Is it just me or is the 21st century....rather boring?

[pbrower2a]

(05-12-2020, 06:57 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The idea that smartphones are a fad is to misunderstand what they are.  Horseless carriages, moving pictures, talking pictures and the tee-vee were all once called fads too.  Of those only one actually proved to be a fad--the tee-vee--but only because we have superior methods of doing the same thing with more multipurpose technology.  Seriously, were it not for my Boomer mother we wouldn't even have a tee-vee in the house (excluding the ones connected to a gaming console).

It's here to stay until something surpasses it. What surprises me that it isn't built into laptop computers to take advantage of the larger display for data. So instead of "wshakespeare1564" having to press strokes that read "ebrowning 1806" to send e-mail, "wshakespeare1564" writes his sonnet and dials the phone number for "ebrowning1806" and sends it, reciprocating with her own sonnet.  As with television we have improvements of not only the television receiver and an astonishing cutting of price but also improved means of transmitting TV signals.  When TV was VHF only, many people where I live were buying TV's from people in Fort Wayne, Indiana where signals from Indianapolis, Dayton, and Toledo didn't quite reach... so nothing did. That's over. 

It may not be so much that the smart phone is adopting great new technologies but instead that institutions adapt to it.  With the appropriate ap one can read a check and get the money represented deposited in one's account. But television did much the same thing as a standard. The smart phone can do much that a television can do -- except, of course, play a feature film on a screen of adequate size. I would love some day to play movies of about eighty years ago on a giant TV screen as if I were in a theater.   

I am using what is basically a TV screen for reading what people post on the Web. I just wish that I had a touch screen so that I could offer some macabre anti-Trump propaganda... you don't want to know what I substitute for the zero's in "2020".

[pbrower2a]

(04-29-2020, 09:14 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote:

(04-28-2020, 05:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: My 11 year old daughter might disagree:  to her, the difference between a horse drawn carriage and an automobile may seem smaller than the difference between a wireline phone that could only carry voice and a modern smartphone.

A smartphone is a bad computer, bad telephone and bad camera put together in one device. Hardly a breakthrough in technology. I suspect they will go out of fashion.

I still like to keep my camera, computer, and mobile phone separate. They may perform similar functions, but 
it is obvious which ones do certain functions best. 
  

Mickey123 Wrote:Soon enough, things will be very exciting, even more exciting than a global pandemic. The U.S. will be at war with China, or in the middle of a civil or revolutionary war, and excitement will be had by all.

Wow, so you think wars and mayhem are exciting? Something must be wrong with you For me, the sooner the 1T starts the better.[/quote]

Don't be sure, Mickey123. We have the mass death of a war; more Americans have died in the Plague of Trump than in either the Korean War or the Vietnam War. World War I combat deaths are next -- in a couple of weeks. 

Howe and Strauss did not count Crises that far back, but I suspect that they would consider the Black Death a Crisis even if wars and persecutions were less prominent in history.  

COVID-19 has the potential for forcing major changes in culture, political life, and economic reality in America. Many Americans have shown their willingness to put up with economic regimentation as severe as that of WWII in America to avoid losing a struggle against an insidious, destructive, lethal enemy. I expect people to try to return to normal because much that is essential in human nature can be deferred but not forever denied -- but much of the reality will be different, with new opportunities emerging and some old practices either dead or moribund. Americans have always preferred a largely-free market to a command economy and I expect such to recover fully by 2025. Of course people court and marry, many Americans are religious and will remain so after COVID-19 dies, people in certain communities will insist on coming-of-age ceremonies such as a cotillion, bar mitzvah, or a quinceanera; Americans will insist upon being there if at all possible at live theater, sports, and other ceremonies. The Final Four, the Masters, the NHL and NBA finals, the Kentucky Derby, the Indy 500, the World Series (which will probably not be played this year) and quite possibly the Thanksgiving parades, the Tournament of Roses parade, and the Super Bowl will return in full glory (I am not saying which ones will be cancelled). The 2020 Olympics will apparently be delayed until next year. Likewise opera, symphony, and live theater seasons. 

