. Prices will come down readily.JosiasJessop said:
You're intelligent enoughrcs1000 said:
That wasn't my point.JosiasJessop said:A BMW M3 costs £58k. I know you're rich and successful (and good on you for that), but that's an unimaginable amount for most people to consider spending on a car - especially when it is sub-optimal in other ways. After all, we keep on discussing how difficult it is for 'ordinary' people to afford the deposit on a house.
Come back when you get a Ford Fiesta-like replacement at sub-£20k. That's an 'ordinary' car. We may not be too far off.
My point was this:
In 2000 snip.
I honestly cannot see mass-market EVs taking off without a drastic new battery tech - and that'll probably be away from Li-Ion.
(*) There are others, such as safety and longevity.
The health benefits of banning petrol/diesel cars are alone so enormous they overcome even major economic drawbacks. Like you I think in 10 years EVs will dominate in cities, in 20 years or so there will be no petrol/diesel vehicles at all, in most towns. A massive revolution which will transform lives (and the urban experience). Like the replacement of the horse.0 -
Those who do should just call themselves wizards, or technomancers - it sounds cooler.JosiasJessop said:
I never mentioned 3D printing. But if you go back a few years you'll see me on here saying how wonderfully brilliant it is.SeanT said:
What a farcical argument. 3D printing is so "incredibly difficult and complex" it feels like magic.JosiasJessop said:
I think that's wrong, and the reason is complexity. These systems are *incredibly* complex, and the consequences of them going wrong are massive - and safety is paramount nowadays. It'll come in an exciting dribble, not an ecstatic squirt.SeanT said:
I think we've had a relativeJosiasJessop said:Pah. That's nothing.
My great-granddad lived from the 1870s to the mid-1960s. In that time he saw:
* cars introduced.
* planes flying.
* World wars
* telephones
* Jet planes
* nuclear power / weaponry
* Indoor toilets becoming common + labour-saving home devices - e.g. washing machines
* the end of the steam age
* Extension of the right-to-vote to women and others.
* Man in space and (nearly) man on the Moon.
* the pill and sexual liberation (though I doubt he *experienced* that).
+ many more.
We're going through an era of rapid change, but it is nothing like as compressed change as he experienced. My dad was taught to plough with horses; my great-granddad (still alive and healthy) was one of the last captains to be trained professionally to sail sail, steam and diesel ships.
In my 45 years, what have we had? Computers and t'Internet.
Things are changing, but nowhere near with the effect that those changes had, socially and economically.
But all the signs are we about to get another burst of truly rapid, bewildering change, from EVs to AR, to VR to AI to Blockchain to wearable tech to driverless vehicles to chips in our heads, on and on and on. It's gonna start coming at us very soon.
And that's leaving aside out susceptibility to another Carrington event.
Basically : the easy changes were those in the industrial revolution. The current changes are incredibly difficult by comparison.
Yet it is already here, and already being used.
https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/first-renishaw-additive-manufacturing-system-installed-at-australian-dental-lab-141206/
It might even save the reefs:
http://theconversation.com/3d-printing-coral-reefs-can-create-new-habitat-but-it-doesnt-tackle-human-destruction-103927
And it's only magic if you know nothing about science and engineering.
But yes, as has been oft noted, if you are scientifically literate then the world can seem like a very different place, and yet no less incredible for it.0 -
No gardening!!!!!! Jesus: what a country!dixiedean said:
Many homeowners associations also insist on plain lawns. No veg growing, or gardens in an English sense. Also for aesthetic reasons...Cyclefree said:
Aesthetic reasons?!rpjs said:
For aesthetic reasons mostly. We're not allowed to fence or hedge in our property as well.Foxy said:
Why?rpjs said:
It's illegal to put your clothes out to dry in many, if not most places, in the US, including where I live.geoffw said:
In 1994 Palo Alto celebrated its centenary and the local rag explained to readers what life was like 100 years ago. One of the astonishing examples of pioneer life was that families hung out their washing on lines to dry.Cyclefree said:
. . .- And washing lines instead of tumble dryers. They appear to have vanished and yet they are free and dry washing far better than expensive dryers.murali_s said:Why do the right-wingers think that the anthropogenic forcing of the climate cannot be reduced or even halted. Just curious to know as this is probably the biggest crisis facing humanity.
. . .
For a country that calls itself the "Land of the Free" the US has a myriad of petty regulations.
Why aren’t there laws banning those obese Americans waddling around the place, then?
A washing line is a thing of great beauty by comparison.
And hedges are great for wildlife.
Honestly, the Americans voting for Trump was bad enough. But this .... well.......it’s the limit.
A lawn is not proper gardening - or rather it’s gardening for people who think of gardens as “outdoor rooms” (shudder) and who would probably prefer their flowers to be a tasteful beige.
Lawns are for the bits in between flower beds and, yes, I know about kids but the sooner they’re taught how to dig and deadhead and plant and about the unbelievably sensuous beauties of dew on a plant, the scent of a rose, the exquisite jewel like colours of an iris reticulata in late winter, the vivid fresh green of an unfurling fern, the better.0 -
I remember similar arguments about digital vs chemical conventional film, just 20 years ago. Its nearly impossible to buy the stuff now. After the tipping oint change becomes an avalanche.rcs1000 said:
We've had this argument, and I think my point is a simple one. If the cost/efficiency of electric cars is improving even 1% faster than internal combustion engines (and I think it's improving faster than that, and will continue to improve faster than that), then they will eventually be 100% of the market.JosiasJessop said:You're intelligent enough to know the potential flaws in assuming that trend will continue.
