That's gotta hurt (USA version)

I love technology and I wander around various scientific sites looking to see what the future will bring, some things are boldly announced (cold fusion) only to vanish without trace and some are predicted on an almost monthly basis only to never quite seem to make it off the drawing board (fusion power) Others like the first hypersonic plane have reached the test stage and look to revolutionise transport turning the potential flight time from London to New York to 15 minutes.
However sadly the first test hit a snag, a $300 million snag.
Mail.

It promises to revolutionise air travel, slashing the flying time from London to Sydney to just an hour.
Yesterday the 13,000mph aircraft of the future took off for a crucial test flight.
Within hours however, the Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 appeared to have failed the test.
It was launched from a Californian rocket pad to the edge of space and was due to glide back down to Earth at roughly four miles per second.
But all contact was lost and the craft was thought to have crashed.
It was a cruel anti-climax after all the hype, and a case of back to the drawing board for its developers at the Pentagon.

Fortunately this is the USA military we're talking about so they are unlikely just to give up unlike the U.S. government or more likely our own would still $300 million is gonna hurt pretty bad and I'm fairly sure the Senate Military appropriations committee (or whatever it's called) will have something to say about it.

 I hope they carry on with these experiments, the withdrawal of civilian manned space flight means that it's projects like this which will eventually lead us back into space.

More about → That's gotta hurt (USA version)

The mark 1 eyeball

What is it with some people that they will put common sense to one side when dealing with technology?

Express.

A RED-FACED trucker stranded £150,000 worth of brand new cars when he followed his sat nav directions up a mountain cattle track.
Markus Lutz, 38, drove his truck up a woodland path in Cochem, Germany, that was normally used by local dairy farmers taking their herds to and from pasture.
"I just did what it said on the screen and the road got smaller and smaller. In the end I couldn't go forward or back," the driver told police.

It's not the first time I've heard such tales either, it's not just Germany after all, back in 2008 there were reports that Sat Navs had caused up to 300,000 accidents in the UK because drivers tended to rely on them more than common sense. Back in February a 4 year old girl died because her parents following the instructions of a Sat Nav turned right into traffic despite there being sign saying no right turn. The highway code is actually quite clear about sign-age, Signs with red circles are mostly prohibitive. Plates below signs qualify their message. No right turn means no right turn regardless of what the Sat Nav says. But people are far more trusting of the Sat Nav than their eyes and I'm not sure why, they'll follow its instructions in the face of practically anything else. No I'm not blaming the Sat Navs themselves, they're programmed by people and they are only as good as the info in them, the problem seems to be people. Little Britain seems to have the whole thing nailed with their "computer say no" sketches, where technology was the be all and end all of the whole thing no matter what the people involved seemed to want and very humorously done too.
So I guess that I'll stick to my maps and my common (road) sense and my route planning for now and ignore the blandishments of over 50's insurance with their offer of a free Sat Nav and trust that the next car I see coming the wrong way up a dual carriageway or one way street isn't another victim of technology, I don't need technology to get me into trouble, I'm pretty good at finding it without additional help.

More about → The mark 1 eyeball

Picking our pockets in the name of Gaia

Motorists are going to get a discount if they buy limited range slow charging electric vehicles, guess where the discount is going to come from taxpayers?

Daily Mail.

The first nine plug-in electric cars to qualify for discounts of up to £5,000 are revealed today.

The 'green' emissions-free cars which can be charged up from household mains and deliver 2p-a-mile motoring, go on sale from the New Year with a Government 'Plug-IN Car Grant'.

From January 1, 2011, motorists buying the first three of the named electric cars will get 25 per cent off, up to a maximum of £5,000.

The electric 'plug-in' discount comes as the Government also announces more places around Britain where the cars can be charged up when out on the road.

The taxpayer hand-out aims to kick-start the market for electric vehicles, which are exempt from the London Congestion Charge.