There was no showy celebration of the 75th anniversary of the surrender of the Devil's Reich this year, so that opportunity really is gone this year. I expect an 80th anniversary to return.  Do you have video of the fireworks of the last Fourth of July celebration? That, or someone else's will be what you have this year.     

For Americans on the Home Front, life might have been far less exciting than what was going on in... (gaak!) Poland -- a short but bloody war for both Germany and Poland (the Polish campaign in fact expended the lives of surprisingly German soldiers; the Poles fought hard even if they had no chance), massacres, and factory-scale genocide, revolts and repressions, and finally a takeover of the country by a political order utterly alien to Poland. I'd pass on that sort of excitement -- wouldn't you?

We do not have to be at war with China or any other major power. We may find this Crisis at an end with Americans committing to fundamental reforms of the political system unlike any in scope and scale since the establishment of the Constitution.  Even if the reforms exist solely to close the seams in our system to make things more difficult for a would-be dictator or despot who knows how to exploit such seams, such will be major change. 

2020 looks like a rotten year for almost every American. I would have to win the Super-Duper Megabucks Lottery for this to be a truly great year. I don't play lotteries, as I well understand the math behind them. The big event for an inordinate number of Americans will be the Presidential election which will be a huge bust if one's favored candidate loses. For may, life will boil down to that.

[Kinser79]

(05-12-2020, 11:47 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: It's here to stay until something surpasses it.

When something surpasses the smart phone it will be in essence a super smart phone.

Quote:What surprises me that it isn't built into laptop computers to take advantage of the larger display for data. So instead of "wshakespeare1564" having to press strokes that read "ebrowning 1806" to send e-mail, "wshakespeare1564" writes his sonnet and dials the phone number for "ebrowning1806" and sends it, reciprocating with her own sonnet.

Long form telecommunication in written form already uses a superior system unless the goal is to make quick statements (aka Twitteresque aps). That system is of course email which has been around for decades. Though I suppose if wshakespeare1564 wanted to recite his sonnet into a phone and have it transmitted in text format that would be doable with a smart phone now.

I regularly use an app to send texts to my husband or son by speaking to my phone and then commanding it to send them the text. To do sonnets and other such things is a matter of processing power which phones simply don't have yet, but Moore's Law says they will eventually.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law

Quote:  As with television we have improvements of not only the television receiver and an astonishing cutting of price but also improved means of transmitting TV signals.  When TV was VHF only, many people where I live were buying TV's from people in Fort Wayne, Indiana where signals from Indianapolis, Dayton, and Toledo didn't quite reach... so nothing did. That's over. 

We've had that since satellite television became wide spread in the 90s. Cable in the 80s. That is nothing remotely new. Nor is it I think a vast improvement. Broadcast television has been a wasteland for decades [including the so-called golden age of television].

Quote:It may not be so much that the smart phone is adopting great new technologies but instead that institutions adapt to it.  With the appropriate ap one can read a check and get the money represented deposited in one's account.

Checks...how barbaric. These days with pay apps the need for reading a check is completely eliminated. One can pay with their phone just as easily as with a debit card or the gods forbid cash.

Quote: I would love some day to play movies of about eighty years ago on a giant TV screen as if I were in a theater.   

I'm sure you can find a large screen television with surround sound at best buy. Probably around 1500 bucks, and most of that will be the super large tee-vee. Though I can't say that I've priced tee-vees in a while. Last one I bought cost 300 bucks and it sits in the living room to infotain my aging boomer mother. No one else in the house is remotely interested in it. Mind you to us it may as well be a grammophone and the set itself is less than 10 years old.

Quote:I am using what is basically a TV screen for reading what people post on the Web. I just wish that I had a touch screen so that I could offer some macabre anti-Trump propaganda... you don't want to know what I substitute for the zero's in "2020".

Most computer monitors are built on their tee-vee predecessors. The thing is you can do so much more with a computer than you can with a tee-vee. A tee-vee simply sits there and shows you content produced by others for a mass audience. The internet you can get whatever content you want, mass marketed or niche marketed, or create your own.

