EDAboard.com | EDAboard.de | EDAboard.co.uk | WTWH Media

OT: science, technology engineering, mathematic and medical

Ask a question - edaboard.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - OT: science, technology engineering, mathematic and medical

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

George Herold
Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:45 am   



On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 3:50:57 PM UTC-5, Winfield Hill wrote:
Quote:
bitrex wrote...

A boomer dreams about owning a Cadillac like how he
dreams about owning a boat, because out there,
beyond the breakers...her lawyers can't find him

When I was young I was fascinated by sailboats,
especially large ones, the grand feeling of mass
and momentum on the waves. I took lessons, got
to spend a few days sailing a friend's 50-foot
Hinckley (and repairing it), etc. But now that
I could afford one, I've lost interest.


--
Thanks,
- Win


I bought an old sunfish for $400, we put some
paint on it, and had a 'port' put in when
I busted the tiller in a big wind on the cape (cod)
(Scargo lake). Little sail boats are fun.
The salty tar who put the port in (~$100 with
$20 tip.) said I had the old style tiller,
which I could replace for the newer one, for
$1k. I said thank you again for the port,
(which allows me access to inside the hull,
so I can attach nuts to the screws.)

George H.
Oh the best thing about little boats is sailing on the edge
of the wind, and if a gust flips you over.. whee, splash
flip it back up.

bitrex
Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:45 am   



On 02/08/2019 04:35 PM, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 08:23:14 +1100, Clifford Heath <no.spam_at_please.net
wrote:

On 9/2/19 7:50 am, Winfield Hill wrote:
bitrex wrote...

A boomer dreams about owning a Cadillac like how he
dreams about owning a boat, because out there,
beyond the breakers...her lawyers can't find him

When I was young I was fascinated by sailboats,
especially large ones, the grand feeling of mass
and momentum on the waves. I took lessons, got
to spend a few days sailing a friend's 50-foot
Hinckley (and repairing it), etc. But now that
I could afford one, I've lost interest.

It used to be said "fools build houses for wise folk to live in".

You could say "fools buy boats for wise folk to crew in".

It's also been said that the 2nd greatest day in a man's life is when he
buys a boat. The greatest is when he sells it.

My father used to say that about swimming pools, too.

Clifford Heath.

We, sadly, eventually give up sailboats and motorcycles and certain
classes of people.



like older white Americans who become more ambivalent about the practice
genocide the greater the likelihood they'll die poor becomes. "Hitler
wasn't THAT bad..."

<https://imgur.com/a/vymQeAl>


Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:45 am   



On Saturday, 9 February 2019 09:30:26 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
Quote:
On 08/02/2019 19:33, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 8 February 2019 12:46:21 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 07/02/2019 05:16, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 11:54:12 +1100, Clifford Heath
no.spam_at_please.net> wrote:
On 7/2/19 3:21 am, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 13:39:25 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:

It has always been the case that about 10% of everything in the
peer reviewed literature is not to put to fine a point on it
wrong.

In the one medical subject I have some in-depth knowledge of,
99.9% is wrong. In medicine generally, the figure is 90 something
percent.

We only have your word for that. If you were to advance an argument
about why everyone else is wrong and only you can see "the one true way"
then you might stand a chance but keep repeating I am right and every
expert is wrong and you managed to sound like a paranoid fantasist.


I do fine in what I do, talk of 'standing a chance' is nonsense. Obviously I'm well aware that I'm not going to win arguments here based on not saying things, but since I'm more interested in not discussing what I'm involved in online than winning an argument with the idiot slowman, that's how it will stay. He and more reasonable people here are free to go get themselves informed or not, it's not my job to do that for them. We both know that's not a quick process.

Ultimately the position of people that object to what I say boils down to something along the lines of 'we were taught as children that it all pretty much works as it should, therefore it does, and anyone who disagrees is wrong, stupid, mad, etc etc' Sometimes it's worth remembering that that is simply what children learn in our society. In practice people tend not to see that for what it is until put in a position where they have no choice but to face it - and most are never put in that position. Some are and still cling to their childhood beliefs.


Quote:
It doesn't agree with your prejudices - that is entirely different.

whoosh

You seem preoccupied with flying pigs. If you have a scientific argument
then make it - otherwise you are Quixote tilting at imaginary windmills.


Nonsequitur, but I understand you will imagine & think that.

At the end of the day you can go study the subject or not. It ain't my job to lead you through it.


