By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I've been boring the future ex wife about prices. Companies are clever, they have been gradually rising so you don't realise.
Take a chicken. A chicken is a loss leader and generally massively underpriced at £3.99 or 3 for a tenner. They are currently about £4.50 and within a couple of weeks they will be £5 and £6 by July - bookmark this!
Cooking oil - I mentioned this a week ago (this actually is Ukraine thing) - price is now through the roof if you can get it!
Big stuff like garden furniture with a high CBM - forget it! Sets were £299 but now £799 - they are so large that you are shipping air at quadruple the freight CBM cost
Also hidden inflation by making sizes, packets etc smaller.
Mind you, they've been doing this for years ... we all remember when Curly wurly's were a foot long and two inches wide right?
1
On Putin’s health on 07:42 - May 13 with 1276 views
I've been listening mate, and I make you dead right.
This is the latest video of a guy I've been following the last couple if years. I was put on to him by a financial advisor who said he was very good and rarely wrong in matters economic.
Pah!! Where's his tin foil hat or something....it's all going to be fine!
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
Humans would rebuild eventually and the same type would rise to the top by default.
The idea that we as a species would learn by our mistakes ignores that we have repeatedly failed to do so to date.
My point being, is that the nicer types weren't/aren't a threat in the first place and never will be, but the madder, twisted sorts will always return and want the same elements of power leading to the same old cycles...
The really warped sorts would probably reinvent things like Battenberg. The intent to inflict pain and misery will always resurface.
I read an interesting article yesterday, and that is the theory why aliens havent visited us by now. According to the Fermi Paradox - the universe should be teeming with life, but yet none is evident - to us at least. He asked the question "So where is everyone?"
The best theory to explain this is that advanced civilisations ultimately destroy themselves, and will most likely be our fate too before we even manage to venture beyond our own solar system.
"Blueas is a great guy, one of the best." - Donald Trump
Not by the 60s/70s/80s they weren’t Lucan. The US stockpile was 30k in the mid sixties and the Russians reached that by the 1980s. MAD well and truly achieved many times over. Sickening and makes me feel ill to think about it.
The option is so bad I cannot see it happening - but maybe that’s me embracing blind optimism.
I hope you are wrong about Putin, but again, you may be right. If he even thinks about it, I hope somebody in the Russian military is brave enough to stop him.
The world will never be a truly safe place until we get rid of nuclear weapons. (Which will likely never happen).
Oppenheimer was right when he said "I have become the destroyer of worlds". It's just a matter of time until his prophecy comes true.
Our fate was sealed by the Manhattan Project.
"Blueas is a great guy, one of the best." - Donald Trump
On Putin’s health on 02:32 - May 13 by Kropotkin123
Ah yes, the illusion of taking these things seriously... Duck and cover!
Was as much psychological as practical. If you give people something active to do in the last moments before an attack, it is likely to reduce mental distress, rather than just running around in desperate panic. May also marginally increase survival rates on the periphery of target areas.
I read an interesting article yesterday, and that is the theory why aliens havent visited us by now. According to the Fermi Paradox - the universe should be teeming with life, but yet none is evident - to us at least. He asked the question "So where is everyone?"
The best theory to explain this is that advanced civilisations ultimately destroy themselves, and will most likely be our fate too before we even manage to venture beyond our own solar system.
Is this the flaw with evolution? Is intra-species as well as inter-species competition always bound to eat itself to death? There's biological evolution but only patchy and reversible spiritual evolution, so far as I can see. Even now people in their cosy little consumer lives think about what they and their family can 'get' far more than how they live happily, and don't realise that the two are not only not the same but are also, ultimately, mutually exclusive.
You may be right, Lucan. There is a touch of the hamsters about him and his complexion is waxey. I’m just aware of hopeful propaganda.
Yes the threat was there when I was growing up, all the way to the collapse of the USSR. The threat is still there, but I don’t honestly think it’s greater than those days. The same nut jobs are still out there. In the 1950s, Curtis Le May, head of Strategic Air Command, declared that if armageddon comes and there’s one American left, they would have won. It doesn’t get madder than that.