I won't address the anti-Trump propaganda comment as it is most likely a throw away line. Suffice it to say putting a maga sign in our yard has kept the more annoying neighbors at bay.

[Isoko]

You know, it is an interesting concept about war and what generates excitement in it. From my own research, it is a question that has troubled me but it all boils down to basic psychology. Human beings love war to begin with as it adds excitement and an unleashing of energy that has been boiling up for decades. 

If you see pictures of previous wars in the past, even amongst recent conflicts such as the Arab Spring or even the Donbass and you can see that fundamental feature. The joy on people's faces. It is like an ecstacy that is hard to explain. I remember seeing video footage of young Donbass men happily getting married to their war brides and filling with excitement over brandishing their ak47s. Or the Syrians who were shouting with ecstacy and firing their guns into the air.

It is only after the war, after the casualties, after the mass destruction that people become anti war. But then it usually takes another 2-3 generations before war becomes an exciting adventure once again.

You know, I get the feeling alot of millennial and zoomer men in Europe, particularly with alt right leanings, would jump at the chance if say Europe or America had a major civil war. You would see them doing exactly the same as their counterparts elsewhere.

I tend to find this phenomenon is particularly strong in young men. They are rushing with hormones and they are genetically designed to fight. The absence of any major war due to nuclear weapons and globalisation I believe is a reason for mass shootings and suicides. When that cohort cannot succeed in the modern world, when times become tougher, when they especially struggle to find girlfriends, they go crazy. 

Look at young boys when they playing together in the playground. What are they playing? They are pretending to shoot at each other and engage in their own make believe wars.

It's a bitter pill to swallow for many to acknowledge this fact but it is reality and it is something that Humans are having to deal with. Without large scale conflict, what to do with the angry young men? If we have evolved to make do with longer periods of peace, how do you handle men in general?

It's a good question.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-16-2020, 04:15 AM)Isoko Wrote: You know, it is an interesting concept about war and what generates excitement in it. From my own research, it is a question that has troubled me but it all boils down to basic psychology. Human beings love war to begin with as it adds excitement and an unleashing of energy that has been boiling up for decades... 

Yes.  I had not included the surge in seemingly random violence in the USA, but this has concerned me greatly too.  Quite possibly this is a valid connection.  Man is inherently violent, bred for war.  Conflict was cost effective between groups of humans during the time the gene pool was set.

Over in the Generational Dynamics thread, this is in a way the central issue.  Are even nukes powerful enough to overcome man’s inclination to violence?  Can even nukes traumatize the culture with the threat of imminent destruction to move a culture into an avoidance of war?  I say yes.  Xenakis says no.

[irony] Let’s just have a fun non-boring time blowing everything up. [/irony]

I just watch for the Spiral of Violence to increase.  It seems stuck at the lone nut level.  Group violence which preserves the group to strike again has not happened yet, let alone become common.  

Meanwhile, for those parts of the world in sync with the World War violence, the prophet-nomad-civic generation is on the verge of aging out.

There is still a window there.  It is not a trivial problem to hit it.

[Isoko]

Bob,

I would inherently argue that it is only nuclear weapons and other WMDs that have kept the peace. Had they not existed, I think you would have found another world war by now with millions of millennial and zoomer men be drafted in to fight. I think many would have happily answered the call.

So yes, nukes have kept the peace, for now. However I'd argue that in essence, it is only being kept peaceful because of largely secular governments in power. If ever a radical party with strong religious inclinations ever took power, the nukes would fly. 

Even still, the reason, in my opinions, this 4T keeps on going is because of the lack of war. Naturally the revival comes when one generation goes off to fight, the survivors come home, they have plenty of sex, it creates a baby boom and then you have an economic revival. But this has not been allowed to naturally happen this time around which either leads me to two conclusions:

1) The status quo will continue to remain with Western countries continuing a long ward decline over the decades with few changes.

2) People get revolutionary and civil wars happen all over the place, filling that void for war and leading to a faster revival.

It is cold, hard thinking, but looking back at history, this seems to be the pattern.

