Tendo City

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EC5sbdvnvQM?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EC5sbdvnvQM?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

What gets me isn't what they got wrong (like the 3 computers lined up next to each other, or the touch pad instead of a keyboard) but the still that was actually pretty much spot on (like the fact that people still feel the need to print out bank statements).

It's always fun seeing what people in the 50's and 60's thought modern times would be like.

It's even more fun when you find examples of futurism that actually end up being rather accurate. Hell, it was fairly progressive for a 1960s vision of computer technology to not include massive, room-sized units with vacuum tubes and spinning reels and 600 incomprehensible buttons. The computers in this video actually bear a reasonable resemblance to PCs. I can't even remember seeing a 1960s computer of the future with a QWERTY keyboard and I'm certain I've never seen one which predicted flat-panel displays.

Of course, in all examples, either fashion stays firmly planted in 1957 or everybody wears shiny jumpsuits.

That's pretty cool, definitely quite accurate for a 1960s computer vision... impressive, with the internet-ish aspects, etc.

Sexist too of course, but it was the 1960s.

Quote:Of course, in all examples, either fashion stays firmly planted in 1957 or everybody wears shiny jumpsuits.

We do similar things with our sci-fi today, either fashion is slightly modified things from today or it's shiny jumpsuits, most of the time. :)

Yeah, plainly sexist, no getting around that.

There is only one condition in which we can imagine managers not needing subordinates, and masters not needing slaves.

This condition would be that each (inanimate) instrument could do its own work, at the word of command or by intelligent anticipation, like the statues of Daedalus or the tripods made by Hephaestus, of which Homer relates that

"Of their own motion they entered the conclave of Gods on Olympus"

as if a shuttle should weave of itself, and a plectrum should do its own harp playing.

Aristotle ~

Automation ,

Yeah they're talking about post scarcity, and it's probably feasible. Though, let's face it, those with lots of power thanks to cash won't get to that point quietly. If we actually are capable of achieving that level of technology, the only thing that could stop it, that WOULD stop it, would be the majority of people vilifying it as evil and corrupt.

That's not too far fetched. CNN has taken to reviving the long debunked fear of cell phones causing cancer. (To put it clearly, cell phones use microwaves, which are below the energy level needed to break apart the bonds of DNA. Breaking apart DNA is the only known mechanism for causing cancer with radiation. Visible light is more energetic than microwaves. The second claim, of "literally cooking" the brain, is simply false. That's not something that metasticizes over years, cooking takes place pretty much immediately. If that was happening, people would be dropping dead all over the place. Put a hot pocket next to your cell phone and leave it on over night, and a few feet away put a hot pocket without a phone. See if either one cooks. Fact is, working in the noon sun cooks your brain much more than the weak level of microwaves that a cell phone releases, and most brains seem to cope with that okay. It is downright stupid that people are panicking over this nonsense. If there is no possible mechanism, then there's no cause for believing it.)

Quote:That's not too far fetched. CNN has taken to reviving the long debunked fear of cell phones causing cancer. (To put it clearly, cell phones use microwaves, which are below the energy level needed to break apart the bonds of DNA. Breaking apart DNA is the only known mechanism for causing cancer with radiation. Visible light is more energetic than microwaves. The second claim, of "literally cooking" the brain, is simply false. That's not something that metasticizes over years, cooking takes place pretty much immediately. If that was happening, people would be dropping dead all over the place. Put a hot pocket next to your cell phone and leave it on over night, and a few feet away put a hot pocket without a phone. See if either one cooks. Fact is, working in the noon sun cooks your brain much more than the weak level of microwaves that a cell phone releases, and most brains seem to cope with that okay. It is downright stupid that people are panicking over this nonsense. If there is no possible mechanism, then there's no cause for believing it.)

CNN didn't revive it, the WHO did, and it's because it was absolutely not ever debunked. CNN was just reporting the WHO decision. Sure, lots of industry-funded studies showed no link, but non-industry-funded ones were much more likely to show one. I know which I'd first believe.

It's definitely not nonsense.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who...index.html

Also, microwaves aren't dangerous? What? That's ridiculous...

Of course it's true that these things take time -- they're talking here about cancers that develop over decades -- but still, the cause is the same, and calling it "cooking" isn't wrong if that's what's happening, even if the time it takes to cause noticeable harm is fairly long.

