I find it amusing that no one has noticed in the article, that Ms. Rudd herself says that the government wants this for operations that are not technically legal.
From the article itself, not far under the video. "It's a problem for the security services and for police who are not, under the normal way, under properly warranted paths, able to access that information."
This quote only shows those who follow the logic of "Well what do you have to hide?" that the government is not acting in the best legal interests of its citizens.
Your reading of the article is incorrect. I have separated the 'complicated bit' into bold and italic clauses to clarify which bits go together. Essentially what she's complaining about is that even if they have a legally obtained warrant the people tasked with catching the bad guys are still unable to read those bad guys' communications.
For all the fact I disagree with what she's proposing, and her arguments 'supporting' her proposals, this is a valid concern.
It's just a shame there's no easy solution to the problem...
As a member of parliament (MP) she would traditionally be referred to as "the right honourable" something-or-other (usually mentioning which constituency she represents).
However, like most of the Acts of Congress which have been passed in the last decade or so (PATRIOT Act, Safety and Security Bill (or w/e), etc.) this is a bit of a misnomer.
Well, to call it a misnomer might actually be giving a slightly misleading impression. It would perhaps be more correct to call it an antonym.
As to the rest of us, when talking about the general public with politics as the context, we'd be referred to simply as voters.
The number of posters who actually think people should die (for doing something stupid) is, in reality, probably very small. The number of posters who think the aforementioned people should stop doing the something stupid is much much higher, because if those people don't stop they will end up dying, and it will be their own fault.
Furthermore, in carrying out their stupid suicides they may well 'cause' serious emotional trauma in the other person(s) involved. Nobody in their right mind wants to run someone over, which, given the subject, can be rephrased as no-one wants some random phone junkie to step in front of their car.
Try to see past the hyperbole and focus on the real issue, which is that some people are too fixated on their phones, to the detriment of their own chances of survival.
1) One thousand million (10^9) 2) One million million (10^12)
There's a nice pretty map of which countries use which version, and a bit of history as to when some of them, the UK particularly, changed which definition it uses officially.
While most people now tend to use 10^9 there are a few 'hold-outs' and if it's important it can be worth checking which version they're referring to, just to be sure...
They already exist, albeit 'theoretically' they're currently only semi-autonomous (if requiring someone to turn them on counts as such).
Wired for War by P.W. Singer is an excellent book covering the subject, and I'd recommend anyone interested in the subject to read it. The section describing the SWORDS robots and the like, which have already seen deployment, are very informative, and indicative of the way things are going. And this direction is not just being driven by the manufacturers, but it's based upon what soldiers on the ground are asking for.
I have thought about this subject quite extensively over the last couple of years, design, ethics, and how to build restrictions into the systems, and in my opinion autonomous robots are going to be built*, in large numbers, very soon.
*Actually, unless WW3 breaks out there's no real need to actually build large numbers of them right now. As long as the brains are sorted, and a plan in place, you can ramp up production within as little as weeks. Scary times...
Yup, he is virtually the dictionary definition of alarmist, and yet...
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
An estimated 250 million preschool children are vitamin A deficient. An estimated 250,000 to 500 000 vitamin A-deficient children become blind every year, half of them dying within 12 months of losing their sight. (WHO Vitamin A Deficiencies)
Well, he may have been a few years out, but, as unbelievable as it might seem, his numbers are in the right ball park. (I'm not really interested in any "rationale" for these figures, I'm just pointing them out)
Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollutionis certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.
Again, maybe a few years out, (I say maybe because historical figures are both hard to find and considerably less reliable), but: "In new estimates released today, WHO reports that in 2012 around 7 million people died - one in eight of total global deaths – as a result of air pollution exposure. This finding more than doubles previous estimates and confirms that air pollution is now the world’s largest single environmental health risk. Reducing air pollution could save millions of lives.
Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years).
Hmm, it almost feels like you're quoting this because you disagree with the premise. Are you suggesting that DDT (and many other chemicals, manufactured in large quantities during the last century, such as CFC's, tetra-ethyl lead, etc.) are not harmful to human health and do not reduce life expectancy?
Granted, his maths on life expectancy contained a rather basic mistake, but I'd say the principles he was warning about were, and are, valid.