But the point is we're where we were with flash vs HDD's twenty years ago: Flash performs better in many ways, but is vastly more expensive and has other disadvantages. And besides, it's a specious comparison: as you alluded to earlier, the silicon domain is different wrt performance increases - see Moore's Law. Changes in battery chemistry have been *far* slower. In fact, a good proportion of the performance increases we've seen will be down to better knowledge of how a chemistry performs, and of hardware/software that 'drives' the battery in such a way as to maximise performance.
There are three main variables for EV car batteries: energy density, cost, and recharge times (*). It can be like squeezing a balloon: you can alter one, but the other two will often worsen. The question is when we existing chemistries will plateau - in effect when the Li-ion equivalent of Moore's Law will end. Perhaps it won't for a while - or perhaps it will.
I honestly cannot see mass-market EVs taking off without a drastic new battery tech - and that'll probably be away from Li-Ion.
(*) There are others, such as safety and longevity.
There's an old technology saying: things take longer than you think they will, but then become more ubiquitous than you could ever imagine. This is one of those things.
I am not convinced that electric cars are there yet. A plug in hybrid seems the best option at the moment, but I don't need another car for a few years so will keep watchful.
0 -
The smartphone, the internet, digitisation, etc - these have changed everything utterly not within 40 years, but within the last 30. There’s been no lull. It’s just it’s become so ingrained so quickly and so seamlessly.SeanT said:
I think we've had a relative 40 year lull in life-changing innovation, but that's only compared to the incredible period that began with the industrial revolution in England. Recall that before then, life barely changed for most of humanity over many many centuries.JosiasJessop said:Pah. That's nothing.
My great-granddad lived from the 1870s to the mid-1960s. In that time he saw:
* cars introduced.
* planes flying.
* World wars
* telephones
* Jet planes
* nuclear power / weaponry
* Indoor toilets becoming common + labour-saving home devices - e.g. washing machines
* the end of the steam age
* Extension of the right-to-vote to women and others.
* Man in space and (nearly) man on the Moon.
* the pill and sexual liberation (though I doubt he *experienced* that).
+ many more.
We're going through an era of rapid change, but it is nothing like as compressed change as he experienced. My dad was taught to plough with horses; my great-granddad (still alive and healthy) was one of the last captains to be trained professionally to sail sail, steam and diesel ships.
In my 45 years, what have we had? Computers and t'Internet.
Things are changing, but nowhere near with the effect that those changes had, socially and economically.
But all the signs are we about to get another burst of truly rapid, bewildering change, from EVs to AR, to VR to AI to Blockchain to wearable tech to driverless vehicles to chips in our heads, on and on and on. It's gonna start coming at us very soon.
0 -
Maybe also some sort of peculiar snobbery.Anazina said:rpjs said:
I don't think any state has a blanket ban but very many, perhaps most, municipalities do, and if they don't almost anywhere with a homeowners' association, which are almost ubiquitous in some regions, will have it.Anazina said:I was aware that Americans by and large don’t do it. I had no idea it was illegal in many states.
I can’t say I understand what people find so unpleasant about it, if it’s in people’s back gardens. Is it something to do with American prudishness?0 -
Not planning a move to the US then I see.Cyclefree said:
No gardening!!!!!! Jesus: what a country!dixiedean said:
Many homeowners associations also insist on plain lawns. No veg growing, or gardens in an English sense. Also for aesthetic reasons...Cyclefree said:
Aesthetic reasons?!rpjs said:
For aesthetic reasons mostly. We're not allowed to fence or hedge in our property as well.Foxy said:
Why?rpjs said:
It's illegal to put your clothes out to dry in many, if not most places, in the US, including where I live.geoffw said:
In 1994 Palo Alto celebrated its centenary and the local rag explained to readers what life was like 100 years ago. One of the astonishing examples of pioneer life was that families hung out their washing on lines to dry.Cyclefree said:
. . .- And washing lines instead of tumble dryers. They appear to have vanished and yet they are free and dry washing far better than expensive dryers.murali_s said:Why do the right-wingers think that the anthropogenic forcing of the climate cannot be reduced or even halted. Just curious to know as this is probably the biggest crisis facing humanity.
. . .
For a country that calls itself the "Land of the Free" the US has a myriad of petty regulations.
Why aren’t there laws banning those obese Americans waddling around the place, then?
A washing line is a thing of great beauty by comparison.
And hedges are great for wildlife.
Honestly, the Americans voting for Trump was bad enough. But this .... well.......it’s the limit.
A lawn is not proper gardening - or rather it’s gardening for people who think of gardens as “outdoor rooms” (shudder) and who would probably prefer their flowers to be a tasteful beige.
Lawns are for the bits in between flower beds and, yes, I know about kids but the sooner they’re taught how to dig and deadhead and plant and about the unbelievably sensuous beauties of dew on a plant, the scent of a rose, the exquisite jewel like colours of an iris reticulata in late winter, the vivid fresh green of an unfurling fern, the better.
I seem to recall Bill Bryson commenting on the difference between americans and the British, in that americans have yards, and they do yardwork in them, rather than have gardens.
Overly simple, I am sure, it's not like I do anything in my garden, but a neat idea.0 -
A hardware designer I know calls herself "The marshaller of the magic smoke"kle4 said:Those who do should just call themselves wizards, or technomancers - it sounds cooler.
And only someone who knows tech will understand what that means. Or someone who has tried blowing up an electrolytic capacitor ...
Most electronic components give off smoke if you apply enough voltage or current, and afterwards they don't work. Hence the smoke must be the thing that makes them work, and therefore designers only marshal that magic smoke into position within the component.0 -
If we don’t sort out developing a new generation of antibiotics pdq, the main change coming at us will be a reversion to a time when what we think of now as minor illnesses and scratches will start killing us, routine operations will carry real risks and many recent medical developments will become unfeasible.SeanT said:
I think we've had a relative 40 year lull in life-changing innovation, but that's only compared to the incredible period that began with the industrial revolution in England. Recall that before then, life barely changed for most of humanity over many many centuries.JosiasJessop said:Pah. That's nothing.
