TECH: Near Future
Dan Goodman
On Thu, 2 Apr 1998, hixon wrote:
> Am asking this question on a couple of lists in the hope of getting some
> varied (and hopefully extensive) feedback.
>
> Picture the world in the near future (within a decade), besides writers,
> what occupations might be done via E-mail and Fax with the employee (or
> self-employed worker) never leaving their home?
>
> What occupations, including writers, already do this and how might they
> be different than now? For instance, a writer often mails not only a hard
> copy but also a disc with their novel on it to the publisher which cuts
> down on their production costs. Very few Fax their novels as yet, but it
> could become a regular thing for established writers. What else might be
> available.
Try it the other way around: what occupations would _not_ be done at
long distances?
To email and fax, add some of the things which are being worked on,
and sometimes starting to be used, now. Remote control. Virtual
reality with more of the senses than just sight and sound. Direct
brain-computer connections. Using brainwaves to control machinery.
Highways on which the cars drive themselves.
Some things will _probably_ still be done by humans at the site,
because the economics of doing them otherwise will be ridiculous.
Housecleaning, for example. Prostitution -- though higher-tech
equivalents of phone sex will probably come. Panhandling.
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Wim Lewis
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980425...@bambi.visi.com>,
Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
>Some things will _probably_ still be done by humans at the site,
>because the economics of doing them otherwise will be ridiculous.
>Housecleaning, for example. Prostitution -- though higher-tech
>equivalents of phone sex will probably come. Panhandling.
(Higher-tech versions of phone sex already exist, in the form of
digital video sex sites. I'm not sure what the distinction, if any,
is between video phone sex and a telepresence peep show...)
I think it might be informative to consider jobs which could
(already) be done in a location-independent manner but which
aren't. For example, I'm a computer programmer; I spend almost all
of my time staring at a computer, and almost all of the face-to-
face interactions I have with my coworkers could as easily be done
via telephone (and frequently are via intra-office phone). But
I don't telecommute, nor do I want to. Why?
The most obvious answer is probably that my ordinary commute is a
ten minute walk along a treelined path. It's not very onerous.
In fact it's downright pleasant.
But even if I did have to get in a car and sit on the road for half
an hour a day like everyone else, there's a good chance I still
wouldn't work at home all the time. The office has several advantages.
One of the largest is that it offers a clear psychological separation
between my work life and my non-work life. When I go home, I want
to leave my work behind. Having an extra room at home just wouldn't
be enough distance, and besides I'd rather the company pay for that
space.
A lot of my work is collaborative to some degree, and being physically
close to the other people on the project makes it easier to coordinate.
Dropping into someone's office gets you a better communications
channel than a tele{phone,conferece}.
And if there's any equipment (or documentation, or whatever) which isn't
used quite often enough for every employee to have one, then it's convenient
to be able to make a quick trip to the company library.
Of course, the company has a few things to gain as well; particularly,
they can keep closer tabs on company posessions and on employee activities
if they're all in the company's building.
I don't think many of these advantages can be duplicated by anything short
of completely immersive telepresence, which I don't think is a near
future tech (near future versions are likely to be clumsy, expensive,
and probably just as much trouble as a drive in a car. IMHO.)
--
Wim Lewis * wi...@hhhh.org * Seattle, WA, USA
Gareth Wilson
Dan Goodman wrote:
> Some things will _probably_ still be done by humans at the site,
> because the economics of doing them otherwise will be ridiculous.
> Housecleaning, for example. Prostitution -- though higher-tech
> equivalents of phone sex will probably come. Panhandling.
>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gareth Wilson
Christchurch
New Zealand
remove "xxx" from address to reply
Commercial e-mail will be deleted unread
"Medical personnel pick their noses
three times an hour, on average"
-Nurse, "ER"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nyrath the nearly wise
Gareth Wilson wrote:
> Dan Goodman wrote:
> > Some things will _probably_ still be done by humans at the site,
> > because the economics of doing them otherwise will be ridiculous.