In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”
Yup, blatant exaggeration (scare-mongering, alarmism, call it what you will)! In reality rates of deforestation at the start of this century were around 5.4 million ha/yr with estimates giving around 1803 million ha of tropical forest globally in 2000. Assuming a constant rate of deforestation (a BIG assumption) this means we've only removed about 8% of global rainforest over 30 years. I'm a little more hesitant to pooh-pooh the 50% species loss figure because, while it sounds inconceivable, some species are not numerous, have very small ranges, and are very very 'fragile'. 50% biomass loss, not a chance, 50% of number of species... unlikely but we have to admit the possibility, and that in itself should be cause enough for us to do something to prevent it (in fairness I think we,
If being pedantic, the plural of virus is virus. It's a group noun like "slime" (it actually means slime in Latin), "money" and "people", which all lack a singular. You should only say "viruses" for the same reasons you'd say "slimes", "monies" and "peoples", i.e. only to refer to multiples of separate groups. Which is rarely needed.
In common parlor, "viruses" is what's used as the plural. But if you otherwise use plurals like "fora", "octopodes" and "aquaria", by all means use "virus" as a plural too. I'll applaud your effort, futile as it may be.
Good post, succinct and informative, but I can't help but wonder if you're completely correct in all your assertions and word usage:
(1) If people lacks a singular then what is the plural of person? Sure, you can use persons but I'm going to suggest there's an alternative...
(2) Are you sure you intended to use parlor, and not parlance?/pedantry
While you might be right it is also the case that people generally do not appreciate things that are free. A minimal charge, even if it's only 1 euro, is a better fit for maximising overall benefit for not only the environment but also for all other 'interested parties', passengers, operators, supporting personnel, etc.
As a carrot to get people to change their behaviour, rather than (for the moment anyway) the stick, being a tax to drive within the city - much as London has, I'd say it has a lot going for it.
The original reason that farm animals were given antibiotics was to prevent / cure illnesses due to them living together in close proximity, in large numbers. The observation that this led to them gaining weight explains why these animals are now fed with low dose antibiotics.
Since we are animals it is reasonable to assume that, whatever the mechanism behind the observations, the same holds for us too.
Of course it might be a 'virtuous circle' but it seems to me that the GP has a very valid point.
You're missing the point. This is about explaining why the same amount of food (or energy) intake affects people differently
Absolute nonsense. From the Sunday Morning Herald summary (I don't have a Nature subscription):
From the abstract: "Here, we identify an intestinal microbiome signature that persists after successful dieting of obese mice, which contributes to faster weight regain and metabolic aberrations upon re-exposure to obesity-promoting conditions and transmits the accelerated weight regain phenotype upon inter-animal transfer."
So no, not nonsense at all, you did miss the point, and your 'common sense' hypothesis that "the gut microbiome changes have an impact on appetite" is at best a guess and at worst a post facto rationalisation because you didn't like the conclusion the authors drew. You think they went to all the effort to perform the experiments, wrote a paper on it, but somehow didn't think to control for calorific intake? Really?
As for the apparent quality of their design, you're applying modern standards of what a prototype should look and feel like to a vastly more adventurous era.
First rule of product design: Fail fast, fail often. Companies that understand this are the ones that bring the 'must-have' products to market. This is true in the modern era too.
It's one of the reasons we made massive strides during the first half of the 20th and now typically make far more incremental advances:
Hmm, maybe, maybe not. An early test / improve loop when creating a product allows for more rapid advancement, and while those advancements are, for that product, all incremental the finished product is more than an incremental step forwards from the point before it existed.
...we're terrified of failure, particularly if there's any risk to any human life.
This is, I'd say, a twofold issue, each of which feeds into the other: the 'nanny state' with its assorted regulations - mostly good, some bad; and the 'special snowflake' psyche, where not trying is better than failing, and risks you're not willing to take simply shouldn't be taken by anyone - for their own safety. Of course part of the problem is that while you could, working alone in your barn, build something that flies you are unlikely to build a jet plane or a manned rocket, or something that breaks records. Sure.lone inventors do still exist, as do people who are willing to take personal risks, but when it comes to creating something new the low hanging fruit has largely been picked over the last couple of centuries.