NT

Martin Brown
Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:45 am   



On 08/02/2019 19:33, tabbypurr_at_gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Friday, 8 February 2019 12:46:21 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 07/02/2019 05:16, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 11:54:12 +1100, Clifford Heath
no.spam_at_please.net> wrote:
On 7/2/19 3:21 am, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 13:39:25 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:

It has always been the case that about 10% of everything in the
peer reviewed literature is not to put to fine a point on it
wrong.

In the one medical subject I have some in-depth knowledge of,
99.9% is wrong. In medicine generally, the figure is 90 something
percent.


We only have your word for that. If you were to advance an argument
about why everyone else is wrong and only you can see "the one true way"
then you might stand a chance but keep repeating I am right and every
expert is wrong and you managed to sound like a paranoid fantasist.

Quote:

It doesn't agree with your prejudices - that is entirely different.

whoosh


You seem preoccupied with flying pigs. If you have a scientific argument
then make it - otherwise you are Quixote tilting at imaginary windmills.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown


Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:45 am   



On Friday, 8 February 2019 21:13:51 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
Quote:
On 8/2/19 9:38 pm, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 7 February 2019 10:33:01 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/2/19 9:01 pm, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 7 February 2019 03:29:06 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/2/19 12:56 pm, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 7 February 2019 00:54:20 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/2/19 3:21 am, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 13:39:25 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/02/2019 12:00, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 10:38:46 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/02/2019 06:33, John Robertson wrote:

Was this peer reviewed? No one READ it before it was published, this is
on the front page.

Peer reviewed doesn't guarantee quality.

understatement of the century there.

You are *way* too cynical and paranoid.

It has always been the case that about 10% of everything in the peer
reviewed literature is not to put to fine a point on it wrong.

In the one medical subject I have some in-depth knowledge of, 99.9% is wrong. In medicine generally, the figure is 90 something percent.

Every description of reality is wrong. Some are just less wrong.
Peer review is one way to start sorting out which.

I just wish it were effective in practice. The world would be a better place.

I'm glad I wasn't born a century ago.

I get to live twice as long, and ten times as well.

That seems pretty effective to me.

Clifford Heath.

It's an advance for sure. Due to a mixture of things: medical research, finanial development, the time to put various improvments in place, developments in car design, all sorts of things. Obviously medical research has brought positive results, but it's been a very miss & sometimes hit path. Now that we can do better, we need to.

You misinterpret. All the other things became possible because *people
live longer* because medicine and basic hygiene stopped them dying young.

When everyone died at 50-60, we didn't take the time to even get
properly educated - not if we wanted to see our grand-children. So we
certainly couldn't do the other things too.

Clifford Heath.

Obviously there are a bunch of factors, of which living longer is one.

Perhaps we could agree that there was a number of successive
bottlenecks. The stopper that was pulled on the first and biggest was
health and longevity. That drastically accelerated progress in other
areas, leading to...

More efficient practices is another leading to shorter working weeks.
Hard to advance much when almost 100% of the population is working
excessive hours in fields growing crops. How you can get 'you
misinterpret' from that I don't know.


Clifford Heath.


If you look at history I don't think that increasing longevity stands out as the key to technological improvement and thus greater longevity. There are many factors along the way, perhaps the biggest early one being the industrial revolution, specifically the invention of manufacturing machines. That was not afaik caused by longevity, it was just an idea that had to happen and eventually it did.

We have longevity now, but also many other factors that permit greater technological progress, and thus not surprisingly rising life expectancy.


NT

Martin Brown
Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:45 am   



On 09/02/2019 01:45, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:
Quote:
On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 8:13:51 AM UTC+11, Clifford Heath
wrote:
On 8/2/19 9:38 pm, tabbypurr_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, 7 February 2019 10:33:01 UTC, Clifford Heath
wrote:
On 7/2/19 9:01 pm, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 7 February 2019 03:29:06 UTC, Clifford Heath
wrote:
On 7/2/19 12:56 pm, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 7 February 2019 00:54:20 UTC, Clifford Heath
wrote:
On 7/2/19 3:21 am, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 13:39:25 UTC, Martin
Brown wrote:
On 06/02/2019 12:00, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 10:38:46 UTC,
Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/02/2019 06:33, John Robertson wrote:

Was this peer reviewed? No one READ it before
it was published, this is on the front page.

Peer reviewed doesn't guarantee quality.

understatement of the century there.

You are *way* too cynical and paranoid.