Look, microwaves ARE NOT IONIZING! There is NO mechanism that allows it to damage DNA! You have a greater chance of getting cancer from christmas lights, because they are more energetic.

This big news was revealed by EINSTEIN IN 1905! It doesn't matter WHAT the WHO says, if there is no physical mechanism, there is no chance it can cause cancer. And yes, microwaves are EVERYWHERE. There's a small level of background microwaves permeating every single micrometer of the universe. Just about everything emits it in small doses. Phones emit a higher level, but not nearly high enough to do anything.

It's a worldwide panic over something that is physically impossible. This isn't about medical uncertainty, this is fundamental physics we're talking about. Microwaves, in ANY dose, are incapable of causing cancer. Further, microwaves in the doses we are talking about from cell phones aren't capable of heating your brain to any significant degree. A cell phone is not a microwave oven. The energy levels are not nearly as much. ANY light can heat things by the way. Visible light can cook things in high enough doses (it's how an EZ Bake oven works). Cooking and cancer are two different and distinct phenomenon, with known causes for each.

Don't believe me though. Here's a biologist mocking this nonsense:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/...ng_you.php

And a physicist:

http://www.bobpark.org/

This has nothing to do with a "big business coverup". I'm not even CHECKING what cell phone companies are claiming. However, there is no support for this nonsense.

If you believe it can cause cancer, you believe you know more about light than modern physics. I can't make it more clear than that. Show your work.

Ugh, sorry ABF, but I have no sympathy for someone falling for this sort of sensationalist nonsense when they should know better.

For some reason this always reminds me of ABF.

So DJ, how do you explain the many scientific studies that show that people who are heavy cellphone users get cancer more often? It's too many for them all to be a coincidence, I would say.

Quote:This has nothing to do with a "big business coverup". I'm not even CHECKING what cell phone companies are claiming. However, there is no support for this nonsense.

It's a fact that industry funded studies almost never show a link, while other studies are much more likely to. That is absolutely true.

Quote:So DJ, how do you explain the many scientific studies that show that people who are heavy cellphone users get cancer more often? It's too many for them all to be a coincidence, I would say.

correlation ≠ causation.

Also, see above. Microwave radiation is non-ionizing, which is kind of necessary for them to actually cause changes to cellular makeup. What this is is a scare, because the word 'radiation' automatically makes people think of Godzilla and cancer. Ignoring, of course, the fact that we're bathed in radiation of almost all kinds on a constant basis and most of it is practically harmless (in the doses we get, anyway). Cosmic rays are probably a more serious threat than cell phone microwaves.

Link those studies. Most studies DON'T show any link.

I have to correct something though.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/0...e_of_c.php

Read that. All of it. The majority of studies show no link. The few that do all seem to come from the same lab, which is suspicious and might show a flawed method. Independent verification is a big part of scientific consensus. A study by itself could be a statistical anomaly. A lot put together is much stronger. Anyway, show your "huge number of studies". Pub med's right there.

However, I have to state one thing. My understanding of cancer is dated, 1990's as Orac puts it. Modern understanding shows that DNA changes, while a major cause of it, are not the sole producer of cancer, defined as runaway growth of cells. A similar effect can be caused by hormonal, protein, or other sorts of cellular imbalance. It is feasible, remotely, that a little extra heat could cause runaway growth of cells due to a chain reaction of some sort. Further, I'll also admit that no matter how solid the physics, evidence in studies for a connection will trump that.

So what does the evidence show? Nothing. Check that site. Orac, simply put, knows more than you on this topic, but that's just an argument from authority. This is more of an argument from data. There simply isn't any that support your view.

I'm laying it all out there. The conviction that cell phones "cause cancer" is dated, with little to no supporting evidence for it. It is an 80's fear that's as wrong as the 90's obsession with "repressed memory syndrome" (remember all those alien abductions and horrible stories about kids in satanic rape cults?), and the 200X obsession with vaccines causing autism (the fear of which is actually causing a resurgence of diseases not seen in years). I'd bring up corn syrup, but the jury's still out on a couple of things about it. So far the studies seem to show no more unhealthy than consuming equal amounts of sugar (that is, not healthy, but the focus should be on reducing sweets in general, not specifically corn syrup).

Cell phones are dangerous and annoying, but not because of cancer. It's because people text to each other while driving.