Of course maybe just maybe peace can win out and a revival can happen naturally but it'll be a much slower process compared to say 1945 - 1960.

[Kinser79]

(05-16-2020, 09:16 AM)Isoko Wrote: 1) The status quo will continue to remain with Western countries continuing a long ward decline over the decades with few changes.

I would argue that war is not required to resolve a 4T.  Just take a look at the Glorious Revolution and why it was called that as a case in point.  In situation 1 you've laid out though I would argue that this would set up a muted end to the 4T.  The turning began around 2006 and will end sometime between 2024 and 2030 simply by the change of the generational make up.  It has to, it is inevitable. Which is probably why I don't understand why people get so hung up on events when it is generational constellations that matter far more.

In any case the status quo continuing while the West slowly declines should be expected in a Mega-Crisis saeculum which will follow the end of this turning.  I've posted in other threads a more detailed account as to my Mega-Saeculum theory.

Quote:2) People get revolutionary and civil wars happen all over the place, filling that void for war and leading to a faster revival.

Possible there has been plenty of unrest in Blue states that are refusing to ease up on the Carona Restrictions for example.  However, like Bob has pointed out there simply isn't a spiral of violence there despite Gov. Whitmer's propaganda to the contrary.

[Tim Randal Walker]

I can accept a boring 4T if that means we avoid a Crisis war. My hope is that this 4 is resolved by peaceful reform.

The more severe 4Ts of the past were so freaking dangerous, and that was before the A-Bomb. There was the prospect of a 4T going very badly for a country.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-16-2020, 09:16 AM)Isoko Wrote: Bob,

I would inherently argue that it is only nuclear weapons and other WMDs that have kept the peace. Had they not existed, I think you would have found another world war by now with millions of millennial and zoomer men be drafted in to fight. I think many would have happily answered the call.

So yes, nukes have kept the peace, for now. However I'd argue that in essence, it is only being kept peaceful because of largely secular governments in power. If ever a radical party with strong religious inclinations ever took power, the nukes would fly. 

Even still, the reason, in my opinions, this 4T keeps on going is because of the lack of war. Naturally the revival comes when one generation goes off to fight, the survivors come home, they have plenty of sex, it creates a baby boom and then you have an economic revival. But this has not been allowed to naturally happen this time around which either leads me to two conclusions:

1) The status quo will continue to remain with Western countries continuing a long ward decline over the decades with few changes.

2) People get revolutionary and civil wars happen all over the place, filling that void for war and leading to a faster revival.

It is cold, hard thinking, but looking back at history, this seems to be the pattern.

Of course maybe just maybe peace can win out and a revival can happen naturally but it'll be a much slower process compared to say 1945 - 1960.

Nukes are a definite factor, but not the only one.  The other is insurgency.  In the old days only the mother country sized control of a colony, and other major powers generally kept hands off.  Of late, somebody who doesn’t care for the mother country will support an insurrection.  In such a case, war becomes not cost effective.  It is very hard to make a profit out of a permanently destabilized area.

OK if I borrow Smedley Butler’s claim that war is a racket?  If a major power sees war is likely to either end in a nuclear hailstorm or a perpetual insurrection, where is the profit?  Is it wiser to seek a more profitable racket?

The natural result of a crisis war in the Industrial Age was rejection of war.  For as long as people remembered the crisis war, they avoided letting themselves care deeply enough for an issue to fight that hard again.  These days, perhaps the thought of a nuclear hellstorm is the equivalent of a crisis war.  Those in the shadow of nukes have a healthy dislike for conflict and will not support a leader who leads towards a conflict between nuclear powers.  Perhaps Bush 43’s wars were in a part a war for oil.  Perhaps the American people looked at the result and decided the gain from the racket was not worth putting boots on the ground.  The result again is a reluctance to engage in war.

So that is two reasons to not believe in war rackets in the Information Age.  That is quite enough.

The problem is the pattern of history changing.  We just entered the Information Age, but people are still applying the lessons of the Industrial Age as if the pattern of civilization has not changed.  Especially if the problem involves nukes, insurrection, computer networks or renewable energy, I am not impressed by the lessons of history.  They are all tentative.  You have to assume they will not hold until you see them repeating.  You have to depend far more on recent observation and analysis than history of the prior ages.