It has always been the case that about 10% of
everything in the peer reviewed literature is not
to put to fine a point on it wrong.

In the one medical subject I have some in-depth
knowledge of, 99.9% is wrong. In medicine generally,
the figure is 90 something percent.

Every description of reality is wrong. Some are just
less wrong. Peer review is one way to start sorting out
which.

I just wish it were effective in practice. The world
would be a better place.

I'm glad I wasn't born a century ago.

I get to live twice as long, and ten times as well.

That seems pretty effective to me.

Clifford Heath.

It's an advance for sure. Due to a mixture of things: medical
research, finanial development, the time to put various
improvments in place, developments in car design, all sorts
of things. Obviously medical research has brought positive
results, but it's been a very miss & sometimes hit path. Now
that we can do better, we need to.

You misinterpret. All the other things became possible because
*people live longer* because medicine and basic hygiene stopped
them dying young.

When everyone died at 50-60, we didn't take the time to even
get properly educated - not if we wanted to see our
grand-children. So we certainly couldn't do the other things
too.

Clifford Heath.

Obviously there are a bunch of factors, of which living longer is
one.

Perhaps we could agree that there was a number of successive
bottlenecks. The stopper that was pulled on the first and biggest
was health and longevity. That drastically accelerated progress in
other areas, leading to...

This is a matter of opinion. In the histories I've read, the Second
Agricultural Revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Agricultural_Revolution

which doubled agricultural productivity in the UK from about 1700 to
1850 was the crucial first step. People got better fed and healthier,
and could move off the land into industry without running the risk of
starving to death if spring was late.


That is a slightly rose tinted view of it.

People moved from agricultural labourer into the cities to avoid
starving to death in the rural communities. The slums of Mnachester and
other major cities were about as grim as it could get. The latter
inspired mill owner Engels to write The Condition of the Working Class
In England 1844. And later somewhat more benign industrialists wives
like Florence Bell in Middlesbrough to write "At the works".
Quote:

You could also afford to send kids to primary school, rather than
using them to help produce barely enough food.


Instead they were mostly tasked with getting in and out of moving cotton
machinery to sweep out the dust bunnies. Or being put up chimneys (as
happened to one poor lad killed at Isaac Lowthian Bells home). And he
was one of the relatively good guys (he also had a coachman to freeze to
death waiting for him outside some premises). After those two events in
quick succession he moved house and became a much better employer.
Quote:

More efficient practices is another leading to shorter working
weeks. Hard to advance much when almost 100% of the population is
working excessive hours in fields growing crops. How you can get
'you misinterpret' from that I don't know.

You put getting healthier before getting better fed, when getting
adequately fed the whole year around is a necessary precondition for
getting healthier.


Unfortunately today being overfed junk food the year round and never
taking any exercise as has become endemic in nearly half the UK & US
population is not at all good for life expectancy. The hard won
improvements in health of the overall population have stalled.
Quote:

Almost all medieval skeletons have annual starvation rings on their
teeth - you had to be way up the social ladder to get enough food in
late winter to avoid them. They also tend to be stunted, which
wouldn't have helped brain development either.


Certainly true. Modern agriculture has made a big difference.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown


Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:45 am   



On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 8:26:08 PM UTC+11, Martin Brown wrote:
Quote:
On 09/02/2019 01:45, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 8:13:51 AM UTC+11, Clifford Heath
wrote:
On 8/2/19 9:38 pm, tabbypurr_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, 7 February 2019 10:33:01 UTC, Clifford Heath
wrote:
On 7/2/19 9:01 pm, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 7 February 2019 03:29:06 UTC, Clifford Heath
wrote:
On 7/2/19 12:56 pm, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 7 February 2019 00:54:20 UTC, Clifford Heath
wrote:
On 7/2/19 3:21 am, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 13:39:25 UTC, Martin
Brown wrote:
On 06/02/2019 12:00, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 10:38:46 UTC,
Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/02/2019 06:33, John Robertson wrote:


<snip>

Quote:
I'm glad I wasn't born a century ago.

I get to live twice as long, and ten times as well.

That seems pretty effective to me.

It's an advance for sure. Due to a mixture of things: medical
research, financial development, the time to put various
improvments in place, developments in car design, all sorts
of things. Obviously medical research has brought positive
results, but it's been a very miss & sometimes hit path. Now
that we can do better, we need to.

You misinterpret. All the other things became possible because
*people live longer* because medicine and basic hygiene stopped
them dying young.