Putin has family. That alone will stop him, let alone the people surrounding him. It certainly is strange though and maybe my optimism is blind and totally misplaced.
I don't believe Putin is entirely insane, nor does he want the destruction of Russia. He is an ultra-nationalist and wants his country to survive. He seeks respect and what he considers to be its proper position in the world (as a superpower).
If he really desired a nihilistic nuclear war, it would have happened by now. Either as an opening gambit (greatest chance of success), or when thwarted in Ukraine. The constant threats are an attempt to warn off the West and make them take him seriously. The moment he starts actually using nuclear weapons, he becomes the man who destroyed Russia, not the one who restored it to glory.
Sorry Churchy, as much as I think you are ITK, I'm not in full agreement.
I wonder whether Putin cares a jot for his family, I am starting to think he is a full on nutter.
Also - the weapons back then to now were small fry - definite info.
In actual fact nuclear weapon yields have become smaller since the 1960s as delivery systems got more accurate and gained the ability to carry multiple warheads. The only reason to use something as big - and heavy - as multi-megaton devices was the fact you were likely to miss the target by a considerable distance, thus needed the largest possible blast area.
Is this the flaw with evolution? Is intra-species as well as inter-species competition always bound to eat itself to death? There's biological evolution but only patchy and reversible spiritual evolution, so far as I can see. Even now people in their cosy little consumer lives think about what they and their family can 'get' far more than how they live happily, and don't realise that the two are not only not the same but are also, ultimately, mutually exclusive.
I believe so. It's the competitive nature of any species that will ultimately lead to its destruction once it becomes advanced enough. I believe it has always been our destiny as humans to destroy ourselves, if some other catastrophic event doesn't do so beforehand. Such as an asteroid impact or deadly disease.
"Blueas is a great guy, one of the best." - Donald Trump
The world will never be a truly safe place until we get rid of nuclear weapons. (Which will likely never happen).
Oppenheimer was right when he said "I have become the destroyer of worlds". It's just a matter of time until his prophecy comes true.
Our fate was sealed by the Manhattan Project.
They were only the first to succeed among many who were trying (including the Germans, Japanese and Soviets).
There was no turning back after the discoveries of the Curies, Becquerel, Rutherford and Einstein in the first decades of the 20th century. Not to mention the literary musings of H G Wells. It was then just a technical matter of getting the thing to work.
On Putin’s health on 10:16 - May 13 by GlasgowBlue
The threat of nuclear war is the only reason this hasn’t escalated into a Third World War. They are acting as a deterrent.
For now, until some nutter actually presses the button.
The world has built up a deadly stockpile of weapons which can wipe us all out. It's only a matter of time until they are used. I am not saying the current Ukraine situation will neccessarily be the trigger but something will over the coming years. Some nutter like Kim Jong Un or someone will kick it all off.
[Post edited 13 May 2022 10:26]
"Blueas is a great guy, one of the best." - Donald Trump
I don't believe Putin is entirely insane, nor does he want the destruction of Russia. He is an ultra-nationalist and wants his country to survive. He seeks respect and what he considers to be its proper position in the world (as a superpower).
If he really desired a nihilistic nuclear war, it would have happened by now. Either as an opening gambit (greatest chance of success), or when thwarted in Ukraine. The constant threats are an attempt to warn off the West and make them take him seriously. The moment he starts actually using nuclear weapons, he becomes the man who destroyed Russia, not the one who restored it to glory.
I might offer to fight him. If he wins, he can have Ukraine and we will leave him alone. If I win, he has to give up being boss of Russia.
"Blueas is a great guy, one of the best." - Donald Trump
I've been listening mate, and I make you dead right.
This is the latest video of a guy I've been following the last couple if years. I was put on to him by a financial advisor who said he was very good and rarely wrong in matters economic.
What's he been right about previously? He refers to previous predictions he's made but doesn't give any detail.