> >
Ah, but I saw an article about some optimistic
technophiles doing experiments with telepresence
surgery.
"Optimistic" since I believe that such a technology
will face the same hurdles as videophones:
the problems are sociological, not technologicial.
In other words, even if available, nobody wants
to use the blasted things.
--
/_\ WINCHELL CHUNG Nyrath the nearly wise at the Praeternatural Tower
<(*)> nyr...@clark.net http://www.clark.net/pub/nyrath/home.html
/_/|\_\ ABSIT INVIDIA VERBO IDEM SONANS
//|\\ -------------------------------------------------------------------
SURREAL SAGE SEZ: HELP WANTED: Man (or whatever) to hold down emergency
self-destruct cancellation switch for Planet Norf in the 82 Eridani system
while I take a break. Job security.
Malcolm McMahon
>Dan Goodman wrote:
>> Some things will _probably_ still be done by humans at the site,
>> because the economics of doing them otherwise will be ridiculous.
>> Housecleaning, for example. Prostitution -- though higher-tech
>> equivalents of phone sex will probably come. Panhandling.
>>
>Also brain surgery,
I believe the first robot-asisted brain surgery on humans has already
taken place. The brain is a particularly good subject for robotic
surgery because it's a fairly rigid set-up. Abdominal surgery is the
real challenge.
Better yet nano-machines that get to the site of the problem along blood
vessels etc..
>cleaning,
Better to produce materials that refuse to get dirty. Carpets which edge
dust particles slowly to the walls and away. That kind of thing. Maybe
little robots that come out at night to clean the mantelpiece.
> and gymnastics...
Oh, there will always be things to do for fun.
Joseph M. Erhardt
Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>
> On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 21:00:33 +1200, Gareth Wilson
> <gr...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> >Dan Goodman wrote:
> >> Some things will _probably_ still be done by humans at the site,
> >> because the economics of doing them otherwise will be ridiculous.
> >> Housecleaning, for example. Prostitution -- though higher-tech
> >> equivalents of phone sex will probably come. Panhandling.
> >>
> >Also brain surgery,
>
> I believe the first robot-asisted brain surgery on humans has already
> taken place. The brain is a particularly good subject for robotic
> surgery because it's a fairly rigid set-up. Abdominal surgery is the
> real challenge.
>
A great application for remote surgery is the military field hospital:
Highly-trained surgeons could work on casualties without exposing
themselves to the dangers of a combat theater. Of course, soon
thereafter we might have totally robotic infantry anyway, which would
make this scenario obsolete as well.
Joe Erhardt
Malcolm McMahon
On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 06:58:47 -0400, Nyrath the nearly wise
<nyr...@clark.net> wrote:
>Gareth Wilson wrote:
>> Dan Goodman wrote:
>> > Some things will _probably_ still be done by humans at the site,
>> > because the economics of doing them otherwise will be ridiculous.
>> >
>> Also brain surgery, cleaning, and gymnastics...
>
> Ah, but I saw an article about some optimistic
> technophiles doing experiments with telepresence
> surgery.
>
Ah, but telepresence surgery is basically a military project so social
obstacles mean little. The idea is to get surgical expertise near to the
front line.
That ensures lots of funding. Civilian application will follow from
that.
Malcolm McMahon
>Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 21:00:33 +1200, Gareth Wilson
>> <gr...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>>
>> >Dan Goodman wrote:
>> >> Some things will _probably_ still be done by humans at the site,
>> >> because the economics of doing them otherwise will be ridiculous.
>> >> Housecleaning, for example. Prostitution -- though higher-tech
>> >> equivalents of phone sex will probably come. Panhandling.
>> >>
>> >Also brain surgery,
>>
>> I believe the first robot-asisted brain surgery on humans has already
>> taken place. The brain is a particularly good subject for robotic
>> surgery because it's a fairly rigid set-up. Abdominal surgery is the
>> real challenge.
>>
>--SNIP--
>
>A great application for remote surgery is the military field hospital:
>Highly-trained surgeons could work on casualties without exposing
>themselves to the dangers of a combat theater. Of course, soon
>thereafter we might have totally robotic infantry anyway, which would
>make this scenario obsolete as well.