I too can personally remember warnings of global cooling in the 70's and, more so, the early 80's, as reported in print media*. I can still hear some of the debates I and my school friends had on the topic (and yes, we were woefully naive).
What I don't remember is reading about consensus (from the scientific community), the intimate details of the science behind it, long term international bodies being set up to assess, inform, and counteract climate change, and many of the other things that characterise informed debate today.
The difference between then and now is huge, and I'd suggest that anyone who compares the two, in an attempt to dismiss current fears of climate change, either has an ulterior motive or is engaged in some serious cognitive dissonance.
*Since it was in national print media there will be copies still in existence. Attempting to deny facts, whichever 'position' you support, is idiotic, and counterproductive.
OK, so not all research is immediately practical, not all technical hurdles are easily solved but at least try to remember the things that have made it to market (and are now so common place it seems like they never didn't exist or the technology was never new) as well as the things we're still waiting on...
A few years ago I found myself assisting in the delivery of a short external course at HBS. The standard of some of the first year MBA students that attended that course was truly impressive - actually that doesn't do them justice, it was staggeringly impressive.
Whenever I feel disillusioned about the state of education today, or disheartened by what I read, or see firsthand, I find these memories somewhat comforting.
As someone who taught secondary school maths, you can take it from me A-levels have got easier. It has got so bad that 'quality' universities are now having to lay on, for want of a better word, remedial classes in certain subjects, including maths, to get their students up to a level where they can start their degree. Well, It's either this or just lower the standards of the degree - but then this is a not-particularly-surprising-outcome when a government sets an arbitrary target (I believe it was 50%) for people in higher education.
It is very difficult to make direct comparisons between the US and UK systems when it comes to education, as depth and breadth vary enormously, however when I was at school we studied calculus for AO level maths, that's roughly at age 15, a couple of years earlier than AP calculus, and a couple of years before calculus is generally taught in secondary schools today. Futhermore the treatment we gave the subject back then was considerably more thorough than is generally given today, in this country at least - I can't comment on the US system..
Having said all that my education barely touched on high level computer programming (well, if machine code wasn't your thing then your options were flavours of BASIC, so no real surprise there) and I'm sure there must be other things that children are taught today that we weren't back then...
Now, I'd like to agree with the OP, that the median child of today is less literate, less numerate, and generally less knowledgeable than the median child of yesteryear but, honestly, I find myself unable to do so, because I have no reliable frame of reference. Not only did I not know most students back when I was one (I saw only the top few percent on a daily basis) even now I can't say for sure that I've seen both the best and worst that current schools have to offer. There's a huge gap between the highest and lowest performing students, and, even discounting these extremes the whole subject is multidimensional - even ignoring the so called soft skills reducing the question to a single better or worse figure renders any answer essentially meaningless. However, I also find myself unable to agree with you. When exam rates show such a consistent year on year increase there are a number of possible explanations: Genetic evolution is making us smarter; Social evolution is making us smarter; The education system is getting better; The exams are getting easier; Some other factor I haven't thought of right now; Some of, if not all of, the previous...
It's probably overly simplistic to use Occam's Razor to arrive at an answer but I've run out of time;-)
However I can think of one 'industry' that is crying out for more people, and that is caring - as in caring for the elderly (especially, given current and near future demographics), the sick, and the young.
Of course I know that people are working their socks off to automate these roles too I just doubt the practicality, and the morality for that matter, of their efforts.
While you make some interesting points I'm not sure I can agree with all that you write:
Humanity has existed in a more or less recognizable form for 100,000 years. We survived the onset of an Ice Age. (Barely.) That is climate change. We survived the aftermath of the Ice Age.
Big Picture: Within the time frame you mention there is evidence that the total human population was as low as 5 thousand individuals. Moving forwards, the population of the world 10,000 years ago was roughly 5 million people. Today it stands at over a hundred times that number, over 5 billion people. Historically, when local factors changed, specifically climate for the purposes of this discussion, people were able to simply move on (and if they weren't they tended to die out). Given the already fraught situation regarding immigration I'm pretty sure it's not going to be that simple in the foreseeable future.