I read an interesting article yesterday, and that is the theory why aliens havent visited us by now. According to the Fermi Paradox - the universe should be teeming with life, but yet none is evident - to us at least. He asked the question "So where is everyone?"
The best theory to explain this is that advanced civilisations ultimately destroy themselves, and will most likely be our fate too before we even manage to venture beyond our own solar system.
Whilst the general concept of this is correct it's a bit muddled so it's probably worth looking at the science and theories.
The Fermi Paradox doesn't describe the frequency of life in the universe, rather it attempts to address the question of why none (that we know of) has visited the Earth.
In order to get a theoretical number of civilisations in the universe one can use the Drake Equation which is based on diminishing probabilities:
N = R * f(p) * n(e) * f(l) * f(i) * f(c) * L
R = average rate of start formation in the galaxy f(p) = fraction of stars that have planets n(e) = average number of planets per star that can support life f(l) = the fraction of those planets that develop life f(i) = the fraction of those planets that develop intelligent life f(c) = the fraction of civilisations that develop detectable technology L = the length of time the civilisation sends detectable signals into space
Unfortunately we don't know accurate values for many of these variables thus we need to guess and whilst the guesses are getting better all the time the number of civilisations can vary hugely. It could be zero, it could be a million, more information is needed. We now have pretty accurate numbers for R and f(p). The James Webb telescope might help to refine the number for n(e) because we might be able to directly analyse the atmosphere of other stars using spectronomy and infer if they have favourable conditions for life. If we managed to find bacteria somewhere in the solar system (Mars, Europe, Titan etc) then that would refine the value for f(l). We should be able to get a good idea for L because we have been sending signals into space since the late 1800s but we will probably stop doing this fairly soon with tight-band transmissions via satellites.
The Fermi Paradox deals specifically with the problem that if the number given by something like the Drake Equation is high then why haven't we seen any evidence of other civilisations. Even at sublight speeds (which is the only known method) a civilisation should be able to colonise all of the Milky Way in 10 million years or so. If many are doing it then that number becomes much smaller before you run into anyone else.
Hanson came up with the concept of The Great Filter which attempts to outline a number of "filters" that civilisations need to pass through in order to expand into the universe:
1) The right star 2) RNA production 3) Single cell life 4) Complex single cell life 5) Sexual Reproduction 6) Multi-cell life 7) Tool using animals 8) Advanced civilisation 9) Interstellar civilisation
We are currently at (8) which might imply that the early steps are easier than getting from (8) to (9). Between these steps civilisations would have the technology to destroy themselves (nuclear war, biological agents, climate change, self-replicating machines etc). The implication is that if the Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox hold true then most civilisations must end between steps (8) and (9). We can see evidence of this on our own planet, we have climate change, we have wars, we have pandemics. We can of course survive them all if the appropriate steps are taken but we could also hit a great filter and come to and end.
We are at a very important stage in our civilisation and as it stands it could go either way. I am hopeful we won't hit the filter but it only needs some very poor decisions (Putin pushing the button for instance) to send us down that possible path. Perhaps it's inevitable that civilisations take that path but I don't see why that should be the case and it would be hugely depressing if that turned out to be true.
SB
5
On Putin’s health on 11:23 - May 13 with 1006 views
Whilst the general concept of this is correct it's a bit muddled so it's probably worth looking at the science and theories.
The Fermi Paradox doesn't describe the frequency of life in the universe, rather it attempts to address the question of why none (that we know of) has visited the Earth.
In order to get a theoretical number of civilisations in the universe one can use the Drake Equation which is based on diminishing probabilities:
N = R * f(p) * n(e) * f(l) * f(i) * f(c) * L
R = average rate of start formation in the galaxy f(p) = fraction of stars that have planets n(e) = average number of planets per star that can support life f(l) = the fraction of those planets that develop life f(i) = the fraction of those planets that develop intelligent life f(c) = the fraction of civilisations that develop detectable technology L = the length of time the civilisation sends detectable signals into space
Unfortunately we don't know accurate values for many of these variables thus we need to guess and whilst the guesses are getting better all the time the number of civilisations can vary hugely. It could be zero, it could be a million, more information is needed. We now have pretty accurate numbers for R and f(p). The James Webb telescope might help to refine the number for n(e) because we might be able to directly analyse the atmosphere of other stars using spectronomy and infer if they have favourable conditions for life. If we managed to find bacteria somewhere in the solar system (Mars, Europe, Titan etc) then that would refine the value for f(l). We should be able to get a good idea for L because we have been sending signals into space since the late 1800s but we will probably stop doing this fairly soon with tight-band transmissions via satellites.
