On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 11:18:21 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 21/09/2013 8:10 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:11:47 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> 
> 
>> Indeed.  Douglas Adams had a theory about that:
>>
>>
> Pity, he did not have a theory about keeping deadlines.

:)

Well, he sort of did, but it had to do more with the noise they made as 
they went past. :)

>> "Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary
>> and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that's
>> invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and
>> exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
>> Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order
>> of things."
>>
>>
> It sounds like a good theory but I don't really think that it cuts the
> mustard.

Well, like I said, the ages involved perhaps aren't accurate for 
everyone, but for a large number of people, I think this makes a lot of 
sense.

>> I'm now 43 (as of a couple weeks ago)
> 
> Belated happy birthday.

Thanks!

>> - I think the ages aren't necessarily set in stone, but in principle,
>> this makes sense.  You eventually get to the point where keeping up is
>> too much of a bother, and
> 
> Yes, but at midlife?

Well, like I said, it depends on the person.  I know some people who hit 
that "35" point much earlier, and some who hit it much later.  I think 
the point isn't so much the specific values, but that this happens to 
pretty much everyone at some point.

> I've reached the stage where keeping up with domestic computer tech is
> too much bother. I don't think that it is because I'm nearing retirement
> age but that the effort is not worth the return. Especially, when
> changes are done more in the spirit of selling new products rather than
> for innovative functionality.

Another Adams quote applies:

"We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that 
works."

>> things were "always" better "back in the old days". :)
>>
>>
> I see the smiley. And I hear it often.

Yup.

> It falls into two categories, IMO.
> Life was better when I was young, people were better educated, more
> polite and had time for others. Better quality of life etc.
> And: Technology is too complicated, things were better when you could
> understand how they worked. Such as a baud rate of 9600, RAM memory 640
> kB. Cars that did not have ABS, seat belts, crumple zones. I cold go on.

Both situations are true - but I think it also is a trick the mind plays 
by idealizing the past as well.  I hear this sort of thing, for example, 
said by pundits here talking about how much better things were back when 
they were kids.  But the average American kid back in the 70s (or 
earlier) wasn't exposed to all the world's problems unless they were on a 
very huge scale.  So memories of the time tend to be far more idyllic 
than the actual time. 

> I've heard it since I was a kid and if you extrapolate backwards...

:)

> 
>> One of a couple things my parents did when I was a kid that drove me
>> crazy. Another was deciding when the one TV programme I wanted to watch
>> that day was on that *that* was the time I needed to be told to go
>> clean my room/take out the trash/whatever. 30 or 60 minutes later
>> wasn't good enough, it had to be done *right then*.
>>
>> Before we had a VCR, it was even worse.
>>
>>
> As long as you didn't repeat their mistakes.

I made a conscious effort not to.  I'm happy to say that our kid is 
pretty well adjusted, too. ;)

Post a reply to this message

On 22/09/2013 7:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 11:18:21 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>

>> Pity, he did not have a theory about keeping deadlines.
>
> :)
>
> Well, he sort of did, but it had to do more with the noise they made as
> they went past. :)
>

Woosh! ;-)


>>>
>> It sounds like a good theory but I don't really think that it cuts the
>> mustard.
>
> Well, like I said, the ages involved perhaps aren't accurate for
> everyone, but for a large number of people, I think this makes a lot of
> sense.
>

Very few of the people I know are like that.
But I won't argue, for once. :-)


>
>>> - I think the ages aren't necessarily set in stone, but in principle,
>>> this makes sense.  You eventually get to the point where keeping up is
>>> too much of a bother, and
>>
>> Yes, but at midlife?
>
> Well, like I said, it depends on the person.  I know some people who hit
> that "35" point much earlier, and some who hit it much later.  I think
> the point isn't so much the specific values, but that this happens to
> pretty much everyone at some point.
>

I am a fairy and my name is Nuff.

Fairy Nuff. ;-)

>
> Another Adams quote applies:
>
> "We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that
> works."
>

True.

>> It falls into two categories, IMO.
>> Life was better when I was young, people were better educated, more
>> polite and had time for others. Better quality of life etc.
>> And: Technology is too complicated, things were better when you could
>> understand how they worked. Such as a baud rate of 9600, RAM memory 640
>> kB. Cars that did not have ABS, seat belts, crumple zones. I cold go on.
>
> Both situations are true - but I think it also is a trick the mind plays
> by idealizing the past as well.