When everyone died at 50-60, we didn't take the time to even
get properly educated - not if we wanted to see our
grand-children. So we certainly couldn't do the other things
too.

Obviously there are a bunch of factors, of which living longer is
one.

Perhaps we could agree that there was a number of successive
bottlenecks. The stopper that was pulled on the first and biggest
was health and longevity. That drastically accelerated progress in
other areas, leading to...

This is a matter of opinion. In the histories I've read, the Second
Agricultural Revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Agricultural_Revolution

which doubled agricultural productivity in the UK from about 1700 to
1850 was the crucial first step. People got better fed and healthier,
and could move off the land into industry without running the risk of
starving to death if spring was late.

That is a slightly rose tinted view of it.

People moved from agricultural labourer into the cities to avoid
starving to death in the rural communities.


Higher agricultural productivity meant that you didn't need as many agricultural labourers, and the redundant labourers moved to the cities where they could get work. They wouldn't have starved to death if they had stayed put, but workhouses didn't provide an attractive environment for the unemployed.

Quote:
The slums of Manchester and
other major cities were about as grim as it could get. The latter
inspired mill owner Engels to write The Condition of the Working Class
In England 1844.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels

didn't actually own a mill himself - his parents did, and they sent him to work at the mill in Manchester in the hope of curing him of his socialist leanings, which predated his time in Manchester. He met Karl Marx on his way to Manchester, but he'd been in contact with him before that.

Quote:
And later somewhat more benign industrialists wives
like Florence Bell in Middlesborough to write "At the works".


Grim, but not actually lethal. UK life expectancy rose from 1850 onwards.

<https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/articles/howhaslifeexpectancychangedovertime/2015-09-09>

Quote:
You could also afford to send kids to primary school, rather than
using them to help produce barely enough food.

Instead they were mostly tasked with getting in and out of moving cotton
machinery to sweep out the dust bunnies.


https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/child-labour

The fact that you could afford to send children to primary school is a precondition that has to be met before you can do it. Getting people motivated to do it did take a while.

https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/child-labour

The UK Education Act of 1880 came rather later than it might have

<snip>

Quote:
Almost all medieval skeletons have annual starvation rings on their
teeth - you had to be way up the social ladder to get enough food in
late winter to avoid them. They also tend to be stunted, which
wouldn't have helped brain development either.

Certainly true. Modern agriculture has made a big difference.


And it got modern fairly early on.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Martin Brown
Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:45 am   



On 09/02/2019 09:27, tabbypurr_at_gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Friday, 8 February 2019 21:13:51 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 8/2/19 9:38 pm, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 7 February 2019 10:33:01 UTC, Clifford Heath
wrote:

You misinterpret. All the other things became possible because
*people live longer* because medicine and basic hygiene stopped
them dying young.

When everyone died at 50-60, we didn't take the time to even
get properly educated - not if we wanted to see our
grand-children. So we certainly couldn't do the other things
too.


Not everyone did, but back in the nineteenth century a lot of children
in the slums didn't make it past their fifth birthday. If a male got to
be a teenager then there was a good chance they would live to at least
40 and for a female to the birth of their first child but then it was a
lottery as to whether or not TB would claim them.

A handful of hot glassworkers that reached 40 and didn't have TB would
become publicans selling beer to the next generation and live to a ripe
old age. Most died of TB between 40 and 45 though.

Quote:
Obviously there are a bunch of factors, of which living longer is
one.

Perhaps we could agree that there was a number of successive
bottlenecks. The stopper that was pulled on the first and biggest
was health and longevity. That drastically accelerated progress in
other areas, leading to...

More efficient practices is another leading to shorter working
weeks. Hard to advance much when almost 100% of the population is
working excessive hours in fields growing crops. How you can get
'you misinterpret' from that I don't know.


Clifford Heath.

If you look at history I don't think that increasing longevity stands
out as the key to technological improvement and thus greater
longevity. There are many factors along the way, perhaps the biggest
early one being the industrial revolution, specifically the invention
of manufacturing machines. That was not afaik caused by longevity, it
was just an idea that had to happen and eventually it did.


The really major one was understanding the nature of disease pathogens
and antiseptics. Even in the early twentieth century you could die from
a trivial cut causing blood poisoning. It wasn't until antibiotics and
widespread childhood immunisation that we really got control of virulent
infectious diseases. Smallpox has been wiped out. Polio is close to
being wiped out but religious zealots are standing in the way.