My great-granddad lived from the 1870s to the mid-1960s. In that time he saw:
* cars introduced.
* planes flying.
* World wars
* telephones
* Jet planes
* nuclear power / weaponry
* Indoor toilets becoming common + labour-saving home devices - e.g. washing machines
* the end of the steam age
* Extension of the right-to-vote to women and others.
* Man in space and (nearly) man on the Moon.
* the pill and sexual liberation (though I doubt he *experienced* that).
+ many more.
We're going through an era of rapid change, but it is nothing like as compressed change as he experienced. My dad was taught to plough with horses; my great-granddad (still alive and healthy) was one of the last captains to be trained professionally to sail sail, steam and diesel ships.
In my 45 years, what have we had? Computers and t'Internet.
Things are changing, but nowhere near with the effect that those changes had, socially and economically.
But all the signs are we about to get another burst of truly rapid, bewildering change, from EVs to AR, to VR to AI to Blockchain to wearable tech to driverless vehicles to chips in our heads, on and on and on. It's gonna start coming at us very soon.0 -
What the hell is a Ford Taurus?rcs1000 said:
The price of new cars has increased at about the same rate as incomes in the past 30 years.TOPPING said:
Analogously to the way they bought their houses. Which were sensibly priced also.rcs1000 said:
And how often do you think people bought new cars without finance back in 1988?TOPPING said:And on cars in general don't get me started on the level of household indebtedness which sees a brand spanking new Evoque outside a two up two down council house. Madness.
Cars are simply unaffordable save for on the never never; as @JosiasJessop says, can anyone but the few imagine paying sixty grand for a car these days unless it's with finance?
Don't believe me, go check out Car & Driver from January 1988, more than 30 years ago, and compare the price of vehicles on a like-for-like basis. A new Ford Taurus then was $15,000, and it's now $25,000.0 -
He’s actually worse than Trump.kle4 said:
Quite a remarkable surge for the man, and even more remarkable an earlier BBC report said that he was the top choice for women despite multiple openly misogynist views.The_Apocalypse said:0 -
Hah! British Government signing 99 year lease on the New Territories...in 1898.....SeanT said:This is a brilliant website if you want to feel really OLD
The sinking of the Titanic and the launch of the Model T Ford are both nearer in time to my birthdate, than I am now: at my present age today.
http://you.regettingold.com0 -
It's like a Ford Escort, but American.TOPPING said:
What the hell is a Ford Taurus?rcs1000 said:
The price of new cars has increased at about the same rate as incomes in the past 30 years.TOPPING said:
Analogously to the way they bought their houses. Which were sensibly priced also.rcs1000 said:
And how often do you think people bought new cars without finance back in 1988?TOPPING said:And on cars in general don't get me started on the level of household indebtedness which sees a brand spanking new Evoque outside a two up two down council house. Madness.
Cars are simply unaffordable save for on the never never; as @JosiasJessop says, can anyone but the few imagine paying sixty grand for a car these days unless it's with finance?
Don't believe me, go check out Car & Driver from January 1988, more than 30 years ago, and compare the price of vehicles on a like-for-like basis. A new Ford Taurus then was $15,000, and it's now $25,000.0 -
Bacteriophage.Cyclefree said:
If we don’t sort out developing a new generation of antibiotics pdq, the main change coming at us will be a reversion to a time when what we think of now as minor illnesses and scratches will start killing us, routine operations will carry real risks and many recent medical developments will become unfeasible.SeanT said:
I think we've had a relative 40 year lull in life-changing innovation, but that's only compared to the incredible period that began with the industrial revolution in England. Recall that before then, life barely changed for most of humanity over many many centuries.JosiasJessop said:Pah. That's nothing.
My great-granddad lived from the 1870s to the mid-1960s. In that time he saw:
* cars introduced.
* planes flying.
* World wars
* telephones
* Jet planes
* nuclear power / weaponry
* Indoor toilets becoming common + labour-saving home devices - e.g. washing machines
* the end of the steam age
* Extension of the right-to-vote to women and others.
* Man in space and (nearly) man on the Moon.
* the pill and sexual liberation (though I doubt he *experienced* that).
+ many more.
We're going through an era of rapid change, but it is nothing like as compressed change as he experienced. My dad was taught to plough with horses; my great-granddad (still alive and healthy) was one of the last captains to be trained professionally to sail sail, steam and diesel ships.
In my 45 years, what have we had? Computers and t'Internet.
Things are changing, but nowhere near with the effect that those changes had, socially and economically.
But all the signs are we about to get another burst of truly rapid, bewildering change, from EVs to AR, to VR to AI to Blockchain to wearable tech to driverless vehicles to chips in our heads, on and on and on. It's gonna start coming at us very soon.
Antibiotics will be thought of us being about as scientific as leeches in a hundred years time.0 -
Isn't the ultra-low emissions zone coming to London in a couple of years going to be that in effect?SeanT said:
It just takes one major world city to say: right, you can only drive in the city limits if your car/lorry/bus is electric, and BOOM, the incentives are there. The health benefits for the citizens are enormous (and likewise the savings on healthcare for that city/country, which can be used, initially, to subsidise the EVs, as we subsidised renewables until they made economic sense by themselves).kle4 said:
I can believe that very easily.Anazina said:
A friend of mine advises companies, public authorities and various umbrella bodies on digital and technological transformation. He reckons that people are only just waking up to the urban air pollution thing, but that one hard hitting government ad campaign probably clears the way for EV incentives and other such mitagatory measures. One thing they have focus grouped is likening walking down an urban street to swimming in a public swimming pool full of shit. Air pollution has been tolerated so long because, mostly, you can’t see it.SeanT said:
Absols. A massive revolution which will transform lives (and the urban experience). Like the replacement of the horse.Anazina said:
Nah. Electric cars will eclipse conventional engines in new sales within 10 years, I think. The concept of filling up a car with fuel then burning it in city centres so people breathe it will soon seem as mad as smoking 20 a day. The tech is already there for most users. Prices will come down readily.JosiasJessop said:
You're intelligent enoughrcs1000 said:
That wasn't my point.JosiasJessop said:A BMW M3 costs £58k. I know you're rich and successful (and good on you for that), but that's an unimaginable amount for most people to consider spending on a car - especially when it is sub-optimal in other ways. After all, we keep on discussing how difficult it is for 'ordinary' people to afford the deposit on a house.