Think of this as the first crisis of the new age.  War triggers are much more rare.  The turnings that we are apt to eventually fall into have not established themselves.  Historians who predict the old age’s pattern will continue to exist in a new age should open their eyes to the possibility that they might not.

[Tim Randal Walker]

BTW, it is much too early to say that there will be no significant technological innovations during the 21st century. The year 2100 is about 80 years away.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-16-2020, 10:43 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-16-2020, 09:16 AM)Isoko Wrote: 1) The status quo will continue to remain with Western countries continuing a long ward decline over the decades with few changes.

I would argue that war is not required to resolve a 4T.  Just take a look at the Glorious Revolution and why it was called that as a case in point.  In situation 1 you've laid out though I would argue that this would set up a muted end to the 4T.  The turning began around 2006 and will end sometime between 2024 and 2030 simply by the change of the generational make up.  It has to, it is inevitable. Which is probably why I don't understand why people get so hung up on events when it is generational constellations that matter far more.

A crisis turning going by without a trigger would have been a doozy in terms of having to reshuffle the turnings.  I am not worrying about that anymore.  We will also have to see if the next awakening is transformative, as the last one likely was.

I would add Queen Victoria's reforms to avoid a revolt in Britain as another mild crisis.  It isn't often that a conservative leader turns just progressive enough to avoid things blowing up into a full scale crisis, but it should be noted.

I am not sure either if this crisis is all that mild.  If systematic racism takes a hit in the current wave of protests, if abiding by the science rather than some sort of political fantasy being accepted, that will be crisis enough for me.  The incubation time of the virus is too short.  Trying to solve that problem by fantasizing it out of existence is not likely to work.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-13-2020, 09:19 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: BTW, it is much too early to say that there will be no significant technological innovations during the 21st century.  The year 2100 is about 80 years away.

Workable fusion, genetic engineering, solid space infrastructure, could all be on the cusp of taking off.

[pbrower2a]

(06-13-2020, 09:10 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-16-2020, 09:16 AM)Isoko Wrote: Bob,

I would inherently argue that it is only nuclear weapons and other WMDs that have kept the peace. Had they not existed, I think you would have found another world war by now with millions of millennial and zoomer men be drafted in to fight. I think many would have happily answered the call.

So yes, nukes have kept the peace, for now. However I'd argue that in essence, it is only being kept peaceful because of largely secular governments in power. If ever a radical party with strong religious inclinations ever took power, the nukes would fly. 

Even still, the reason, in my opinions, this 4T keeps on going is because of the lack of war. Naturally the revival comes when one generation goes off to fight, the survivors come home, they have plenty of sex, it creates a baby boom and then you have an economic revival. But this has not been allowed to naturally happen this time around which either leads me to two conclusions:

1) The status quo will continue to remain with Western countries continuing a long ward decline over the decades with few changes.

2) People get revolutionary and civil wars happen all over the place, filling that void for war and leading to a faster revival.

It is cold, hard thinking, but looking back at history, this seems to be the pattern.

Of course maybe just maybe peace can win out and a revival can happen naturally but it'll be a much slower process compared to say 1945 - 1960.

Nukes are a definite factor, but not the only one.  The other is insurgency.  In the old days only the mother country sized control of a colony, and other major powers generally kept hands off.  Of late, somebody who doesn’t care for the mother country will support an insurrection.  In such a case, war becomes not cost effective.  It is very hard to make a profit out of a permanently destabilized area.

Nuke an area as necessary for "clearing" the existing population, and it is not worth conquering. The cropland is ruined for years. The housing and industrial potential is gone. Win the war but conquer nothing? Such is a losing proposition. Conquest is glorious, but a continuing struggle against a subjected people that wants its independence demoralizes soldiers waging that war on behalf of a distant power. Such demoralized the Portuguese military in the mid-1970's as Portugal was involved in a stalemate in civil wars in 'their' shakily-held colonies. Such made the Carnation Revolution that overthrew the military dictatorship possible in 1974.     