A trend that's a mere few decades old doesn't even qualify as a change in climate. It's fucking weather. A trend, but still weather.
Years ago I was pointing out that weather is not climate but, while I slightly misspoke then, I think you're going too far now. Any change in climate is a change in climate! If average temperatures in a region rise by 0.1 degrees then the climatic temperatures have risen by 0.1 degrees. If local fluctuations mean specific highs are now 1 degree hotter than previous records that's weather. A trend over a couple of decades is a trend over a couple of decades (which may - in this case almost certainly will - continue for years to come) not weather or climate, though it will affect the specifics of both.
There is no catastrophe to masturbate over here.... We'll make adjustments as we go, and as needed.
I wonder at what point it might be considered a catastrophe. How many inches of sea level rise are needed for it to qualify as one? How many species lost due to climate change constitute a catastrophe? What number of people suffering severe water shortages, once the glaciers they rely on are all gone, will it take for it to be a catastrophe? Right now it does't look to me as though the adjustments we're making, made against huge opposition it should be pointed out, are quite sufficient to the task.
I bought an electric lawnmower this year, which radically reduces my emissions of noxious fumes. What have you done, Internet Warrior?
I'm not sure I could cope with such a huge change in my lifestyle, so I make do with driving considerably less and walking much more, growing as much of my own food as possible (with no added chemical inputs), recycling approx 95% of everything I use / buy, and wearing an extra layer of clothing rather than putting the heating on when it's "slightly chilly". Each to their own I guess.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it amusing that no one has noticed in the article, that Ms. Rudd herself says that the government wants this for operations that are not technically legal.
From the article itself, not far under the video.
"It's a problem for the security services and for police who are not, under the normal way, under properly warranted paths, able to access that information."
This quote only shows those who follow the logic of "Well what do you have to hide?" that the government is not acting in the best legal interests of its citizens.
Your reading of the article is incorrect. I have separated the 'complicated bit' into bold and italic clauses to clarify which bits go together. Essentially what she's complaining about is that even if they have a legally obtained warrant the people tasked with catching the bad guys are still unable to read those bad guys' communications.
For all the fact I disagree with what she's proposing, and her arguments 'supporting' her proposals, this is a valid concern.
It's just a shame there's no easy solution to the problem...
As a member of parliament (MP) she would traditionally be referred to as "the right honourable" something-or-other (usually mentioning which constituency she represents).
However, like most of the Acts of Congress which have been passed in the last decade or so (PATRIOT Act, Safety and Security Bill (or w/e), etc.) this is a bit of a misnomer.
Well, to call it a misnomer might actually be giving a slightly misleading impression. It would perhaps be more correct to call it an antonym.
As to the rest of us, when talking about the general public with politics as the context, we'd be referred to simply as voters.
Neither you nor GP provide references for your assertions, nor specifics or provisos...
Fascinating that you get modded down, while parent does not.
The number of posters who actually think people should die (for doing something stupid) is, in reality, probably very small. The number of posters who think the aforementioned people should stop doing the something stupid is much much higher, because if those people don't stop they will end up dying, and it will be their own fault.
Furthermore, in carrying out their stupid suicides they may well 'cause' serious emotional trauma in the other person(s) involved. Nobody in their right mind wants to run someone over, which, given the subject, can be rephrased as no-one wants some random phone junkie to step in front of their car.
Try to see past the hyperbole and focus on the real issue, which is that some people are too fixated on their phones, to the detriment of their own chances of survival.
I think this is called having your cake, and gleefully stuffing your face with it in front of the starving masses!
Can't disagree with your analysis however...
Incidentally, what other billion is there?
The two definitions of billion are:
1) One thousand million (10^9)
2) One million million (10^12)
There's a nice pretty map of which countries use which version, and a bit of history as to when some of them, the UK particularly, changed which definition it uses officially.
While most people now tend to use 10^9 there are a few 'hold-outs' and if it's important it can be worth checking which version they're referring to, just to be sure...
Will see?
They already exist, albeit 'theoretically' they're currently only semi-autonomous (if requiring someone to turn them on counts as such).