Come back when you get a Ford Fiesta-like replacement at sub-£20k. That's an 'ordinary' car. We may not be too far off.
My point was this:
In 2000 snip.
I honestly cannot see mass-market EVs taking off without a drastic new battery tech - and that'll probably be away from Li-Ion.
(*) There are others, such as safety and longevity.
It's bound to happen. The authorities will simply say: Tough shit if your electric car has limited range, this will save and prolong many urban lives. The logic is irrefutable, and the business will follow the logic.0 -
It's a car. Made by Ford.TOPPING said:
What the hell is a Ford Taurus?rcs1000 said:
The price of new cars has increased at about the same rate as incomes in the past 30 years.TOPPING said:
Analogously to the way they bought their houses. Which were sensibly priced also.rcs1000 said:
And how often do you think people bought new cars without finance back in 1988?TOPPING said:And on cars in general don't get me started on the level of household indebtedness which sees a brand spanking new Evoque outside a two up two down council house. Madness.
Cars are simply unaffordable save for on the never never; as @JosiasJessop says, can anyone but the few imagine paying sixty grand for a car these days unless it's with finance?
Don't believe me, go check out Car & Driver from January 1988, more than 30 years ago, and compare the price of vehicles on a like-for-like basis. A new Ford Taurus then was $15,000, and it's now $25,000.
(think of a badly-designed Mondeo)0 -
So it would seem. 46% though. There was speculation last night about how much someone had gotten in a first round without going on to win (46% is, I think, right at the upper limit), and I wondered if anyone has actually gone backwards and gotten less in round 2 than in round 1.The_Apocalypse said:
He’s actually worse than Trump.kle4 said:
Quite a remarkable surge for the man, and even more remarkable an earlier BBC report said that he was the top choice for women despite multiple openly misogynist views.The_Apocalypse said:0 -
Phage therapy if memory serves was (is?) used for a long time in Russia.rcs1000 said:
Bacteriophage.Cyclefree said:
If we don’t sort out developing a new generation of antibiotics pdq, the main change coming at us will be a reversion to a time when what we think of now as minor illnesses and scratches will start killing us, routine operations will carry real risks and many recent medical developments will become unfeasible.SeanT said:
I think we've had a relative 40 year lull in life-changing innovation, but that's only compared to the incredible period that began with the industrial revolution in England. Recall that before then, life barely changed for most of humanity over many many centuries.JosiasJessop said:Pah. That's nothing.
My great-granddad lived from the 1870s to the mid-1960s. In that time he saw:
* cars introduced.
* planes flying.
* World wars
* telephones
* Jet planes
* nuclear power / weaponry
* Indoor toilets becoming common + labour-saving home devices - e.g. washing machines
* the end of the steam age
* Extension of the right-to-vote to women and others.
* Man in space and (nearly) man on the Moon.
* the pill and sexual liberation (though I doubt he *experienced* that).
+ many more.
We're going through an era of rapid change, but it is nothing like as compressed change as he experienced. My dad was taught to plough with horses; my great-granddad (still alive and healthy) was one of the last captains to be trained professionally to sail sail, steam and diesel ships.
In my 45 years, what have we had? Computers and t'Internet.
Things are changing, but nowhere near with the effect that those changes had, socially and economically.
But all the signs are we about to get another burst of truly rapid, bewildering change, from EVs to AR, to VR to AI to Blockchain to wearable tech to driverless vehicles to chips in our heads, on and on and on. It's gonna start coming at us very soon.
Antibiotics will be thought of us being about as scientific as leeches in a hundred years time.0 -
Welcome to the world of CRO :Cyclefree said:
If we don’t sort out developing a new generation of antibiotics pdq, the main change coming at us will be a reversion to a time when what we think of now as minor illnesses and scratches will start killing us, routine operations will carry real risks and many recent medical developments will become unfeasible.SeanT said:
I think we've had a relative 40 year lull in life-changing innovation, but that's only compared to the incredible period that began with the industrial revolution in England. Recall that before then, life barely changed for most of humanity over many many centuries.JosiasJessop said:Pah. That's nothing.
My great-granddad lived from the 1870s to the mid-1960s. In that time he saw:
* cars introduced.
* planes flying.
* World wars
* telephones
* Jet planes
* nuclear power / weaponry
* Indoor toilets becoming common + labour-saving home devices - e.g. washing machines
* the end of the steam age
* Extension of the right-to-vote to women and others.
* Man in space and (nearly) man on the Moon.
* the pill and sexual liberation (though I doubt he *experienced* that).
+ many more.
We're going through an era of rapid change, but it is nothing like as compressed change as he experienced. My dad was taught to plough with horses; my great-granddad (still alive and healthy) was one of the last captains to be trained professionally to sail sail, steam and diesel ships.
In my 45 years, what have we had? Computers and t'Internet.
Things are changing, but nowhere near with the effect that those changes had, socially and economically.
But all the signs are we about to get another burst of truly rapid, bewildering change, from EVs to AR, to VR to AI to Blockchain to wearable tech to driverless vehicles to chips in our heads, on and on and on. It's gonna start coming at us very soon.
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/more-cases-superbug-cro-found-2000846
It started in America.