The Fermi Paradox deals specifically with the problem that if the number given by something like the Drake Equation is high then why haven't we seen any evidence of other civilisations. Even at sublight speeds (which is the only known method) a civilisation should be able to colonise all of the Milky Way in 10 million years or so. If many are doing it then that number becomes much smaller before you run into anyone else.
Hanson came up with the concept of The Great Filter which attempts to outline a number of "filters" that civilisations need to pass through in order to expand into the universe:
1) The right star 2) RNA production 3) Single cell life 4) Complex single cell life 5) Sexual Reproduction 6) Multi-cell life 7) Tool using animals 8) Advanced civilisation 9) Interstellar civilisation
We are currently at (8) which might imply that the early steps are easier than getting from (8) to (9). Between these steps civilisations would have the technology to destroy themselves (nuclear war, biological agents, climate change, self-replicating machines etc). The implication is that if the Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox hold true then most civilisations must end between steps (8) and (9). We can see evidence of this on our own planet, we have climate change, we have wars, we have pandemics. We can of course survive them all if the appropriate steps are taken but we could also hit a great filter and come to and end.
We are at a very important stage in our civilisation and as it stands it could go either way. I am hopeful we won't hit the filter but it only needs some very poor decisions (Putin pushing the button for instance) to send us down that possible path. Perhaps it's inevitable that civilisations take that path but I don't see why that should be the case and it would be hugely depressing if that turned out to be true.
SB
You're back!
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
Whilst the general concept of this is correct it's a bit muddled so it's probably worth looking at the science and theories.
The Fermi Paradox doesn't describe the frequency of life in the universe, rather it attempts to address the question of why none (that we know of) has visited the Earth.
In order to get a theoretical number of civilisations in the universe one can use the Drake Equation which is based on diminishing probabilities:
N = R * f(p) * n(e) * f(l) * f(i) * f(c) * L
R = average rate of start formation in the galaxy f(p) = fraction of stars that have planets n(e) = average number of planets per star that can support life f(l) = the fraction of those planets that develop life f(i) = the fraction of those planets that develop intelligent life f(c) = the fraction of civilisations that develop detectable technology L = the length of time the civilisation sends detectable signals into space
Unfortunately we don't know accurate values for many of these variables thus we need to guess and whilst the guesses are getting better all the time the number of civilisations can vary hugely. It could be zero, it could be a million, more information is needed. We now have pretty accurate numbers for R and f(p). The James Webb telescope might help to refine the number for n(e) because we might be able to directly analyse the atmosphere of other stars using spectronomy and infer if they have favourable conditions for life. If we managed to find bacteria somewhere in the solar system (Mars, Europe, Titan etc) then that would refine the value for f(l). We should be able to get a good idea for L because we have been sending signals into space since the late 1800s but we will probably stop doing this fairly soon with tight-band transmissions via satellites.
The Fermi Paradox deals specifically with the problem that if the number given by something like the Drake Equation is high then why haven't we seen any evidence of other civilisations. Even at sublight speeds (which is the only known method) a civilisation should be able to colonise all of the Milky Way in 10 million years or so. If many are doing it then that number becomes much smaller before you run into anyone else.