I think that is the crux of the matter.

> I hear this sort of thing, for example,
> said by pundits here talking about how much better things were back when
> they were kids.

Somehow some people think that most people want to hear that. I could be 
wrong and I was, once before. ;-)

> But the average American kid back in the 70s (or
> earlier) wasn't exposed to all the world's problems unless they were on a
> very huge scale.

For a start most kids don't pay attention to what is going on outside 
their own environment. And I get the feeling that most Americans are 
quite insular, happy to live in their own world. (No offence intended.)

> So memories of the time tend to be far more idyllic
> than the actual time.
>

Indeed, it is only looking back on my childhood, with the eyes of an 
adult who has travelled. That I see I was brought up in a deprived area 
and time. Then The sixties and seventies were upon us. And swinging 
Britain made everything groovy.

>>>
>> As long as you didn't repeat their mistakes.
>
> I made a conscious effort not to.  I'm happy to say that our kid is
> pretty well adjusted, too. ;)
>

:-D

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 20:30:43 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 22/09/2013 7:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 11:18:21 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Pity, he did not have a theory about keeping deadlines.
>>
>> :)
>>
>> Well, he sort of did, but it had to do more with the noise they made as
>> they went past. :)
>>
>>
> Woosh! ;-)

Yup.  The quote is actually etched into the glass of the returns desk at 
our local library. :)

>>> It sounds like a good theory but I don't really think that it cuts the
>>> mustard.
>>
>> Well, like I said, the ages involved perhaps aren't accurate for
>> everyone, but for a large number of people, I think this makes a lot of
>> sense.
>>
>>
> Very few of the people I know are like that.
> But I won't argue, for once. :-)

Awww, that's no fun. ;)

>>>> - I think the ages aren't necessarily set in stone, but in principle,
>>>> this makes sense.  You eventually get to the point where keeping up
>>>> is too much of a bother, and
>>>
>>> Yes, but at midlife?
>>
>> Well, like I said, it depends on the person.  I know some people who
>> hit that "35" point much earlier, and some who hit it much later.  I
>> think the point isn't so much the specific values, but that this
>> happens to pretty much everyone at some point.
>>
>>
> I am a fairy and my name is Nuff.
> 
> Fairy Nuff. ;-)

:)

>> Another Adams quote applies:
>>
>> "We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff
>> that works."
>>
>>
> True.

Based on that, I can respect (even if I don't agree with) his decision to 
use Macs. ;)

>> I hear this sort of thing, for example,
>> said by pundits here talking about how much better things were back
>> when they were kids.
> 
> Somehow some people think that most people want to hear that. I could be
> wrong and I was, once before. ;-)

LOL

>> But the average American kid back in the 70s (or earlier) wasn't
>> exposed to all the world's problems unless they were on a very huge
>> scale.
> 
> For a start most kids don't pay attention to what is going on outside
> their own environment. And I get the feeling that most Americans are
> quite insular, happy to live in their own world. (No offence intended.)

Exactly.  And yeah, no offense taken - I see this with a lot of people I 
interact with over here - the only thing that matters is them, not the 
other people around them.

It's less common amongst liberals, I think, than conservatives.  The 
irony is that many conservatives claim to be Christian, but then do 
things like cut foot stamp programs because they help those "freeloading 
poor people".  Yeah, because living high on the hog when you're poor is 
*so* great.

>> So memories of the time tend to be far more idyllic than the actual
>> time.
>>
>>
> Indeed, it is only looking back on my childhood, with the eyes of an
> adult who has travelled. That I see I was brought up in a deprived area
> and time. Then The sixties and seventies were upon us. And swinging
> Britain made everything groovy.

One of the most eye-opening experiences I had was going to Moscow when I 
was 17.  Seeing that people there were essentially the same as people 
here really colored my worldview about the difference between people and 
politicians/politics.