But if you really want to be scared then this BBC documentary on the Spanish Flu is not for late night viewing. That sort of Cytokine storm would be nearly as fatal now, it possibly killed multiples of WW1 deaths.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0blmn5l
0 -
I dunno, my brother-in-law is an ER doctor and he tells me that there are many practical hurdles to phages and they just aren't as effective as they were first thought to be.rcs1000 said:
Bacteriophage.Cyclefree said:
If we don’t sort out developing a new generation of antibiotics pdq, the main change coming at us will be a reversion to a time when what we think of now as minor illnesses and scratches will start killing us, routine operations will carry real risks and many recent medical developments will become unfeasible.SeanT said:
I think we've had a relative 40 year lull in life-changing innovation, but that's only compared to the incredible period that began with the industrial revolution in England. Recall that before then, life barely changed for most of humanity over many many centuries.JosiasJessop said:Pah. That's nothing.
My great-granddad lived from the 1870s to the mid-1960s. In that time he saw:
* cars introduced.
* planes flying.
* World wars
* telephones
* Jet planes
* nuclear power / weaponry
* Indoor toilets becoming common + labour-saving home devices - e.g. washing machines
* the end of the steam age
* Extension of the right-to-vote to women and others.
* Man in space and (nearly) man on the Moon.
* the pill and sexual liberation (though I doubt he *experienced* that).
+ many more.
We're going through an era of rapid change, but it is nothing like as compressed change as he experienced. My dad was taught to plough with horses; my great-granddad (still alive and healthy) was one of the last captains to be trained professionally to sail sail, steam and diesel ships.
In my 45 years, what have we had? Computers and t'Internet.
Things are changing, but nowhere near with the effect that those changes had, socially and economically.
But all the signs are we about to get another burst of truly rapid, bewildering change, from EVs to AR, to VR to AI to Blockchain to wearable tech to driverless vehicles to chips in our heads, on and on and on. It's gonna start coming at us very soon.
Antibiotics will be thought of us being about as scientific as leeches in a hundred years time.
We need to have some perspective as well. Whilst losing antibiotics will be pretty bad all round, people saying "it will be the end of surgery" seems a bit overblown to me. We had antiseptic surgery for decades before antibiotics. Yes, antibiotics have made it a lot safer, but it was antisepsis and anaesthesia that made surgery routine.0 -
I'd argue that they're essentially fripperies, and nothing compared to - say - indoor toilets, washing machines, cars (in fact, all modern transport) and many other things that came pre-1970. And containerisation probably just about gets in there as well - and that's been a massive factor in the way we live our lives, albeit mostly unheralded.SouthamObserver said:
The smartphone, the internet, digitisation, etc - these have changed everything utterly not within 40 years, but within the last 30. There’s been no lull. It’s just it’s become so ingrained so quickly and so seamlessly.SeanT said:
I think we've had a relative 40 year lull in life-changing innovation, but that's only compared to the incredible period that began with the industrial revolution in England. Recall that before then, life barely changed for most of humanity over many many centuries.JosiasJessop said:Pah. That's nothing.
My great-granddad lived from the 1870s to the mid-1960s. In that time he saw:
* cars introduced.
* planes flying.
* World wars
* telephones
* Jet planes
* nuclear power / weaponry
* Indoor toilets becoming common + labour-saving home devices - e.g. washing machines
* the end of the steam age
* Extension of the right-to-vote to women and others.
* Man in space and (nearly) man on the Moon.
* the pill and sexual liberation (though I doubt he *experienced* that).
+ many more.
We're going through an era of rapid change, but it is nothing like as compressed change as he experienced. My dad was taught to plough with horses; my great-granddad (still alive and healthy) was one of the last captains to be trained professionally to sail sail, steam and diesel ships.
In my 45 years, what have we had? Computers and t'Internet.
Things are changing, but nowhere near with the effect that those changes had, socially and economically.
But all the signs are we about to get another burst of truly rapid, bewildering change, from EVs to AR, to VR to AI to Blockchain to wearable tech to driverless vehicles to chips in our heads, on and on and on. It's gonna start coming at us very soon.
Ask someone if they'd like an iPhone, or to have to go to the bottom of the garden every time they needed the toilet - or worse to a communal toilet. That's how many people were living even eighty year ago.0 -
Had a meeting this evening with someone very close to our near-perfect TM former ChancellorCasino_Royale said:
Or it recognises the deal has all but been done but that’s she’s the sticking point.AlastairMeeks said:
Arlene Foster meets Michel Barnier instead of Dominic Raab this week. That's a bit of a clue to where power lies at present.williamglenn said:Come on Arlene...
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1049335636577177600
He believes (a) a deal will be done and (b) that regardless of how crap any deal is the Commons will vote in favour of it0 -
I learnt to drive, after a lifetime living near or in London and not seeing the point, a few years back when we moved to the Noo Yawk 'burbs. I learnt on an automatic, like all patriotic red-blooded 'Muricans, but I asked my instructor if I should take some manual lessons too for practicality. He said no, because he reckoned that within a decade or so all cars will be electric or at least hybrid and therefore automatic. (And he said that being a huge petrolhead; when he's not doing driving lessons he's the local motorsports stringer for Romanian TV.)SeanT said:
They're not there yet, but....Foxy said:
I remember similar arguments about digital vs chemical conventional film, just 20 years ago. Its nearly impossible to buy the stuff now. After the tipping oint change becomes an avalanche.rcs1000 said:
We've had this argument, and I think my point is a simple one. If the cost/efficiency of electric cars is improving even 1% faster than internal combustion engines (and I think it's improving faster than that, and will continue to improve faster than that), then they will eventually be 100% of the market.
There's an old technology saying: things take longer than you think they will, but then become more ubiquitous than you could ever imagine. This is one of those things.