>Joe Erhardt
Ideally we'll leave all the destruction and being destroyed to the
machines. Somehow, though, I don't think that would satisfy the appetite
for war.
Beth and Richard Treitel
To my surprise and delight, mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon)
wrote:
>Ideally we'll leave all the destruction and being destroyed to the
>machines.
To a large extent we are doing that. Cruise missiles, and even smart
bombs (with which a single F-15, and one man, has a destructive power
probably comparable to a squadron of 1940s-era heavy bombers with a
hundred aircrew) are some recent steps along that road; and note that
destroying the enemy's electronics seems (no, I'm not a military man) to
take precedence over destroying their people.
> Somehow, though, I don't think that would satisfy the appetite
>for war.
Oh, people will invent highly dangerous and testosterone-laden sports.
-- Richard
------
A sufficiently incompetent ScF author is indistinguishable from magic.
What is (and isn't) ScF? ==> http://www.wco.com/~treitel/sf.html
Timothy J. Miller
tre...@wco.com (Beth and Richard Treitel) writes:
> To a large extent we are doing that. Cruise missiles, and even smart
> bombs (with which a single F-15, and one man, has a destructive power
> probably comparable to a squadron of 1940s-era heavy bombers with a
> hundred aircrew) are some recent steps along that road; and note that
> destroying the enemy's electronics seems (no, I'm not a military man) to
> take precedence over destroying their people.
Modern doctrine states that the purpose of battle is to destroy
the enemy's warfighting capability. These days this means more the
destruction of the enemy's command & control apparatus above all else;
without it, an armed force is nearly helpless.
The Gulf War highlighted this most ably.
> > Somehow, though, I don't think that would satisfy the appetite
> >for war.
>
> Oh, people will invent highly dangerous and testosterone-laden sports.
I think you're mistaken. How many people watched raptly as the
video-game-like scenes from the Gulf unfolded before them?
--
Cerebus <tmi...@ibm.net>
Chris Lawson
tre...@wco.com (Beth and Richard Treitel) wrote:
>Give it time. "Keyhole" surgery (is that the correct name?) is
>short-distance telepresence, and people don't seem to mind that.
"Keyhole surgery" is surgery performed through small incisions (hence
the term "keyhole"). It has taken over as a surgical technique for
many procedures, such as low-risk appendicectomies. Because the wound
is much smaller, healing rates are better and post-op trauma is
reduced. However, it is not suitable for all procedures.
The word you are looking for is telemedicine. I have yet to hear the
term "telesurgery", but I'm sure it has been used, or will be
commonplace soon.
>I admit I would be a bit upset at the idea of a scalpel held in a metal
>hand buzzing and humming its way towards my skin. But then, I'm told by
>friends that some of the things that have happened to me under general
>anaesthesia would have upset me had I known about them -- not surgical
>errors, just the normal procedures, whose *results*, in all cases so
>far, have been satisfactory.
They probably drew a smiley face on your colon :-)
regards,
Chris
_____________________
Chris Lawson
cl...@ozemail.com.au
Malcolm McMahon
On Fri, 01 May 1998 08:18:15 GMT,
gillian.paddoc...@virgin.net (Dave Brzeski & Jilly Paddock)
wrote:
>>
>As a bacteriologist, I'm positively discouraged from taking work home,
>especially Category 3 pathogens!
>
Yes, but there would be a _lot_ to be said for handling them
telechirically from a long way away. Too clumsy at the moment, no doubt,
but ten years from now?
Shelton Garner
On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 05:45:43 GMT, wi...@netcom.com (Wim Lewis) wrote:
>In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980425...@bambi.visi.com>,
>Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
>>Some things will _probably_ still be done by humans at the site,
>>because the economics of doing them otherwise will be ridiculous.
>>Housecleaning, for example. Prostitution -- though higher-tech
>>equivalents of phone sex will probably come. Panhandling.