Measles is making a comeback thanks to the manufactured MMR vaccine
controversy pumped up by irresponsible social media chatter.

Quote:
We have longevity now, but also many other factors that permit
greater technological progress, and thus not surprisingly rising life
expectancy.


Once we had writing there was scope for everything that is presently
known to be handed down to the next generation (apart from when
religious zealots or Nazis indulge in book burning rituals).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown


Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:45 am   



On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 8:42:10 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Saturday, 9 February 2019 09:30:26 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 08/02/2019 19:33, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 8 February 2019 12:46:21 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 07/02/2019 05:16, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 11:54:12 +1100, Clifford Heath
no.spam_at_please.net> wrote:
On 7/2/19 3:21 am, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 13:39:25 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:

It has always been the case that about 10% of everything in the
peer reviewed literature is not to put to fine a point on it
wrong.

In the one medical subject I have some in-depth knowledge of,
99.9% is wrong. In medicine generally, the figure is 90 something
percent.

We only have your word for that. If you were to advance an argument
about why everyone else is wrong and only you can see "the one true way"
then you might stand a chance but keep repeating I am right and every
expert is wrong and you managed to sound like a paranoid fantasist.

I do fine in what I do, talk of 'standing a chance' is nonsense. Obviously I'm well aware that I'm not going to win arguments here based on not saying things, but since I'm more interested in not discussing what I'm involved in online than winning an argument with the idiot slowman, that's how it will stay. He and more reasonable people here are free to go get themselves informed or not, it's not my job to do that for them. We both know that's not a quick process.


With NT and John Larkin, the process is not so much not quick as not happening at all.

> Ultimately the position of people that object to what I say boils down to something along the lines of 'we were taught as children that it all pretty much works as it should, therefore it does, and anyone who disagrees is wrong, stupid, mad, etc etc'

Actually my objection to NT is that he rarely says anything particularly specific.

Quote:
It doesn't agree with your prejudices - that is entirely different.

whoosh

You seem preoccupied with flying pigs. If you have a scientific argument
then make it - otherwise you are Quixote tilting at imaginary windmills..

Nonsequitur, but I understand you will imagine & think that.

At the end of the day you can go study the subject or not. It ain't my job to lead you through it.


Actually, NT posts so little specific information that it's difficult to imagine what he thinks that we might study.

The rare occasions when he has been specific - declaring amygdalin to be a useful treatment for cancer, and telling us that anthropogenic global warming stopped in 1998 - it doesn't take much study to show him up as a gullible nitwit.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:45 am   



On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 9:00:33 PM UTC+11, Martin Brown wrote:
Quote:
On 09/02/2019 09:27, tabbypurr_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 8 February 2019 21:13:51 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 8/2/19 9:38 pm, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 7 February 2019 10:33:01 UTC, Clifford Heath
wrote:


<snip>

Quote:
The really major one was understanding the nature of disease pathogens
and antiseptics.


Being able to grow enough food trumps that. The most perfect understanding of disease pathogens doesn't help much if you are starved to the point where your immune system doesn't work.

Quote:
Even in the early twentieth century you could die from
a trivial cut causing blood poisoning. It wasn't until antibiotics and
widespread childhood immunisation that we really got control of virulent
infectious diseases.


Enough food and clean water made a big difference in life expectancy quite a while before anybody had a clue about antibiotics. Phenol is an antibiotic - in the sense that it kills all living things, but it is usually called an antiseptic.

Antibiotics are usually dated from Paul Ehrlich's salvarsan, discovered in 1910. The next one to show up was sulfanilamide in 1933.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:45 pm   



On Saturday, 9 February 2019 10:00:33 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
Quote:
On 09/02/2019 09:27, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 8 February 2019 21:13:51 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 8/2/19 9:38 pm, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 7 February 2019 10:33:01 UTC, Clifford Heath
wrote:

You misinterpret. All the other things became possible because
*people live longer* because medicine and basic hygiene stopped
them dying young.

When everyone died at 50-60, we didn't take the time to even
get properly educated - not if we wanted to see our
grand-children. So we certainly couldn't do the other things
too.

Not everyone did, but back in the nineteenth century a lot of children
in the slums didn't make it past their fifth birthday. If a male got to
be a teenager then there was a good chance they would live to at least
40 and for a female to the birth of their first child but then it was a
lottery as to whether or not TB would claim them.