I am not convinced that electric cars are there yet. A plug in hybrid seems the best option at the moment, but I don't need another car for a few years so will keep watchful.
Put it this way, I recently bought a brand new black-and-red Mini JCW. Very fast and great fun, basically a go kart.
But as I bought it I wondered if it would be the last petrol car I would buy, maybe even the last car as I understand it. Maybe in three-five years I will have a decent choice of EVs, maybe in that same time when Ubers become so cheap - and thereafter become robot-driven, owning your own self-driven petrol car in a big town will seem a ludicrous indulgence and indeed a pain (parking, fuelling, can't drink and drive, etc ect etc).0 -
I bought a 2 year old BMW in 2005 and it’s still going strong...JosiasJessop said:Pulpstar said:
Isn't it more "Other people might buy new cars, but I don't. When Model 3s start cropping up on Autotrader for 15k I might consider an EV"JosiasJessop said:
It's not a case of "EVs are good for other people and I’m not going to compromise in my lifestyle", but: "EVs are good, but only other people can afford them, and my 'lifestyle' is actually how I effing well get into work. It's a necessity."
Mrs J needs a new car, for a seventy minute drive into work and the same back every day - her 12-year old Honda Jazz is good, but is getting slightly unreliable and is not good on long journeys (I should know, I drove it for 12 hours up to Durness in order to break my arm).
I'm trying to talk her into buying a new car - the first one either of us will have bought. But cars are a tool for us - something that allows us to do what we need to do - and therefore we cannot justify spending too much. We're lucky enough to be able to afford something more expensive, but as we're not car fans we cannot justify spending too much.
Second-hand cars fulfil a really useful purpose.0 -
Take transport.SeanT said:
True, in a way, and yet there has also been a surprising slowdown in other areas.SouthamObserver said:
The smartphone, the internet, digitisation, etc - these have changed everything utterly not within 40 years, but within the last 30. There’s been no lull. It’s just it’s become so ingrained so quickly and so seamlessly.SeanT said:
I think we've had a relative 40 year lull in life-changing innovation, but that's only compared to the incredible period that began with the industrial revolution in England. Recall that before then, life barely changed for most of humanity over many many centuries.JosiasJessop said:Pah. That's nothing.
My great-granddad lived from the 1870s to the mid-1960s. In that time he saw:
* cars introduced.
* planes flying.
* World wars
* telephones
* Jet planes
* nuclear power / weaponry
* Indoor toilets becoming common + labour-saving home devices - e.g. washing machines
* the end of the steam age
* Extension of the right-to-vote to women and others.
* Man in space and (nearly) man on the Moon.
* the pill and sexual liberation (though I doubt he *experienced* that).
+ many more.
We're going through an era of rapid change, but it is nothing like as compressed change as he experienced. My dad was taught to plough with horses; my great-granddad (still alive and healthy) was one of the last captains to be trained professionally to sail sail, steam and diesel ships.
In my 45 years, what have we had? Computers and t'Internet.
Things are changing, but nowhere near with the effect that those changes had, socially and economically.
But all the signs are we about to get another burst of truly rapid, bewildering change, from EVs to AR, to VR to AI to Blockchain to wearable tech to driverless vehicles to chips in our heads, on and on and on. It's gonna start coming at us very soon.
60 years ago the fastest you could fly was 977km/h with 174 people. Today its 907km/h with 615 people.
In 1878 you could cross the Atlantic in 7 1/2 days on the Germanic (1,700 pax, 5,000 GRT), sixty years on in 1938, 4 days on the Queen Mary (2,100 pax 81,000 GRT), Today you can do it again in 8 days on the Queen Mary 2 (2,700 pax, 149,000 GRT)0 -
Absolutely not. I would fade away if I did not have a patch of land I could garden. It keeps me sane.kle4 said:
Not planning a move to the US then I see.Cyclefree said:
No gardening!!!!!! Jesus: what a country!dixiedean said:
Many homeowners associations also insist on plain lawns. No veg growing, or gardens in an English sense. Also for aesthetic reasons...Cyclefree said:
Aesthetic reasons?!rpjs said:
Why aren’t there laws banning those obese Americans waddling around the place, then?
A washing line is a thing of great beauty by comparison.
And hedges are great for wildlife.
Honestly, the Americans voting for Trump was bad enough. But this .... well.......it’s the limit.
A lawn is not proper gardening - or rather it’s gardening for people who think of gardens as “outdoor rooms” (shudder) and who would probably prefer their flowers to be a tasteful beige.
Lawns are for the bits in between flower beds and, yes, I know about kids but the sooner they’re taught how to dig and deadhead and plant and about the unbelievably sensuous beauties of dew on a plant, the scent of a rose, the exquisite jewel like colours of an iris reticulata in late winter, the vivid fresh green of an unfurling fern, the better.
I seem to recall Bill Bryson commenting on the difference between americans and the British, in that americans have yards, and they do yardwork in them, rather than have gardens.
I am sure, it's not like I do anything in my garden, but a neat idea.
Literally.
I learnt it from my father. And even at university I would grow something: herbs mostly. And then when I owned a house with a garden I wanted to make the space nice. But then it took me over. It answered - and still does - some very fundamental need in me, which I didn’t realise, until I found myself drawn in, almost without realising what was happening.
The sheer slowness of life in the garden, the seasons, the patience, the way it forces you to really observe the world around you, the fact that you are both in the now but also thinking about the future when you plant, the rootedness to the earth you feel when you have your hands in the soil, the creativity it unleashes, that sense of being part of something bigger than you - the space, the plants, the weather, the animals and insects who really live there, well it calms and stabilises and soothes me in a way that nothing else does.
I enjoy it. But when I am troubled I also need it.