<snip>
>I don't think many of these advantages can be duplicated by anything short
>of completely immersive telepresence, which I don't think is a near
>future tech (near future versions are likely to be clumsy, expensive,
>and probably just as much trouble as a drive in a car. IMHO.)
The question is, of course, what might _force_ the traditional concept
of "work" to be reborn? I can imagine a pandemic that killed off a lot
of people being the reason.Suddenly, people would be afraid to real
face-to-face contact...so they would go virtual.
Maybe even after the real danger had passed, habits would have changed
enough that people would no feel they had to "go to work."
lee
L. Shelton Bumgarner -- Keeper of the Great Renaming FAQ
Nattering Nabob of Narcissism * http://www.nottowayez.net/~leebum/
ICQ#: 9393354
Jonathan L Cunningham
In article <wimlEs0...@netcom.com>,
wi...@netcom.com (Wim Lewis) wrote:
(snip)
>But even if I did have to get in a car and sit on the road for half
>an hour a day like everyone else, there's a good chance I still
>wouldn't work at home all the time. The office has several advantages.
>One of the largest is that it offers a clear psychological separation
>between my work life and my non-work life. When I go home, I want
>to leave my work behind. Having an extra room at home just wouldn't
>be enough distance, and besides I'd rather the company pay for that
>space.
(snip)
I agree with most of what you said -- but I think you're missing a
bet with the last sentence I quoted.
Companies are in business to make a profit, so any saving they make
by needing less office space won't automatically be passed onto
either customers or employees. But there's room for negotiation:
if you don't need the office space, your company could afford to
pay you a bigger salary and still regard you as a bargain compared
with an employee who needed office space.
So, how much _extra_ would they have to pay you, to make it worth
your while to have an extra room at home? If that amount is less
than it costs them to maintain an office, you both gain.
A lot depends on tax laws etc. (if tax on business accommodation is
set at a different rate to residential, or location is important
etc.)
That said, I have a permanent desk where I work, with usual
accessories (phone etc.). So when I work at home, it isn't saving
the company where I work anything. It _does_ save me money. I
aim to work at home around two days a week (out of five). This
makes it feasible for me to live much further away from the office:
a long commute three days a week is much more bearable than a
long commute five days a week. So I live about 60 miles (95 km)
from where I work. This is because property prices/rents etc. are
much lower where I live, as well as it being a nicer location. So
I save money. (In the South East of the UK, where I live, property
prices vary in a paradoxical, but fairly logical, way. The closer to
London, but the further away from urban development, the higher
the prices. So I live in a town[1] (lower prices) a long way from
London (lower prices), but with good road and rail links (higher
prices, but lower commute times).
It costs me about 9 pounds sterling (c. $14 or $15) in petrol (gas)
for each round trip to the office (UK petrol is around 61p per
litre [which is about $3.80 per US gallon]). So working at home
saves me nearly three hours commuting, plus 9 pounds. So why don't
I work at home four days a week?
For similar reasons to those I snipped, above. Partly for social
contacts/gossip with co-workers and to get out of the house.
Secondly, to deliberately allow informal conversations (it's
amazing how much these are overlooked and underrated in any kind
of ideas based industry -- including technical industries like
software, engineering design etc.).
Also, it inhibits phone interruptions when I am working at home.
(Obviously my co-workers have the right to phone me at home on
"company time", and they do. But if they know I am regularly in
the office, non-urgent conversations will wait. Or go by e-mail.)
Thirdly, office infra-structure: fast laser printers, colour
ink-jets, A3 photocopier (with bells and whistles), rarely
used software (e.g. OCR software), file-server, hardcopy
correspondence files etc. And I prefer to make outgoing
phone calls from the office: there is a non-obvious reason for
this.
The reason is for handling cases when I'm phoning somebody who
isn't there. So I leave a message for them to call me back. There
are all sorts of reasons why they should be asked to call me
back on the office number.
Anyway, enough wibbling ... back to catching up with two weeks
worth of rec.arts.sf.composition :-).