A handful of hot glassworkers that reached 40 and didn't have TB would
become publicans selling beer to the next generation and live to a ripe
old age. Most died of TB between 40 and 45 though.


a high death rate before age 5 is still true in some parts of the world eg Afghanistan

Quote:
Obviously there are a bunch of factors, of which living longer is
one.

Perhaps we could agree that there was a number of successive
bottlenecks. The stopper that was pulled on the first and biggest
was health and longevity. That drastically accelerated progress in
other areas, leading to...

More efficient practices is another leading to shorter working
weeks. Hard to advance much when almost 100% of the population is
working excessive hours in fields growing crops. How you can get
'you misinterpret' from that I don't know.


Clifford Heath.

If you look at history I don't think that increasing longevity stands
out as the key to technological improvement and thus greater
longevity. There are many factors along the way, perhaps the biggest
early one being the industrial revolution, specifically the invention
of manufacturing machines. That was not afaik caused by longevity, it
was just an idea that had to happen and eventually it did.

The really major one was understanding the nature of disease pathogens
and antiseptics. Even in the early twentieth century you could die from
a trivial cut causing blood poisoning.


people still do, even in UK, US etc.

Quote:
It wasn't until antibiotics and
widespread childhood immunisation that we really got control of virulent
infectious diseases. Smallpox has been wiped out. Polio is close to
being wiped out but religious zealots are standing in the way.

Measles is making a comeback thanks to the manufactured MMR vaccine
controversy pumped up by irresponsible social media chatter.

We have longevity now, but also many other factors that permit
greater technological progress, and thus not surprisingly rising life
expectancy.

Once we had writing there was scope for everything that is presently
known to be handed down to the next generation (apart from when
religious zealots or Nazis indulge in book burning rituals).


There were lots of major influences in longevity & pace of technological change. Let's make a start:
the move to lands that supported high levels of food plant growth
the breaking of christianity's hold on a fair bit of the world
gaining freedom from the feudal system
the development of science
the development of political stability, law & justice
writing & printing
the invention/development of machinery
and power sources: water, wind, steam, oil based fuels, electricity, nuclear power
the development of standards
transport development: animals, bicycle, train, motorbike, car & truck, ship, aeroplane etc
education
ever improving methods of doing business, which gradually make the process more efficient & thus lower the cost of goods & services
numerous medical advances
the development of plastics
changing attitudes in society
increasing longevity, which is a result of above factors

There are lots of factors, all of which are to varying degrees fairly major in their influence on longevity.

Antibiotics have an important place, but they're not 'it.' Before penicillin there were mouldy bread, soil, alcohol, garlic, silver, salvarsan, neosalvarsan & phages. And others. Penicillin was a breakthrough in that it had fairly high effectiveness, low toxicity and after years became affordable, but it was neither the start nor the finale of antibiotics.


NT

Clifford Heath
Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:45 pm   



On 9/2/19 9:25 pm, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:
Quote:
On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 9:00:33 PM UTC+11, Martin Brown wrote:
On 09/02/2019 09:27, tabbypurr_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 8 February 2019 21:13:51 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 8/2/19 9:38 pm, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 7 February 2019 10:33:01 UTC, Clifford Heath
wrote:

snip

The really major one was understanding the nature of disease pathogens
and antiseptics.

Being able to grow enough food trumps that.


That's completely wrong.

Hint: There has nearly always been enough people to sometimes exhaust
the food supply. Population grows to meet the food supply, then some.

Only when we gained some insight into how to reduce unnecessary death
did folk have any incentive to think about reducing birth.


Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:45 pm   



On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 10:58:48 PM UTC+11, Clifford Heath wrote:
Quote:
On 9/2/19 9:25 pm, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 9:00:33 PM UTC+11, Martin Brown wrote:
On 09/02/2019 09:27, tabbypurr_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 8 February 2019 21:13:51 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 8/2/19 9:38 pm, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 7 February 2019 10:33:01 UTC, Clifford Heath
wrote:

snip

The really major one was understanding the nature of disease pathogens
and antiseptics.

Being able to grow enough food trumps that.

That's completely wrong.


You may want to think so, but clean water and an adequate diet pushed up life expectancy well before antiseptics were used outside of operating theatres.

Quote:
Hint: There has nearly always been enough people to sometimes exhaust
the food supply. Population grows to meet the food supply, then some.