0 -
The phages have to be grown from a distinct person for their own personal use, unfortunately it takes 3 weeks to grow a useful amount, by which time the patient will be probably dead. The amount of work for each one person is costly and time consuming, which is why general antibiotics, pills and what have you will continue to be the number one cure all.rpjs said:
I dunno, my brother-in-law is an ER doctor and he tells me that there are many practical hurdles to phages and they just aren't as effective as they were first thought to be.rcs1000 said:
Bacteriophage.Cyclefree said:
If we don’t sort out developing a new generation of antibiotics pdq, the main change coming at us will be a reversion to a time when what we think of now as minor illnesses and scratches will start killing us, routine operations will carry real risks and many recent medical developments will become unfeasible.SeanT said:
I think we've had a relative 40 year lull in life-changing innovation, but that's only compared to the incredible period that began with the industrial revolution in England. Recall that before then, life barely changed for most of humanity over many many centuries.JosiasJessop said:Pah. That's nothing.
My great-granddad lived from the 1870s to the mid-1960s. In that time he saw:
* cars introduced.
* planes flying.
* World wars
* telephones
* Jet planes
* nuclear power / weaponry
* Indoor toilets becoming common + labour-saving home devices - e.g. washing machines
* the end of the steam age
* Extension of the right-to-vote to women and others.
* Man in space and (nearly) man on the Moon.
* the pill and sexual liberation (though I doubt he *experienced* that).
+ many more.
We're going through an era of rapid change, but it is nothing like as compressed change as he experienced.
In my 45 years, what have we had? Computers and t'Internet.
Things are changing, but nowhere near with the effect that those changes had, socially and economically.
But all the signs are we about to get another burst of truly rapid, bewildering change, from EVs to AR, to VR to AI to Blockchain to wearable tech to driverless vehicles to chips in our heads, on and on and on. It's gonna start coming at us very soon.
Antibiotics will be thought of us being about as scientific as leeches in a hundred years time.
We need to have some perspective as well. Whilst losing antibiotics will be pretty bad all round, people saying "it will be the end of surgery" seems a bit overblown to me. We had antiseptic surgery for decades before antibiotics. Yes, antibiotics have made it a lot safer, but it was antisepsis and anaesthesia that made surgery routine.0 -
What is bacteriophage?rcs1000 said:
Bacteriophage.Cyclefree said:
If we don’t sort out developing a new generation of antibiotics pdq, the main change coming at us will be a reversion to a time when what we think of now as minor illnesses and scratches will start killing us, routine operations will carry real risks and many recent medical developments will become unfeasible.SeanT said:
I think we've had a relative 40 year lull in life-changing innovation, but that's only compared to the incredible period that began with the industrial revolution in England. Recall that before then, life barely changed for most of humanity over many many centuries.JosiasJessop said:Pah. That's nothing.
My great-granddad lived from the 1870s to the mid-1960s. In that time he saw:
* cars introduced.
* planes flying.
* World wars
* telephones
* Jet planes
* nuclear power / weaponry
* Indoor toilets becoming common + labour-saving home devices - e.g. washing machines
* the end of the steam age
* Extension of the right-to-vote to women and others.
* Man in space and (nearly) man on the Moon.
* the pill and sexual liberation (though I doubt he *experienced* that).
+ many more.
We're going through an era of rapid change, but it is nothing like as compressed change as he experienced. My dad was taught to plough with horses; my great-granddad (still alive and healthy) was one of the last captains to be trained professionally to sail sail, steam and diesel ships.
In my 45 years, what have we had? Computers and t'Internet.
Things are changing, but nowhere near with the effect that those changes had, socially and economically.
But all the signs are we about to get another burst of truly rapid, bewildering change, from EVs to AR, to VR to AI to Blockchain to wearable tech to driverless vehicles to chips in our heads, on and on and on. It's gonna start coming at us very soon.
Antibiotics will be thought of us being about as scientific as leeches in a hundred years time.
Aren’t leeches being used again for some things?0 -
Bacteria that eat virusesCyclefree said:
What is bacteriophage?rcs1000 said:
Bacteriophage.Cyclefree said:
If we don’t sort out developing a new generation of antibiotics pdq, the main change coming at us will be a reversion to a time when what we think of now as minor illnesses and scratches will start killing us, routine operations will carry real risks and many recent medical developments will become unfeasible.SeanT said:
I think we've had a relative 40 year lull in life-changing innovation, but that's only compared to the incredible period that began with the industrial revolution in England. Recall that before then, life barely changed for most of humanity over many many centuries.JosiasJessop said:Pah. That's nothing.
My great-granddad lived from the 1870s to the mid-1960s. In that time he saw:
* cars introduced.
* planes flying.
* World wars
* telephones
* Jet planes
* nuclear power / weaponry
* Indoor toilets becoming common + labour-saving home devices - e.g. washing machines
* the end of the steam age
* Extension of the right-to-vote to women and others.
* Man in space and (nearly) man on the Moon.
* the pill and sexual liberation (though I doubt he *experienced* that).
+ many more.
We're going through an era of rapid change, but it is nothing like as compressed change as he experienced. My dad was taught to plough with horses; my great-granddad (still alive and healthy) was one of the last captains to be trained professionally to sail sail, steam and diesel ships.
In my 45 years, what have we had? Computers and t'Internet.
Things are changing, but nowhere near with the effect that those changes had, socially and economically.
But all the signs are we about to get another burst of truly rapid, bewildering change, from EVs to AR, to VR to AI to Blockchain to wearable tech to driverless vehicles to chips in our heads, on and on and on. It's gonna start coming at us very soon.
Antibiotics will be thought of us being about as scientific as leeches in a hundred years time.