Wired for War by P.W. Singer is an excellent book covering the subject, and I'd recommend anyone interested in the subject to read it. The section describing the SWORDS robots and the like, which have already seen deployment, are very informative, and indicative of the way things are going. And this direction is not just being driven by the manufacturers, but it's based upon what soldiers on the ground are asking for.
I have thought about this subject quite extensively over the last couple of years, design, ethics, and how to build restrictions into the systems, and in my opinion autonomous robots are going to be built*, in large numbers, very soon.
*Actually, unless WW3 breaks out there's no real need to actually build large numbers of them right now. As long as the brains are sorted, and a plan in place, you can ramp up production within as little as weeks. Scary times...
Quotes from Paul Ehrlich:
***
Yup, he is virtually the dictionary definition of alarmist, and yet...
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
An estimated 250 million preschool children are vitamin A deficient. An estimated 250,000 to 500 000 vitamin A-deficient children become blind every year, half of them dying within 12 months of losing their sight. (WHO Vitamin A Deficiencies)
Well, he may have been a few years out, but, as unbelievable as it might seem, his numbers are in the right ball park. (I'm not really interested in any "rationale" for these figures, I'm just pointing them out)
Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollutionis certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.
Again, maybe a few years out, (I say maybe because historical figures are both hard to find and considerably less reliable), but: "In new estimates released today, WHO reports that in 2012 around 7 million people died - one in eight of total global deaths – as a result of air pollution exposure. This finding more than doubles previous estimates and confirms that air pollution is now the world’s largest single environmental health risk. Reducing air pollution could save millions of lives.
Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years).
Hmm, it almost feels like you're quoting this because you disagree with the premise. Are you suggesting that DDT (and many other chemicals, manufactured in large quantities during the last century, such as CFC's, tetra-ethyl lead, etc.) are not harmful to human health and do not reduce life expectancy?
Granted, his maths on life expectancy contained a rather basic mistake, but I'd say the principles he was warning about were, and are, valid.
In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”
Yup, blatant exaggeration (scare-mongering, alarmism, call it what you will)! In reality rates of deforestation at the start of this century were around 5.4 million ha/yr with estimates giving around 1803 million ha of tropical forest globally in 2000. Assuming a constant rate of deforestation (a BIG assumption) this means we've only removed about 8% of global rainforest over 30 years. I'm a little more hesitant to pooh-pooh the 50% species loss figure because, while it sounds inconceivable, some species are not numerous, have very small ranges, and are very very 'fragile'. 50% biomass loss, not a chance, 50% of number of species ... unlikely but we have to admit the possibility, and that in itself should be cause enough for us to do something to prevent it (in fairness I think we,
Now note that viruses (virii?) adapt.
If being pedantic, the plural of virus is virus. It's a group noun like "slime" (it actually means slime in Latin), "money" and "people", which all lack a singular. You should only say "viruses" for the same reasons you'd say "slimes", "monies" and "peoples", i.e. only to refer to multiples of separate groups. Which is rarely needed.
In common parlor, "viruses" is what's used as the plural.
But if you otherwise use plurals like "fora", "octopodes" and "aquaria", by all means use "virus" as a plural too.
I'll applaud your effort, futile as it may be.
Good post, succinct and informative, but I can't help but wonder if you're completely correct in all your assertions and word usage:
(1) If people lacks a singular then what is the plural of person? Sure, you can use persons but I'm going to suggest there's an alternative...
(2) Are you sure you intended to use parlor, and not parlance? /pedantry
While you might be right it is also the case that people generally do not appreciate things that are free. A minimal charge, even if it's only 1 euro, is a better fit for maximising overall benefit for not only the environment but also for all other 'interested parties', passengers, operators, supporting personnel, etc.
As a carrot to get people to change their behaviour, rather than (for the moment anyway) the stick, being a tax to drive within the city - much as London has, I'd say it has a lot going for it.
The video (mentioned in the summary) gave(?) me hope for the future. I am glad she was rewarded for it.
Well, in a sense they could be described as Klutzes...
It would probably be a mistake to call your truck rental company Van der Waals though...
The original reason that farm animals were given antibiotics was to prevent / cure illnesses due to them living together in close proximity, in large numbers. The observation that this led to them gaining weight explains why these animals are now fed with low dose antibiotics.