 I don't see why I as a taxpayer should be subsidising anyones buying preference, particularly when the vehicles involved are absolutely no use to me whatsoever. They have limited range, drive at night, in fog or just have the heater going it can get a lot less, large charging times and what they don't tell you is limited battery life with the power pack having to be replaced after 5 or so years at a coat of... you guessed it £5,000. OK if you're just knocking about town occasionally, even then watch your power bills go through the roof too. You might not be buying petrol, but you will be buying electricity.
On top of this usual green madness is the fact the government is handing over taxpayers cash to subsidise this, I'm sure the usual reasons will be trotted out, investing in our future, prices will come down if more are bought, emerging technology etc. Still picking my pocket to do it though.
Can't imagine what will happen when the lights go out in 2012 when the power stations start closing down, doubt the windmills will keep this lot going.

More about → Picking our pockets in the name of Gaia

Almost as important as climate change?

Doesn't sound too important at all then, but Lady Greenfield, one of Britain's most prominent female scientists, claimed the issue of the harmful effect of the internet was "almost as important as climate change".

Telegraph.

Society should be aware of the potentially harmful effects of the internet, networking sites and computer games on the brain, leading neuroscientist and peer Baroness Susan Greenfield has said.
Lady Greenfield, one of Britain's most prominent female scientists, claimed the issue was "almost as important as climate change".
"I think the quality of our existence is threatened,'' she said. ''We need discussions about this, we need debate, we need more of an effort put in.
"We need to recognise this as an issue rather than sweeping it under the carpet.
"We should acknowledge that this is bringing an unprecedented change in our lives and we have to work out whether it is for good or bad."
In January Lady Greenfield controversially lost her job as director of the Royal Institution.
She spoke at the British Festival of Science at Aston University in Birmingham.
She said some ''very good things'' were emerging from information technology but added: "By the same token we have got to be very careful about what price we are paying."
Possible benefits of the technology included a higher IQ, better memory and faster processing of information.
On the other side of the equation, social networking sites might reduce empathy, said Lady Greenfield.
Using search engines to find facts may hinder the ability to learn, while computer games could "make us more reckless in our day-to-day lives".
"Rather than sleepwalking into this we should be the masters and not the slaves of technology and harnessing it in ways that we could do exciting and fulfilling things with," she added.
Lady Greenfield insisted that she was not scaremongering.
"We have anecdotal evidence from talking to parents," she said. "Every single parent I have spoken to so far is concerned.
"I have yet to find a parent who says, 'I am really pleased that my kid is spending so much time in front of the computer.'
"We need to take control of our own lives and society. If we don't, who else will?"

 Ok, the effect of violent computer games on people is constantly being thrown up as one of the causes of violence in society, usually by those who weren't involved in the football violence and race rioting in the 1970's when as far as I'm aware there weren't computer games polluting our brains. If anything the effect has been to make people more private and less likely to go out looking for trouble so I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing. Most of the parental worry I suspect is down to the fact that they don't really understand what their kids are up to or who they are talking too, rather than the effect of the technology. The mass use of telephones cause similar complaints when people suddenly found they couldn't get their kids off the things, even today you can see it in texting and other mobile phone uses. In the end it comes down to parental control rather than the effect of the technology in general. Whilst the use of search engines to find facts can cause problems particularly when the facts are wrong, it's no worse than nipping down to the library to find out information and whilst books are accurate to a degree, they aren't always the latest information out there and indeed may be well out of date too. Still it is a worry, though generally anyone using a source like wikipedia to advance an argument had better watch out as they are likely to be torn to shreds by other more knowledgeable in their fields.
I do agree with her that we should take control of our lives and society, I just don't see the unexpected use of technology to be an issue in this. I suspect it's more down to trying to cut off the supply of information and news to us that's at the root of this issue. After all if they can keep us in the dark, we cause them any problems. I suspect they'd wished that had happened over global warming where we'd just done as we were told and believed the lies, rather than used the internet to question and organise against them.

 

More about → Almost as important as climate change?