Technology Facts

Forums › Off topic › Technology Facts

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#903897 27-Sep-2013 18:09

SepticSceptic: In 1976 USA had landed the Viking landers on Mars. 30 or so years later, they did it again with another lander / rover.

30years before 1976 is 1946, and we had barely entered the jet age, and the rocket age. Big leap in technology from 1946 to 1976, not so much from 1976 to 2006.

Are we stagnating ?

Jet (and space) age - follow on from massive govt investment in armament / aerospace projects in WW2.
It is amazing though - that if you look at an A380, superficially it's not any different from a DC8 or 707, not faster, but a bit bigger, more economical, quieter, and more automated (a bit safer too). Less freaking legroom than the days when to travel by jet really was something special - and you expected to pay through the nose. I remember as a kid when 747s were being developed - in the brochures the top deck was invariably shown as all bar and lounge area, full of leggy models wearing very short Mary Quant miniskirts, drinking VAT 69. Ahhhh - those were the days.
The Apollo program sucked up almost 5% of the US federal budget - about 10 time less (relatively) in 2012. If they'd have kept going at that rate, we'd have been to Mars and back by now.

SaltyNZ

8218 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#903900 27-Sep-2013 18:16

Fred99:
SepticSceptic: In 1976 USA had landed the Viking landers on Mars. 30 or so years later, they did it again with another lander / rover.

30years before 1976 is 1946, and we had barely entered the jet age, and the rocket age. Big leap in technology from 1946 to 1976, not so much from 1976 to 2006.

Are we stagnating ?

Jet (and space) age - follow on from massive govt investment in armament / aerospace projects in WW2.
It is amazing though - that if you look at an A380, superficially it's not any different from a DC8 or 707, not faster, but a bit bigger, more economical, quieter, and more automated (a bit safer too). Less freaking legroom than the days when to travel by jet really was something special - and you expected to pay through the nose. I remember as a kid when 747s were being developed - in the brochures the top deck was invariably shown as all bar and lounge area, full of leggy models wearing very short Mary Quant miniskirts, drinking VAT 69. Ahhhh - those were the days.
The Apollo program sucked up almost 5% of the US federal budget - about 10 time less (relatively) in 2012. If they'd have kept going at that rate, we'd have been to Mars and back by now.

I remember when the A380 brochures showed an onboard gym & cinema. But the reality was the same as the 747. :-D

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#904062 28-Sep-2013 11:11

shk292: It's a well known fact that cellular base stations cause cancer

Fortunately, there are some very effective homeopathic remedies for this form of cancer

SaltyNZ:
mattwnz:
SaltyNZ: 21. Having a cell site near your house has no effect on your health one way or the other
22. Your iPhone doesn't work without them

You mean no 'proven' effect on health 'at this stage'. They used to say the same thing about smoking, and doctors even prescribed cigarettes. But you never know what scientists may find in the future, and it is largely all about funding to do independent research which is very hard to get.

Sure, if you like. But there have been study after study done over the last 30 years regarding the effects of cellular radios on health. The most damning studies showed that continuous radiation several million times more powerful than an actual cell site might have adverse impacts. As would drinking a million glasses of water or eating a million carrots a day, or standing a million times closer to that beautiful sunshine.

The last person who tried to quote studies at me to show that ZOMG CANCER cited a study which, if you spend 10 seconds reading the abstract, shows no effect whatsoever from cell sites. In fact, from the numbers in the abstract one could just as easily conclude that living near a cell site decreased your risk of cancer. The WHO put cellular radiation into the 'possibly carcinogenic' category a couple of years ago. You know what else is on that list? Talcum powder, and being a carpenter.

The fact is that if there is an impact on your health due to cellular radiation, it's so small that even after 30 years of concerted effort, nobody has been able to measure it. As far as I am concerned, that's as good as 'none'. There are plenty of dangerous things to panic over. Cell sites are not one of them.

You may also be interested to learn that doctors still prescribe cigarettes to people with certain illnesses. Despite their known impact on the lungs, they are an effective relief for certain kinds of bowel condition. For one person I know, the increased risk of lung disease later in life is far outweighed by the advantages of not spending that life sitting on the toilet.

It would be a pretty safe bet that nearly everyone complaining about all the cancer causing radiation spewing out of cell towers has a cellphone or two. Irony?

Whatifthespacekeyhadneverbeeninvented?

BinaryLimited

796 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#906189 2-Oct-2013 09:28

Did you know?

Binary Limited - Safe. Secure. Simple. ™
www.binarylimited.co.nz

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5