Since we are animals it is reasonable to assume that, whatever the mechanism behind the observations, the same holds for us too.
Of course it might be a 'virtuous circle' but it seems to me that the GP has a very valid point.
You're missing the point. This is about explaining why the same amount of food (or energy) intake affects people differently
Absolute nonsense. From the Sunday Morning Herald summary (I don't have a Nature subscription):
From the abstract: "Here, we identify an intestinal microbiome signature that persists after successful dieting of obese mice, which contributes to faster weight regain and metabolic aberrations upon re-exposure to obesity-promoting conditions and transmits the accelerated weight regain phenotype upon inter-animal transfer."
So no, not nonsense at all, you did miss the point, and your 'common sense' hypothesis that "the gut microbiome changes have an impact on appetite" is at best a guess and at worst a post facto rationalisation because you didn't like the conclusion the authors drew. You think they went to all the effort to perform the experiments, wrote a paper on it, but somehow didn't think to control for calorific intake? Really?
As for the apparent quality of their design, you're applying modern standards of what a prototype should look and feel like to a vastly more adventurous era.
First rule of product design: Fail fast, fail often. Companies that understand this are the ones that bring the 'must-have' products to market. This is true in the modern era too.
It's one of the reasons we made massive strides during the first half of the 20th and now typically make far more incremental advances:
Hmm, maybe, maybe not. An early test / improve loop when creating a product allows for more rapid advancement, and while those advancements are, for that product, all incremental the finished product is more than an incremental step forwards from the point before it existed.
...we're terrified of failure, particularly if there's any risk to any human life.
This is, I'd say, a twofold issue, each of which feeds into the other: the 'nanny state' with its assorted regulations - mostly good, some bad; and the 'special snowflake' psyche, where not trying is better than failing, and risks you're not willing to take simply shouldn't be taken by anyone - for their own safety.
Of course part of the problem is that while you could, working alone in your barn, build something that flies you are unlikely to build a jet plane or a manned rocket, or something that breaks records. Sure.lone inventors do still exist, as do people who are willing to take personal risks, but when it comes to creating something new the low hanging fruit has largely been picked over the last couple of centuries.
We can but hope (or dream) though...
I too can personally remember warnings of global cooling in the 70's and, more so, the early 80's, as reported in print media*. I can still hear some of the debates I and my school friends had on the topic (and yes, we were woefully naive).
What I don't remember is reading about consensus (from the scientific community), the intimate details of the science behind it, long term international bodies being set up to assess, inform, and counteract climate change, and many of the other things that characterise informed debate today.
The difference between then and now is huge, and I'd suggest that anyone who compares the two, in an attempt to dismiss current fears of climate change, either has an ulterior motive or is engaged in some serious cognitive dissonance.
*Since it was in national print media there will be copies still in existence. Attempting to deny facts, whichever 'position' you support, is idiotic, and counterproductive.
Indeed OLED technology has gone nowhere since its inception around 10 years ago.
As for those foldable displays, yeah, they don't exist either... /s
OK, so not all research is immediately practical, not all technical hurdles are easily solved but at least try to remember the things that have made it to market (and are now so common place it seems like they never didn't exist or the technology was never new) as well as the things we're still waiting on...
Why do I always chuckle a little when I see the words "climate scientist"?
Because laughter is your first reaction when experiencing cognitive dissonance?
I suspect you've hit the nail on the head.
A few years ago I found myself assisting in the delivery of a short external course at HBS. The standard of some of the first year MBA students that attended that course was truly impressive - actually that doesn't do them justice, it was staggeringly impressive.
Whenever I feel disillusioned about the state of education today, or disheartened by what I read, or see firsthand, I find these memories somewhat comforting.
Purely anecdotally:
As someone who taught secondary school maths, you can take it from me A-levels have got easier. It has got so bad that 'quality' universities are now having to lay on, for want of a better word, remedial classes in certain subjects, including maths, to get their students up to a level where they can start their degree. Well, It's either this or just lower the standards of the degree - but then this is a not-particularly-surprising-outcome when a government sets an arbitrary target (I believe it was 50%) for people in higher education.