Quote:OK if I borrow Smedley Butler’s claim that war is a racket?  If a major power sees war is likely to either end in a nuclear hailstorm or a perpetual insurrection, where is the profit?  Is it wiser to seek a more profitable racket?

It is highly profitable to war profiteers who reap the profits. Others die in the war, but such are 'collateral damage' in a profitable enterprise.  

Quote:The natural result of a crisis war in the Industrial Age was rejection of war.  For as long as people remembered the crisis war, they avoided letting themselves care deeply enough for an issue to fight that hard again.  These days, perhaps the thought of a nuclear hellstorm is the equivalent of a crisis war.  Those in the shadow of nukes have a healthy dislike for conflict and will not support a leader who leads towards a conflict between nuclear powers.  Perhaps Bush 43’s wars were in a part a war for oil.  Perhaps the American people looked at the result and decided the gain from the racket was not worth putting boots on the ground.  The result again is a reluctance to engage in war.

One might have thought the First World War so horrible that people who lived through it would be meek pacifists. There was no shortage of meek pacifists, but such people are unable to fend off the militarists who either see war as opportunity to settle national scores or get further booty. After World War II, people deemed particularly guilty of starting wars of conquest, pillage, mass murder, and enslavement went on trial and were mostly found guilty... and executed. 

Much of the war in the Pacific theater was in colonies of Britain, France, the Netherlands, and the USA... Colonial empires mostly disintegrated rapidly in what had been the Pacific Theater of War and nearby lands. The Dutch could not recover Indonesia. The United States granted independence to the Philippines on the 170th anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence. Britain quit India within two years. Japan was stripped of Korea, Taiwan, and a Trust Territory of former German islands that Japan had taken after World War I. The French tried to hold onto Indochina but abandoned that effort altogether in the mid-1950's. Colonies were becoming unworthy of the cost to maintain.

Obviously once the Soviet Union had nukes, "On to Moscow" became impossible as did "On to London and Lisbon".     

Quote:So that is two reasons to not believe in war rackets in the Information Age.  That is quite enough.

Another is expats. In the event of aggression by Superpower A against minor power Q, Q can take expats from A  within their country and do horrible things to them. The expats might be innocent, but they can be used as propaganda tools. 

Quote:The problem is the pattern of history changing.  We just entered the Information Age, but people are still applying the lessons of the Industrial Age as if the pattern of civilization has not changed.  Especially if the problem involves nukes, insurrection, computer networks or renewable energy, I am not impressed by the lessons of history.  They are all tentative.  You have to assume they will not hold until you see them repeating.  You have to depend far more on recent observation and analysis than history of the prior ages.

As much a peril as failing to learn the lessons of history is, drawing the wrong conclusions is potentially even more damaging. Hitler and Mussolini were no less students of history than was Churchill. It is obviously advantageous to have a leader who draws the right conclusions by having appropriate models. This said, Mussolini did not fail because Julius Caesar was a poor model and Hitler did not fail because Frederick the Great was a poor model. Caesar and Frederick the Great were good models. Churchill acted as if he picked the best out of Roman models -- and it helped that he was able to stave off defeat until someone using Lincoln as a model became his formal ally.  

Quote: 
Think of this as the first crisis of the new age.  War triggers are much more rare.  The turnings that we are apt to eventually fall into have not established themselves.  Historians who predict the old age’s pattern will continue to exist in a new age should open their eyes to the possibility that they might not.

I look into my crystal ball (Ha, ha! if you think that I really have one of those and claim any mystical powers) and I am already predicting Time's cover for (Entity) of the Year:



It is not an honor to be so identified. This virus has made the year 2020 memorable for all the wrong reasons. It is an object of hatred as were some others so named:



Osama bin Laden



Adolf Hitler is the organist in the Hymn of Hate. The wheel is a Saint Catherine's wheel, a medieval device of horrific torture and execution.

[TnT]

Boring?