Jonathan
[1] What does "town" conjure up? In this case "town" means a population
centre of around 250,000 people. Maybe in some places that would
be a "city"? :-). I used to live in a town with a population
of only around 10,000 people. There ought to be a standard scale
for population centres:
hamlet <500
village 500-5,000
town 5,000-50,000
city 50,000-500,000
metropolis 500,000-5,000,000
megapolis 5,000,000-50,000,000
:-) :-) :-).
Ash Wyllie
> Jonathan
>[1] What does "town" conjure up? In this case "town" means a population
>centre of around 250,000 people. Maybe in some places that would
>be a "city"? :-). I used to live in a town with a population
>of only around 10,000 people. There ought to be a standard scale
>for population centres:
> hamlet <500
> village 500-5,000
> town 5,000-50,000
> city 50,000-500,000
> metropolis 500,000-5,000,000
> megapolis 5,000,000-50,000,000
>:-) :-) :-).
In New England a town is a legal entity of 10s of sqmi and up to 10,000 people
who meet once a year to vote on various items. In of course a town meeting.
Direct democracy.
A city has a mayor and city counsels. Representative democracy.
-ash
(Paging Peter LaNague)
J S Burke
mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon)
wrote:
>
>Ideally we'll leave all the destruction and being destroyed to the
>machines.
I doubt it. As long as there is war (and there always will be),
there will have to be plain old foot-soldiers. War is about
conquest, controlling territory. Machines may be able to wipe
out an enemy's electronics and break-down his communications
and spy on him, but machines can't physically control an area,
esp. if the people of that area don't want to be controlled.
Robot-guards in the streets? Too clumsy--you'll have to fall
back on standard soldiers to patrol the area and keep the dissidents
quiet and in their houses. And if the robots become sentient...
well, aren't they people, too, then?
Peace,
jsb
--
SOCIALIST IMPERIAL WELFARE STATE: 1933 - 2009 R.I.P.
--Epitaph seen spraypainted outside
Stall 21 of the Indianapolis subway
Steve Turnbull
In message <795.430T29...@lr.net>
"Ash Wyllie" <as...@lr.net> wrote:
>
> In New England a town is a legal entity of 10s of sqmi and up to
> 10,000 people who meet once a year to vote on various items. In of
> course a town meeting. Direct democracy.
>
> A city has a mayor and city counsels. Representative democracy.
Only in the USA.
--
Steve Turnbull (st...@turnbull.cix.co.uk)
http://www.cix.co.uk/~turnbull/
Sometime author and vagabond freelance editor
Nate Birkholz
Steve Turnbull wrote:
>
> In message <795.430T29...@lr.net>
> "Ash Wyllie" <as...@lr.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > In New England a town is a legal entity of 10s of sqmi and up to
> > 10,000 people who meet once a year to vote on various items. In of
> > course a town meeting. Direct democracy.
> >
> > A city has a mayor and city counsels. Representative democracy.
>
> Only in the USA.
>
Now I'm curious. How does city or village government work in the UK?
--
Nate Birkholz | My employers, quite frankly, think I'm nuts,
Technical Writer | and my opinions should not be considered
Minneapolis, | to be those of MacSoft or its associates
Minnesota, USA | (Genius is never understood in its own time.)
The dictio-NATE-ry, the directory of Nates on the web, and other
Fun Stuff - http://home.earthlink.net/~nateb/
The lord that made of earth earls, of that same earth made he churls.
Earls, churls, all at one, shall none know you from your bones.
(Robert Mannyng of Brunne, _Handlyng Synne_, ca. 1303)
Dan Goodman
In article <136c9a4248%wri...@turnbull.cix.co.uk>,
Steve Turnbull <wri...@turnbull.cix.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <795.430T29...@lr.net>
> "Ash Wyllie" <as...@lr.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> In New England a town is a legal entity of 10s of sqmi and up to
>> 10,000 people who meet once a year to vote on various items. In of
>> course a town meeting. Direct democracy.
>>
>> A city has a mayor and city counsels. Representative democracy.