Hanson came up with the concept of The Great Filter which attempts to outline a number of "filters" that civilisations need to pass through in order to expand into the universe:
1) The right star 2) RNA production 3) Single cell life 4) Complex single cell life 5) Sexual Reproduction 6) Multi-cell life 7) Tool using animals 8) Advanced civilisation 9) Interstellar civilisation
We are currently at (8) which might imply that the early steps are easier than getting from (8) to (9). Between these steps civilisations would have the technology to destroy themselves (nuclear war, biological agents, climate change, self-replicating machines etc). The implication is that if the Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox hold true then most civilisations must end between steps (8) and (9). We can see evidence of this on our own planet, we have climate change, we have wars, we have pandemics. We can of course survive them all if the appropriate steps are taken but we could also hit a great filter and come to and end.
We are at a very important stage in our civilisation and as it stands it could go either way. I am hopeful we won't hit the filter but it only needs some very poor decisions (Putin pushing the button for instance) to send us down that possible path. Perhaps it's inevitable that civilisations take that path but I don't see why that should be the case and it would be hugely depressing if that turned out to be true.
SB
Good post SB and well explained. Thought provoking stuff. It could be almost inevitable that most advanced civilisations at Step 8 become victims of their own success and wipe themselves out. That is sad if true, agree - but entirely understandable if other civilisations suffer the same bugbears that human society has. (IE, wanting to kill each other, etc!)
"Blueas is a great guy, one of the best." - Donald Trump
Whilst the general concept of this is correct it's a bit muddled so it's probably worth looking at the science and theories.
The Fermi Paradox doesn't describe the frequency of life in the universe, rather it attempts to address the question of why none (that we know of) has visited the Earth.
In order to get a theoretical number of civilisations in the universe one can use the Drake Equation which is based on diminishing probabilities:
N = R * f(p) * n(e) * f(l) * f(i) * f(c) * L
R = average rate of start formation in the galaxy f(p) = fraction of stars that have planets n(e) = average number of planets per star that can support life f(l) = the fraction of those planets that develop life f(i) = the fraction of those planets that develop intelligent life f(c) = the fraction of civilisations that develop detectable technology L = the length of time the civilisation sends detectable signals into space
Unfortunately we don't know accurate values for many of these variables thus we need to guess and whilst the guesses are getting better all the time the number of civilisations can vary hugely. It could be zero, it could be a million, more information is needed. We now have pretty accurate numbers for R and f(p). The James Webb telescope might help to refine the number for n(e) because we might be able to directly analyse the atmosphere of other stars using spectronomy and infer if they have favourable conditions for life. If we managed to find bacteria somewhere in the solar system (Mars, Europe, Titan etc) then that would refine the value for f(l). We should be able to get a good idea for L because we have been sending signals into space since the late 1800s but we will probably stop doing this fairly soon with tight-band transmissions via satellites.
The Fermi Paradox deals specifically with the problem that if the number given by something like the Drake Equation is high then why haven't we seen any evidence of other civilisations. Even at sublight speeds (which is the only known method) a civilisation should be able to colonise all of the Milky Way in 10 million years or so. If many are doing it then that number becomes much smaller before you run into anyone else.
Hanson came up with the concept of The Great Filter which attempts to outline a number of "filters" that civilisations need to pass through in order to expand into the universe:
1) The right star 2) RNA production 3) Single cell life 4) Complex single cell life 5) Sexual Reproduction 6) Multi-cell life 7) Tool using animals 8) Advanced civilisation 9) Interstellar civilisation
We are currently at (8) which might imply that the early steps are easier than getting from (8) to (9). Between these steps civilisations would have the technology to destroy themselves (nuclear war, biological agents, climate change, self-replicating machines etc). The implication is that if the Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox hold true then most civilisations must end between steps (8) and (9). We can see evidence of this on our own planet, we have climate change, we have wars, we have pandemics. We can of course survive them all if the appropriate steps are taken but we could also hit a great filter and come to and end.
We are at a very important stage in our civilisation and as it stands it could go either way. I am hopeful we won't hit the filter but it only needs some very poor decisions (Putin pushing the button for instance) to send us down that possible path. Perhaps it's inevitable that civilisations take that path but I don't see why that should be the case and it would be hugely depressing if that turned out to be true.
SB
Welcome back Spock.....
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
Whilst the general concept of this is correct it's a bit muddled so it's probably worth looking at the science and theories.