>>> As long as you didn't repeat their mistakes.
>>
>> I made a conscious effort not to.  I'm happy to say that our kid is
>> pretty well adjusted, too. ;)
>>
>>
> :-D

I know, a shock. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 22/09/2013 9:58 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 20:30:43 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 22/09/2013 7:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 11:18:21 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Pity, he did not have a theory about keeping deadlines.
>>>
>>> :)
>>>
>>> Well, he sort of did, but it had to do more with the noise they made as
>>> they went past. :)
>>>
>>>
>> Woosh! ;-)
>
> Yup.  The quote is actually etched into the glass of the returns desk at
> our local library. :)
>
>>>> It sounds like a good theory but I don't really think that it cuts the
>>>> mustard.
>>>
>>> Well, like I said, the ages involved perhaps aren't accurate for
>>> everyone, but for a large number of people, I think this makes a lot of
>>> sense.
>>>
>>>
>> Very few of the people I know are like that.
>> But I won't argue, for once. :-)
>
> Awww, that's no fun. ;)
>

For you maybe. :-)

>>
>> Fairy Nuff. ;-)
>
> :)
>

Up yer chuff.
Oops! did I say that out loud?

>>> Another Adams quote applies:
>>>
>>> "We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff
>>> that works."
>>>
>>>
>> True.
>
> Based on that, I can respect (even if I don't agree with) his decision to
> use Macs. ;)
>

A techy he was not.

(A worker he was not either.)

>>> I hear this sort of thing, for example,
>>> said by pundits here talking about how much better things were back
>>> when they were kids.
>>
>> Somehow some people think that most people want to hear that. I could be
>> wrong and I was, once before. ;-)
>
> LOL

I'm quoting from Peanuts.

>

> Exactly.  And yeah, no offense taken - I see this with a lot of people I
> interact with over here - the only thing that matters is them, not the
> other people around them.
>
:-(

> It's less common amongst liberals, I think, than conservatives.  The
> irony is that many conservatives claim to be Christian, but then do
> things like cut foot stamp programs because they help those "freeloading
> poor people".  Yeah, because living high on the hog when you're poor is
> *so* great.
>

Grrr!

We have the likes here too. :-(


>
> One of the most eye-opening experiences I had was going to Moscow when I
> was 17.  Seeing that people there were essentially the same as people
> here really colored my worldview about the difference between people and
> politicians/politics.
>

Yeah, people are people. It's the bloody politicians and religion, in 
fact leaders in general that give us a bad name.

>>>> As long as you didn't repeat their mistakes.
>>>
>>> I made a conscious effort not to.  I'm happy to say that our kid is
>>> pretty well adjusted, too. ;)
>>>
>>>
>> :-D
>
> I know, a shock. :)
>

No, a delight.

This is radio free Stephen, signing off until next weekend. :-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 22:09:54 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>> Very few of the people I know are like that.
>>> But I won't argue, for once. :-)
>>
>> Awww, that's no fun. ;)
>>
>>
> For you maybe. :-)

Well, from my point of view, that's the one that matters. ;)

>>> Fairy Nuff. ;-)
>>
>> :)
>>
>>
> Up yer chuff.
> Oops! did I say that out loud?

I believe you did. :)

>> Based on that, I can respect (even if I don't agree with) his decision
>> to use Macs. ;)
>>
>>
> A techy he was not.

Certainly true, though he was a fan of technology.

> (A worker he was not either.)

:)

>>> Somehow some people think that most people want to hear that. I could
>>> be wrong and I was, once before. ;-)
>>
>> LOL
> 
> I'm quoting from Peanuts.

Interesting, I don't recognise it as Peanuts myself.

>> Exactly.  And yeah, no offense taken - I see this with a lot of people
>> I interact with over here - the only thing that matters is them, not
>> the other people around them.
>>
> :-(

Black Friday is about the best example.

>> It's less common amongst liberals, I think, than conservatives.  The
>> irony is that many conservatives claim to be Christian, but then do
>> things like cut foot stamp programs because they help those
>> "freeloading poor people".  Yeah, because living high on the hog when
>> you're poor is *so* great.
>>
>>
> Grrr!
> 
> We have the likes here too. :-(

As someone who actually tried to collect unemployment (and someone who is 
reportedly pretty smart), I couldn't see how the system could be "gamed" 
the way that is claimed.

Maybe I'm just not devious enough.

>> One of the most eye-opening experiences I had was going to Moscow when
>> I was 17.  Seeing that people there were essentially the same as people
>> here really colored my worldview about the difference between people
>> and politicians/politics.
>>
>>
> Yeah, people are people. It's the bloody politicians and religion, in
> fact leaders in general that give us a bad name.

Yup.

>>> :-D
>>
>> I know, a shock. :)
>>
> No, a delight.

I'll take that, too. :)

> This is radio free Stephen, signing off until next weekend. :-)

LOL

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:523def0c$1@news.povray.org...