>
>Only in the USA.
Incorrect, for a couple of reasons:
1) New England took its system of government from Great Britain,
originally. It's quite likely that this set of meanings for "town" and
"city" came from England. And quite possible that these meanings _are
still to be found_ in England -- if only in old laws applying to one part
of the country.
2) The term "town" in this meaning is used _only in part of the US_. (New
England is no more typical of the US than lowland Scotland is of the UK.)
Besides the New England states, it is used only in New York State and in
Michigan.
The use in New York State suggests that this was, indeed, taken from
England. When New Netherlands became New York (and New Amsterdam also
became New York), the administrative system was imposed directly from
England.
In Pennsylvania, "towns" are "townships". This seems to have spread west.
A couple rules of thumb:
1) When some cultural feature is found in the US but not in the UK, it's
much likelier than any American or Brit might think that it's England
which changed rather than the US.
2) Something found in _one_ part of the US may not be the case for _any_
other part of the US.
--
Dan Goodman
In article <35520F...@earthlink.net>,
Nate Birkholz <na...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Steve Turnbull wrote:
>>
>> In message <795.430T29...@lr.net>
>> "Ash Wyllie" <as...@lr.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > In New England a town is a legal entity of 10s of sqmi and up to
>> > 10,000 people who meet once a year to vote on various items. In of
>> > course a town meeting. Direct democracy.
>> >
>> > A city has a mayor and city counsels. Representative democracy.
>>
>> Only in the USA.
>
Short answer: Sometimes it doesn't. For example, I believe London didn't
have anything resembling a unified local government until a Conservative
government established the London County Council. Later on, a
Conservative government abolished this body. Now, a Labour government is
working on a London metro-area government again. (The City of London is
something else -- and not a city, by most standards.)
Ian Burrell
In article <6ir0p3$82b$1...@news.iquest.net>,
J S Burke <bur...@spambotsdie.iquest.net> wrote:
>
>I doubt it. As long as there is war (and there always will be),
>there will have to be plain old foot-soldiers. War is about
>conquest, controlling territory. Machines may be able to wipe
>out an enemy's electronics and break-down his communications
>and spy on him, but machines can't physically control an area,
>esp. if the people of that area don't want to be controlled.
>Robot-guards in the streets? Too clumsy--you'll have to fall
>back on standard soldiers to patrol the area and keep the dissidents
>quiet and in their houses. And if the robots become sentient...
>well, aren't they people, too, then?
>
Why not? Right now, machines aren't smart or independent enough to
control territory. But there is no reason this wouldn't be possible
in the future. The foot solidiers would be robots of some sort. But
they wouldn't necessarily need to be sentient in the human sense.
Smart enough to handle combat and common situations and asking for
instructions for situations they can't handle. Which is exactly what
human soldiers do.
In addition, technology may make occupation easier and not require
soldiers actually standing in the street. For example, scatter
sensors and drones everywhere so that every person can be tracked and
only use forces for reacting to problems. Or enhance the sensors on
an individual unit so that it can cover a great area or stay out of
harm's way.
- Ian
--
ibur...@leland.stanford.edu http://www.stanford.edu/~iburrell/
Lieberman's Law: Everybody lies; but it doesn't matter since nobody listens.
Helen Kenyon
In article <795.430T29...@lr.net>, Ash Wyllie <as...@lr.net>
writes
>> Jonathan
>
>>[1] What does "town" conjure up? In this case "town" means a population
>>centre of around 250,000 people. Maybe in some places that would
>>be a "city"? :-). I used to live in a town with a population
>>of only around 10,000 people. There ought to be a standard scale
>>for population centres:
>
>> hamlet <500
>> village 500-5,000
>> town 5,000-50,000
>> city 50,000-500,000
>> metropolis 500,000-5,000,000
>> megapolis 5,000,000-50,000,000
>>:-) :-) :-).
>
>who meet once a year to vote on various items. In of course a town meeting.
>Direct democracy.
>
>A city has a mayor and city counsels. Representative democracy.