Things seem to move slowly, but power dynamics are shifting. I'm thinking the chickens will come home to roost, for the American Empire. I like this quote from Rabih Alameddine, taken from a discussion about Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" and its parallels with this country:

"We invade yiour countries, destroy your economies, demolish your infrastructures, murder hundreds of thousands of your citizens, and a decade or so later we write beautifully restrained novels about how killing you made us cry."

If the lunatic in the White House manages to weaken us sufficiently, who knows? Maybe some folks out there in the world will come after the leavings.

[David Horn]

(06-17-2020, 04:09 PM)TnT Wrote: Boring?

Things seem to move slowly, but power dynamics are shifting.  I'm thinking the chickens will come home to roost, for the American Empire.  I like this quote from Rabih Alameddine, taken from a discussion about Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" and its parallels with this country:

"We invade yiour countries, destroy your economies, demolish your infrastructures, murder hundreds of thousands of your citizens, and a decade or so later we write beautifully restrained novels about how killing you made us cry."

If the lunatic in the White House manages to weaken us sufficiently, who knows?  Maybe some folks out there in the world will come after the leavings.

I'm optimistic enough to believe (hope?) that there are just not that many younger Americans who've swigged the Kool-Aid and lost their minds.  We Boomers are beginning the thinning process in earnest, so the Millies are the dominant generation if they choose to be.  From all indications, they are not going to tolerate this much longer.  Let's hope it's this year.

[Isoko]

Just a tip about Churchill,

He never was staring defeat in the face. What he was facing was a stalemate. He mentioned in his memoirs how he and the general staff had no actual fears of a Nazi invasion. They all knew logistically it was impossible for Germany to pull off due to the size of the Kriegsmarine and having to actually support an Invasion. The only thing Churchill actually feared was the U-Boats, which he also noted.

[TnT]

(06-18-2020, 09:46 AM)Isoko Wrote: Just a tip about Churchill,

He never was staring defeat in the face. What he was facing was a stalemate. He mentioned in his memoirs how he and the general staff had no actual fears of a Nazi invasion. They all knew logistically it was impossible for Germany to pull off due to the size of the Kriegsmarine and having to actually support an Invasion. The only thing Churchill actually feared was the U-Boats, which he also noted.

In terms of "alternate" history, one wonders what might have happened if Hitler had not invaded Russia and had instead focused the full might of his military on western Europe.  Even with the failed Russian invasion and stunning loss of resource there, the German military was still formidable.

[David Horn]

(06-18-2020, 05:00 PM)TnT Wrote:

(06-18-2020, 09:46 AM)Isoko Wrote: Just a tip about Churchill,

He never was staring defeat in the face. What he was facing was a stalemate. He mentioned in his memoirs how he and the general staff had no actual fears of a Nazi invasion. They all knew logistically it was impossible for Germany to pull off due to the size of the Kriegsmarine and having to actually support an Invasion. The only thing Churchill actually feared was the U-Boats, which he also noted.

In terms of "alternate" history, one wonders what might have happened if Hitler had not invaded Russia and had instead focused the full might of his military on western Europe.  Even with the failed Russian invasion and stunning loss of resource there, the German military was still formidable.

Assuming that Hitler was sane enough to avoid a land war with the Soviets, I tend to think that the V2 rocket and the nuclear work in Norway might have tipped the balance toward the Nazis.

[beechnut79]

(05-12-2020, 11:47 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-12-2020, 06:57 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The idea that smartphones are a fad is to misunderstand what they are.  Horseless carriages, moving pictures, talking pictures and the tee-vee were all once called fads too.  Of those only one actually proved to be a fad--the tee-vee--but only because we have superior methods of doing the same thing with more multipurpose technology.  Seriously, were it not for my Boomer mother we wouldn't even have a tee-vee in the house (excluding the ones connected to a gaming console).

It's here to stay until something surpasses it. What surprises me that it isn't built into laptop computers to take advantage of the larger display for data. So instead of "wshakespeare1564" having to press strokes that read "ebrowning 1806" to send e-mail, "wshakespeare1564" writes his sonnet and dials the phone number for "ebrowning1806" and sends it, reciprocating with her own sonnet.  As with television we have improvements of not only the television receiver and an astonishing cutting of price but also improved means of transmitting TV signals.  When TV was VHF only, many people where I live were buying TV's from people in Fort Wayne, Indiana where signals from Indianapolis, Dayton, and Toledo didn't quite reach... so nothing did. That's over. 