> Indeed.  Douglas Adams had a theory about that:

> "Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary
> and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that's
> invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting
> and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything
> invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things."

I agree with the timeline (40 next week), but I have a different 
interpretation. I feel differently about "new" things as my perspective 
increases. I remember being believing in gradeschool that we'd be 
millionaires if we "learned computers." I remember believing in Junior High 
that we'd all be replaced by robots. I remember believing in my early 20s 
that we'd all be working at home by now. I remember feeling that history was 
made up of "before the Internet" and "after the Internet."

... and I hear young people now talking the same way about social networking 
and crowd sourcing. To me, it's the young who feel these things are "against 
the natural order." As a middle-aged person, I see them as very much part of 
the natural order, just more of the same.

I remember asking my 100-year-old great-grandmother, who crossed Texas on a 
covered wagon, what she thought of modern automobiles and flying a spaceship 
to the moon. She shrugged. "People still get up, put on their shoes, and go 
out to work."

-Shay

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:523f3d6e$1@news.povray.org... 

> Both situations are true - but I think it also is a trick the mind plays 
> by idealizing the past as well.  I hear this sort of thing, for example, 
> said by pundits here talking about how much better things were back when 
> they were kids. 

BS. mindless phone games, unedited youtube media, obesity, re-blogging

Things _were_ better in the (recent) past.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:29:57 -0500, Shay wrote:

> "Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:523f3d6e$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>> Both situations are true - but I think it also is a trick the mind
>> plays by idealizing the past as well.  I hear this sort of thing, for
>> example,
>> said by pundits here talking about how much better things were back
>> when they were kids.
> 
> BS. mindless phone games, unedited youtube media, obesity, re-blogging
> 
> Things _were_ better in the (recent) past.

That's not the type of "better" I (or the pundits) am talking about.  
Nor, really, is the "recent" past what's being compared to.  The pundits 
in question (mostly on Fox news, but not exclusively there) are referring 
to the 50's and 60's, when they were kids.

One might also argue that obesity has long been around - in fact, food 
related health issues were somewhat worse back "in the old days".

But the topic the pundits in particular are talking about are things they 
claim are going on today that weren't back then (but they were, they just 
weren't aware of them because, as a kid, you don't notice international 
events so much - even when they're covered in school).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:18:53 -0500, Shay wrote:

> "Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:523def0c$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>> Indeed.  Douglas Adams had a theory about that:
> 
>> "Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary
>> and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that's
>> invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and
>> exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
>> Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order
>> of things."
> 
> I agree with the timeline (40 next week), but I have a different
> interpretation. I feel differently about "new" things as my perspective
> increases. I remember being believing in gradeschool that we'd be
> millionaires if we "learned computers." I remember believing in Junior
> High that we'd all be replaced by robots. I remember believing in my
> early 20s that we'd all be working at home by now. I remember feeling
> that history was made up of "before the Internet" and "after the
> Internet."

Yep.

> ... and I hear young people now talking the same way about social
> networking and crowd sourcing. To me, it's the young who feel these
> things are "against the natural order." As a middle-aged person, I see
> them as very much part of the natural order, just more of the same.

Well, yes, but these "new" things aren't really that new.  The way I look 
at technology is that the same ideas get rehashed over and over again.  
"Social media" today is what the BBS was when we were kids.  The numbers 
of people are much larger (and the various systems were more diverse/
separate back then, excluding FidoNET), but conceptually, it's not that 
much different.

> I remember asking my 100-year-old great-grandmother, who crossed Texas
> on a covered wagon, what she thought of modern automobiles and flying a
> spaceship to the moon. She shrugged. "People still get up, put on their
> shoes, and go out to work."

That's an interesting take - I usually apply it to so-called "hero 
worship" that's popular today.  I have all the respect in the world for, 
let's say, people like Mike Massimino, but at the end of the day, he 
still takes his pants off just like anyone else.  (Well, OK, it's maybe a 
little different in zero-G environments, but you know what I mean)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:5249dcd8@news.povray.org...

> One might also argue that obesity has long been around - in fact, food
> related health issues were somewhat worse back "in the old days".

Any evidence to for that opinion (excluding famine) would surprise me. I 
went to a seven-year-old's birthday party a few weeks ago. Every child there 
would have been considered overweight when we were kids.

> But the topic the pundits in particular are talking about

I'll take your word for it. I don't watch television or listen to talk 
radio.

-Shay

Post a reply to this message