It is very difficult to make direct comparisons between the US and UK systems when it comes to education, as depth and breadth vary enormously, however when I was at school we studied calculus for AO level maths, that's roughly at age 15, a couple of years earlier than AP calculus, and a couple of years before calculus is generally taught in secondary schools today. Futhermore the treatment we gave the subject back then was considerably more thorough than is generally given today, in this country at least - I can't comment on the US system..
Having said all that my education barely touched on high level computer programming (well, if machine code wasn't your thing then your options were flavours of BASIC, so no real surprise there) and I'm sure there must be other things that children are taught today that we weren't back then...
Now, I'd like to agree with the OP, that the median child of today is less literate, less numerate, and generally less knowledgeable than the median child of yesteryear but, honestly, I find myself unable to do so, because I have no reliable frame of reference. Not only did I not know most students back when I was one (I saw only the top few percent on a daily basis) even now I can't say for sure that I've seen both the best and worst that current schools have to offer. There's a huge gap between the highest and lowest performing students, and, even discounting these extremes the whole subject is multidimensional - even ignoring the so called soft skills reducing the question to a single better or worse figure renders any answer essentially meaningless. However, I also find myself unable to agree with you. When exam rates show such a consistent year on year increase there are a number of possible explanations: Genetic evolution is making us smarter; Social evolution is making us smarter; The education system is getting better; The exams are getting easier; Some other factor I haven't thought of right now; Some of, if not all of, the previous...
It's probably overly simplistic to use Occam's Razor to arrive at an answer but I've run out of time ;-)
If it did wouldn't it then be classed as a medication, rather than a cosmetic, and be regulated (and presumably tested) by the FDA?
As a beginning writer...
Can you ask for your money back?
A very good post!
However I can think of one 'industry' that is crying out for more people, and that is caring - as in caring for the elderly (especially, given current and near future demographics), the sick, and the young.
Of course I know that people are working their socks off to automate these roles too I just doubt the practicality, and the morality for that matter, of their efforts.
While you make some interesting points I'm not sure I can agree with all that you write:
Humanity has existed in a more or less recognizable form for 100,000 years. We survived the onset of an Ice Age. (Barely.) That is climate change. We survived the aftermath of the Ice Age.
Big Picture: Within the time frame you mention there is evidence that the total human population was as low as 5 thousand individuals. Moving forwards, the population of the world 10,000 years ago was roughly 5 million people. Today it stands at over a hundred times that number, over 5 billion people. Historically, when local factors changed, specifically climate for the purposes of this discussion, people were able to simply move on (and if they weren't they tended to die out). Given the already fraught situation regarding immigration I'm pretty sure it's not going to be that simple in the foreseeable future.
A trend that's a mere few decades old doesn't even qualify as a change in climate. It's fucking weather. A trend, but still weather.
Years ago I was pointing out that weather is not climate but, while I slightly misspoke then, I think you're going too far now. Any change in climate is a change in climate! If average temperatures in a region rise by 0.1 degrees then the climatic temperatures have risen by 0.1 degrees. If local fluctuations mean specific highs are now 1 degree hotter than previous records that's weather. A trend over a couple of decades is a trend over a couple of decades (which may - in this case almost certainly will - continue for years to come) not weather or climate, though it will affect the specifics of both.
There is no catastrophe to masturbate over here. ... We'll make adjustments as we go, and as needed.
I wonder at what point it might be considered a catastrophe. How many inches of sea level rise are needed for it to qualify as one? How many species lost due to climate change constitute a catastrophe? What number of people suffering severe water shortages, once the glaciers they rely on are all gone, will it take for it to be a catastrophe? Right now it does't look to me as though the adjustments we're making, made against huge opposition it should be pointed out, are quite sufficient to the task.
I bought an electric lawnmower this year, which radically reduces my emissions of noxious fumes. What have you done, Internet Warrior?
I'm not sure I could cope with such a huge change in my lifestyle, so I make do with driving considerably less and walking much more, growing as much of my own food as possible (with no added chemical inputs), recycling approx 95% of everything I use / buy, and wearing an extra layer of clothing rather than putting the heating on when it's "slightly chilly". Each to their own I guess.