Aren’t leeches being used again for some things?0 -
But you can smell it. I really notice the difference when I go into town and the effect on my lungs.Anazina said:
A friend of mine advises companies, public authorities and various umbrella bodies on digital and technological transformation. He reckons that people are only just waking up to the urban air pollution thing, but that one hard hitting government ad campaign probably clears the way for EV incentives and other such mitagatory measures. One thing they have focus grouped is likening walking down an urban street to swimming in a public swimming pool full of shit. Air pollution has been tolerated so long because, mostly, you can’t see it.SeanT said:
Absolutely right. The idea we walked around cities with these horrible noisy machines - cars and buses and lorries with internal combustion engines - all pumping out life-shortening pollution, will soon enough seem as bizarre as the idea people used to smoke in cinemas or on airplanes, and everyone else just had to suck it up (literally)Anazina said:
Nah. Electric cars will eclipse conventional engines in new sales within 10 years, I think. The concept of filling up a car with fuel then burning it in city centres so people breathe it will soon seem as mad as smoking 20 a day. The tech is already there for most users. Prices will come down readily.JosiasJessop said:
You're intelligent enoughrcs1000 said:
That wasn't my point.JosiasJessop said:A BMW M3 costs £58k. I know you're rich and successful (and good on you for that), but that's an unimaginable amount for most people to consider spending on a car - especially when it is sub-optimal in other ways. After all, we keep on discussing how difficult it is for 'ordinary' people to afford the deposit on a house.
Come back when you get a Ford Fiesta-like replacement at sub-£20k. That's an 'ordinary' car. We may not be too far off.
My point was this:
In 2000 snip.
I honestly cannot see mass-market EVs taking off without a drastic new battery tech - and that'll probably be away from Li-Ion.
(*) There are others, such as safety and longevity.
The health benefits of banning petrol/diesel cars are alone so enormous they overcome even major economic drawbacks. Like you I think in 10 years EVs will dominate in cities, in 20 years or so there will be no petrol/diesel vehicles at all, in most towns. A massive revolution which will transform lives (and the urban experience). Like the replacement of the horse.0 -
How does that deal with bacteria which cause illnesses - the TB bacillus, for instance, which is becoming resistant to current antibiotics?viewcode said:
Bacteria that eat virusesCyclefree said:
What is bacteriophage?rcs1000 said:
Bacteriophage.Cyclefree said:
If we don’t sort out developing a new generation of antibiotics pdq, the main change coming at us will be a reversion to a time when what we think of now as minor illnesses and scratches will start killing us, routine operations will carry real risks and many recent medical developments will become unfeasible.SeanT said:
I think we've had a relative 40 year lull in life-changing innovation, but that's only compared to the incredible period that began with the industrial revolution in England. Recall that before then, life barely changed for most of humanity over many many centuries.JosiasJessop said:Pah. That's nothing.
My great-granddad lived from the 1870s to the mid-1960s. In that time he saw:
* cars introduced.
* planes flying.
* World wars
* telephones
* Jet planes
* nuclear power / weaponry
* Indoor toilets becoming common + labour-saving home devices - e.g. washing machines
* the end of the steam age
* Extension of the right-to-vote to women and others.
* Man in space and (nearly) man on the Moon.
* the pill and sexual liberation (though I doubt he *experienced* that).
+ many more.
We're going through an era of rapid change, but it is nothing like as compressed change as he experienced. My dad was taught to plough with horses; my great-granddad (still alive and healthy) was one of the last captains to be trained professionally to sail sail, steam and diesel ships.
In my 45 years, what have we had? Computers and t'Internet.
Things are changing, but nowhere near with the effect that those changes had, socially and economically.
But all the signs are we about to get another burst of truly rapid, bewildering change, from EVs to AR, to VR to AI to Blockchain to wearable tech to driverless vehicles to chips in our heads, on and on and on. It's gonna start coming at us very soon.
Antibiotics will be thought of us being about as scientific as leeches in a hundred years time.
Aren’t leeches being used again for some things?0 -
My bad. A bacteriophages is a virus that eats bacteria, not vice versa. Next time I will google...Cyclefree said:
How does that deal with bacteria which cause illnesses - the TB bacillus, for instance, which is becoming resistant to current antibiotics?viewcode said:
Bacteria that eat virusesCyclefree said:
What is bacteriophage?rcs1000 said:
Bacteriophage.Cyclefree said:
If we don’t sort out developing a new generation of antibiotics pdq, the main change coming at us will be a reversion to a time when what we think of now as minor illnesses and scratches will start killing us, routine operations will carry real risks and many recent medical developments will become unfeasible.SeanT said:
I think we've had a relative 40 year lull in life-changing innovation, but that's only compared to the incredible period that began with the industrial revolution in England. Recall that before then, life barely changed for most of humanity over many many centuries.JosiasJessop said:Pah. That's nothing.
My great-granddad lived from the 1870s to the mid-1960s. In that time he saw:
* cars introduced.
* planes flying.
* World wars
* telephones
* Jet planes
* nuclear power / weaponry
* Indoor toilets becoming common + labour-saving home devices - e.g. washing machines
* the end of the steam age
* Extension of the right-to-vote to women and others.
* Man in space and (nearly) man on the Moon.
* the pill and sexual liberation (though I doubt he *experienced* that).
+ many more.
We're going through an era of rapid change, but it is nothing like as compressed change as he experienced. My dad was taught to plough with horses; my great-granddad (still alive and healthy) was one of the last captains to be trained professionally to sail sail, steam and diesel ships.
In my 45 years, what have we had? Computers and t'Internet.
Things are changing, but nowhere near with the effect that those changes had, socially and economically.
But all the signs are we about to get another burst of truly rapid, bewildering change, from EVs to AR, to VR to AI to Blockchain to wearable tech to driverless vehicles to chips in our heads, on and on and on. It's gonna start coming at us very soon.
Antibiotics will be thought of us being about as scientific as leeches in a hundred years time.
Aren’t leeches being used again for some things?
0 -
NEW THREAD0