The Fermi Paradox doesn't describe the frequency of life in the universe, rather it attempts to address the question of why none (that we know of) has visited the Earth.
In order to get a theoretical number of civilisations in the universe one can use the Drake Equation which is based on diminishing probabilities:
N = R * f(p) * n(e) * f(l) * f(i) * f(c) * L
R = average rate of start formation in the galaxy f(p) = fraction of stars that have planets n(e) = average number of planets per star that can support life f(l) = the fraction of those planets that develop life f(i) = the fraction of those planets that develop intelligent life f(c) = the fraction of civilisations that develop detectable technology L = the length of time the civilisation sends detectable signals into space
Unfortunately we don't know accurate values for many of these variables thus we need to guess and whilst the guesses are getting better all the time the number of civilisations can vary hugely. It could be zero, it could be a million, more information is needed. We now have pretty accurate numbers for R and f(p). The James Webb telescope might help to refine the number for n(e) because we might be able to directly analyse the atmosphere of other stars using spectronomy and infer if they have favourable conditions for life. If we managed to find bacteria somewhere in the solar system (Mars, Europe, Titan etc) then that would refine the value for f(l). We should be able to get a good idea for L because we have been sending signals into space since the late 1800s but we will probably stop doing this fairly soon with tight-band transmissions via satellites.
The Fermi Paradox deals specifically with the problem that if the number given by something like the Drake Equation is high then why haven't we seen any evidence of other civilisations. Even at sublight speeds (which is the only known method) a civilisation should be able to colonise all of the Milky Way in 10 million years or so. If many are doing it then that number becomes much smaller before you run into anyone else.
Hanson came up with the concept of The Great Filter which attempts to outline a number of "filters" that civilisations need to pass through in order to expand into the universe:
1) The right star 2) RNA production 3) Single cell life 4) Complex single cell life 5) Sexual Reproduction 6) Multi-cell life 7) Tool using animals 8) Advanced civilisation 9) Interstellar civilisation
We are currently at (8) which might imply that the early steps are easier than getting from (8) to (9). Between these steps civilisations would have the technology to destroy themselves (nuclear war, biological agents, climate change, self-replicating machines etc). The implication is that if the Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox hold true then most civilisations must end between steps (8) and (9). We can see evidence of this on our own planet, we have climate change, we have wars, we have pandemics. We can of course survive them all if the appropriate steps are taken but we could also hit a great filter and come to and end.
We are at a very important stage in our civilisation and as it stands it could go either way. I am hopeful we won't hit the filter but it only needs some very poor decisions (Putin pushing the button for instance) to send us down that possible path. Perhaps it's inevitable that civilisations take that path but I don't see why that should be the case and it would be hugely depressing if that turned out to be true.
SB
Welcome back Stokie. But after reading that you are wasted on the likes of us.
They were only the first to succeed among many who were trying (including the Germans, Japanese and Soviets).
There was no turning back after the discoveries of the Curies, Becquerel, Rutherford and Einstein in the first decades of the 20th century. Not to mention the literary musings of H G Wells. It was then just a technical matter of getting the thing to work.
I don’t know much about the Jap or Russian attempts to build a nuclear bomb, but certainly the Germans were working on it and let’s face it, they had the people to do it eventually.
The possibility and existence of the V2 rocket plan was dismissed by many an eminent scientist here, in particular Cherwell. Their creation of the Me262 jet fighter was remarkable as was the Arado 234. The Me163 rocket fighter was an extraordinary bit of technology, even if it did dissolve or roast the pilot on a heavy landing. The V1 was the first cruise missile and they were coming up with all sorts of weird creations like the Bachem Ba349 Natter and even the remarkable Me162. The volume and variety of projects was astounding but actually diluted resource.
However, I don’t think the Germans were anywhere near an atomic bomb. They understood the principle and were working on it (barium, uranium cubes etc) but their Achilles heel was that German research like most things Nazi worked on the basis of competition, so scientific research wasn’t pooled. They were way off.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