It may not be so much that the smart phone is adopting great new technologies but instead that institutions adapt to it.  With the appropriate ap one can read a check and get the money represented deposited in one's account. But television did much the same thing as a standard. The smart phone can do much that a television can do -- except, of course, play a feature film on a screen of adequate size. I would love some day to play movies of about eighty years ago on a giant TV screen as if I were in a theater.   

I am using what is basically a TV screen for reading what people post on the Web. I just wish that I had a touch screen so that I could offer some macabre anti-Trump propaganda... you don't want to know what I substitute for the zero's in "2020".

Have noticed that damn near every industry one may do business with bugs you to get the corresponding app; just what is needed to complicate our lives even further. Any of you noticed that each generation seems to demand more conveniences than the previous one enjoyed.  And it seems to me that this cycle will need to be broken in order for us to successfully tackle such issues as climate change. Any of you believe, for example, that the one person, one car mindset has to go?

[pbrower2a]

(09-20-2020, 02:57 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(05-12-2020, 11:47 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-12-2020, 06:57 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The idea that smartphones are a fad is to misunderstand what they are.  Horseless carriages, moving pictures, talking pictures and the tee-vee were all once called fads too.  Of those only one actually proved to be a fad--the tee-vee--but only because we have superior methods of doing the same thing with more multipurpose technology.  Seriously, were it not for my Boomer mother we wouldn't even have a tee-vee in the house (excluding the ones connected to a gaming console).

It's here to stay until something surpasses it. What surprises me that it isn't built into laptop computers to take advantage of the larger display for data. So instead of "wshakespeare1564" having to press strokes that read "ebrowning 1806" to send e-mail, "wshakespeare1564" writes his sonnet and dials the phone number for "ebrowning1806" and sends it, reciprocating with her own sonnet.  As with television we have improvements of not only the television receiver and an astonishing cutting of price but also improved means of transmitting TV signals.  When TV was VHF only, many people where I live were buying TV's from people in Fort Wayne, Indiana where signals from Indianapolis, Dayton, and Toledo didn't quite reach... so nothing did. That's over. 

It may not be so much that the smart phone is adopting great new technologies but instead that institutions adapt to it.  With the appropriate ap one can read a check and get the money represented deposited in one's account. But television did much the same thing as a standard. The smart phone can do much that a television can do -- except, of course, play a feature film on a screen of adequate size. I would love some day to play movies of about eighty years ago on a giant TV screen as if I were in a theater.   

I am using what is basically a TV screen for reading what people post on the Web. I just wish that I had a touch screen so that I could offer some macabre anti-Trump propaganda... you don't want to know what I substitute for the zero's in "2020".

Have noticed that damn near every industry one may do business with bugs you to get the corresponding app; just what is needed to complicate our lives even further. Any of you noticed that each generation seems to demand more conveniences than the previous one enjoyed.  And it seems to me that this cycle will need to be broken in order for us to successfully tackle such issues as climate change. Any of you believe, for example, that the one person, one car mindset has to go?

That implies that (1) people again live in mass housing and rely upon mass transportation, (2) that people can work remotely if they do most jobs,  and (3) that such perishables as groceries are within walking distance. That is so in New York City and perhaps a few other cities. Americans would have to make big adaptations to live as people do in Japanese or South Korean cities. The giant city that I know best (Chicago) has good public transit that I find easy to use even if I live 150 miles away and use it rarely. On the other hand if I lived outside of the densely-populated core of Chicago I would still need a car just to go to the grocery store or a medical office.

People in rural areas will still need cars just for getting groceries and going to church, the doctor's or dentist's office, civic or fraternal organizations, or the out-of-town game between the high schools of towns sixty miles apart. This said, the middle class in New York City is priced out of owning cars, but poor people in rural New Mexico still  need cars and would be helpless without them.