>
is officially a city, yet is tiny. I would say I live in a small town,
yet it only has about 2500 inhabitants. Yet the word "village" just
wouldn't give the right impression. It is a town in minature, with all
the things and all the different zones a town would have. To me a
village is purely residential with a couple of shops at most and the
inevitable pub and church. It wouldn't have a town square, bus station,
hospital, council offices, police station, livestock market, numerous
hotels and shops, small theatre [1], library, 2 supermarkets,
restaurants etc. All of which we have.
Helen
[1] Admittedly the theatre's only amateur and we lost our cinema in the
late 60s or early 70s.
--
Helen Kenyon, Gwynedd, Wales *** ken...@baradel.demon.co.uk
**PLEASE DELETE the extra bit from e-mail address if replying by mail**
Jonathan L Cunningham
In article <v66xuFAf...@baradel.demon.co.uk>,
Helen Kenyon <ken...@baradel.demon.co.uk.PLEASE-DELETE.THIS> wrote:
>In article <795.430T29...@lr.net>, Ash Wyllie <as...@lr.net>
>writes
>>In New England a town is a legal entity of 10s of sqmi and up to 10,000 people
>>who meet once a year to vote on various items. In of course a town meeting.
>>Direct democracy.
>>
>>A city has a mayor and city counsels. Representative democracy.
>>
>Of course in Britain boundaries are woollier. St Davids (Pembrokeshire)
>is officially a city, yet is tiny. I would say I live in a small town,
>yet it only has about 2500 inhabitants. Yet the word "village" just
>wouldn't give the right impression. It is a town in minature, with all
>the things and all the different zones a town would have. To me a
>village is purely residential with a couple of shops at most and the
>inevitable pub and church. It wouldn't have a town square, bus station,
>hospital, council offices, police station, livestock market, numerous
>hotels and shops, small theatre [1], library, 2 supermarkets,
>restaurants etc. All of which we have.
You seem to be saying that size doesn't matter :-).
Actually, what you say sounds about right. Remember that I originally
invoked the Three Smileys Of Protection Against Flames (I'm not
suggesting that anyone has flamed me yet -- the three smileys must
be working :-).
What you said goes for the difference between a town and a village:
I lived for a couple of years in a place with one pub, one shop and
a post office (and a few tens of houses). I don't remember if it
had a church. Probably. I'd call that a village.
The definitions are a bit fuzzy and intuitive: what makes a hamlet? What
is the difference between a village green, and a town square? The grass?
I think we'd often agree, but it is a bit hard to put into words,
and someone from another country might not be able to predict how we'd
decide between small town, village, hamlet or whatever, because they
would have their own intuitive definitions (or a non-English speaker
might have a different number of words for population centres: e.g.
only one word which would translate as town _or_ city).
But I think a city in the UK has a more formal definition -- something
to do with getting a royal charter. It used to need a cathedral
before applying for the charter, but I think a couple of towns recently
(within the last few years) applied for city status*, and IIRC (but
I'm nowhere near sure) one of them didn't have a cathedral, so that
requirement may have been dropped. Although cathedrals certainly used
to be important. The town I live in is bigger than a lot of UK cities
which have cathedrals, but doesn't itself have a cathedral. So it is
a town, and they are cities.
* I've no idea _why_ any town would apply for city status.
So the next question: what's the definition of a cathedral? :-).
According to my dictionary, it's the principal church of a diocese.
(And while I'm looking things up, a chapel is a place of worship other
than a parish church.)
Looking at the newsgroup list, either I should trim[1] it, or make this
more relevant ...
I suppose when we start colonising the asteroids, there will be all
sorts of subtle distinctions and dozens of words for different kinds
of space habitat which we can't imagine now. (Just as there are
many, many words for different kinds of sailing ship: brig, brigantine,
sloop, schooner, smack, cutter etc. which don't mean anything to me.)
Jonathan
[1] Four ngs is still a bit excessive, even though two of them are alts,
so feel free to trim followups. In case anyone cares if I see followups,
note that I don't read the alt groups (lack of time - not prejudice).