And what used to limit that growth was people dying off in scads whenever the crops failed, or weren't all that good. Some starved, but more got weak enough to be easy prey for infectious diseases. Kids don't have the fat reserves that adults do, so they get malnourished faster, and get sick sooner.

India lost millions of people at a time in bad years up to the 1950's, and China lost between 15 and 45 million people between 1959 and 1961.

Quote:
Only when we gained some insight into how to reduce unnecessary death
did folk have any incentive to think about reducing birth.


Having enough food is the first step to reducing "unnecessary" deaths. That doesn't take any insight at all.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Martin Brown
Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:45 pm   



On 09/02/2019 14:40, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:
Quote:
On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 10:58:48 PM UTC+11, Clifford Heath
wrote:
On 9/2/19 9:25 pm, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 9:00:33 PM UTC+11, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 09/02/2019 09:27, tabbypurr_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 8 February 2019 21:13:51 UTC, Clifford Heath
wrote:
On 8/2/19 9:38 pm, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 7 February 2019 10:33:01 UTC, Clifford
Heath wrote:

snip

The really major one was understanding the nature of disease
pathogens and antiseptics.

Being able to grow enough food trumps that.

That's completely wrong.

You may want to think so, but clean water and an adequate diet pushed
up life expectancy well before antiseptics were used outside of
operating theatres.


Although there was a common work around for impure water provided that
it wasn't chemically toxic like the arsenic in well water problem. Most
people drank thin beer where the nasties had been killed off by the
yeast fermentation. I have lived in countries without potable drinking
water on tap it is bit of a hassle but you quickly get used to it or
suffer the consequences. It is more worrying when to make it potable
they hit it with so much chlorine you can smell chloroform in the air
when you take a hot shower. That has also happened to me.

Quote:
Hint: There has nearly always been enough people to sometimes
exhaust the food supply. Population grows to meet the food supply,
then some.

And what used to limit that growth was people dying off in scads
whenever the crops failed, or weren't all that good. Some starved,
but more got weak enough to be easy prey for infectious diseases.
Kids don't have the fat reserves that adults do, so they get
malnourished faster, and get sick sooner.

India lost millions of people at a time in bad years up to the
1950's, and China lost between 15 and 45 million people between 1959
and 1961.


Famines are often man made - there is enough food to go around but the
ones who are starving do not have the money to buy food and because the
subsistence crops have failed locally have nothing left to fall back on.

Ireland was exporting grain to the UK during the infamous potato famine.
https://www.historyireland.com/18th-19th-century-history/food-exports-from-ireland-1846-47/

Quote:
Only when we gained some insight into how to reduce unnecessary
death did folk have any incentive to think about reducing birth.

Having enough food is the first step to reducing "unnecessary"
deaths. That doesn't take any insight at all.


Enough perhaps but you can survive on rather less than the optimum diet.
You die of dehydration very quickly without some sort of potable water.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

bitrex
Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:45 pm   



On 02/09/2019 10:13 AM, Winfield Hill wrote:
Quote:
George Herold wrote...

I bought an old sunfish for $400, we put some
paint on it, and had a 'port' put in when
I busted the tiller in a big wind on the cape (cod)
(Scargo lake). Little sail boats are fun.
The salty tar who put the port in (~$100 with
$20 tip.) said I had the old style tiller,
which I could replace for the newer one, for
$1k. I said thank you again for the port,
(which allows me access to inside the hull,
so I can attach nuts to the screws.)

George H.
Oh the best thing about little boats is sailing
on the edge of the wind, and if a gust flips
you over.. whee, splash flip it back up.

Even if you're not sailing on the edge,
sailing small boats on inland lakes with
gusty wind can make for lots of fun spills.



I learned to sail at summer camp on one of Massachusetts' lakes
with a variety of hazards, on a Sunfish or small catamaran crewed by
three or four ten year olds, back when ten year olds were allowed to do
that sort of thing on their lonesome. If it floated we could find a way
to capsize it

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - OT: science, technology engineering, mathematic and medical

Ask a question - edaboard.com

Arabic version Bulgarian version Catalan version Czech version Danish version German version Greek version English version Spanish version Finnish version French version Hindi version Croatian version Indonesian version Italian version Hebrew version Japanese version Korean version Lithuanian version Latvian version Dutch version Norwegian version Polish version Portuguese version Romanian version Russian version Slovak version Slovenian version Serbian version Swedish version Tagalog version Ukrainian version Vietnamese version Chinese version Turkish version
EDAboard.com map