Steve Turnbull
In message <35520F...@earthlink.net>
Nate Birkholz <na...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Steve Turnbull wrote:
> >
> > In message <795.430T29...@lr.net>
> > "Ash Wyllie" <as...@lr.net> wrote:
> >
> > > A city has a mayor and city counsels. Representative democracy.
> >
> > Only in the USA.
> >
>
> Now I'm curious. How does city or village government work in the UK?
Que? :-)
We have so-called local authorities which cover variously sized and
organised areas. In fact we had an election for councillors yesterday.
There are some moves towards city authorities run by mayors -- London
just had a referendum which voted in favour (3:1 on a 30% turnout).
Scotland is to have its own parliament, Wales is going to have an
elected assembly as is Northern Ireland (probably).
All a bit of a mish-mash really depending on political whim.
(Village govt? ROTFL)
Anyway "anyone who wants to be in power should on no account be
allowed to do so", Douglas Adams (more or less).
Isaac Kuo
In article <6it9md$9...@saga5.stanford.edu>,
>>I doubt it. As long as there is war (and there always will be),
>>there will have to be plain old foot-soldiers. War is about
>>conquest, controlling territory. Machines may be able to wipe
>>out an enemy's electronics and break-down his communications
>>and spy on him, but machines can't physically control an area,
>>esp. if the people of that area don't want to be controlled.
>>Robot-guards in the streets? Too clumsy--you'll have to fall
>>back on standard soldiers to patrol the area and keep the dissidents
>>quiet and in their houses. And if the robots become sentient...
>>well, aren't they people, too, then?
>Why not? Right now, machines aren't smart or independent enough to
>control territory. But there is no reason this wouldn't be possible
>in the future. The foot solidiers would be robots of some sort. But
>they wouldn't necessarily need to be sentient in the human sense.
>Smart enough to handle combat and common situations and asking for
>instructions for situations they can't handle. Which is exactly what
>human soldiers do.
Actually, the robot guards need not necessarily be very
intelligent at all. At one extreme, they could all be
remote controlled. This is very manpower intensive, of
course, but the people remote controlling them could be
separated from danger.
A more realistic possibility is to combine an autonomous
"sentry" mode with remote control during a combat or personal
encounter situation. The sensor robots, most of which need
not be armed, would spend most of their time just sitting
around, passively observing for activity. Whenever something's
up, they alert the human operators for possible remote control.
Those human operators might take direct manual control or
activate semi-autonomous modes, like an automated "evade mode".
If a situation arrises which calls for weapons, remotely
operated "weapons robots" could be called in. In the case
of a serious military threat, smart artillery and/or
airstrikes would probably be more appropriate, so these
"weapons robots" would be optimized to deal with more
police-like operations, and possibly use so called
"non-lethal" weaponry.
The "weapons robots" still wouldn't fire weapons autonomously;
they would be remote controlled.
>In addition, technology may make occupation easier and not require
>soldiers actually standing in the street. For example, scatter
>sensors and drones everywhere so that every person can be tracked and
>only use forces for reacting to problems. Or enhance the sensors on
>an individual unit so that it can cover a great area or stay out of
>harm's way.
--
_____ Isaac Kuo k...@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo
__|_)o(_|__
/___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta...
\=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi
J. Clarke
FWIW, a while back the idiot CEO at the company I worked for wanted us to
bid on an RFP for a telesurgery system (don't recall the nomenclature that
they actually used, but it was identifiably telesurgery) that was even
supposed to include a "virtual cadaver" for training purposes. Since we
were all parachute experts we no-bid. Nonetheless, the RFP was issued, by
the Army if I recall correctly, and no doubt several organizations bid it
and at least one likely got a decent chunk of the taxpayer's money to work
on it.
So somebody out there with the resources to do something about it does
appear to be at least thinking about it.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at eye-bee-em dot net
_____________________________________________
Chris Lawson wrote in message
<6i97p3$uhc$1...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>...