ECCOnoob

35 minutes ago, Gormenghast said:

 

 

That may well be true, but how will you cope when you reach your older years with whatever new technology has appeared by then, something that maybe you couldn't imagine ever existing at the moment?

I am already reaching my older years and I've had to adapt with embracing change. 

I admit. I'm not proficient in the use of every single new development. My phone doesn't have every single social media, lifestyle or utility application. I don't follow every single trend. There are some aspects of the world of the younger folk that I happily don't understand nor I want to. 

However, that is not an excuse for not keeping up with mainstream advances and changes in the way that the world develops.  For example, during covid times I never previously used QR codes or really knew of them - but I adapted. I got used to the process and now as they have being embraced by other aspects of the world such as hospitality, restaurant menus, airports, hotels, it's almost second nature.   Similarly, train tickets or airline tickets. I always used to be a man of contingency.  Constantly liking that physical paper ticket in my hand as reassurance. But then as I realised that the majority of my fellow passengers were simply waving their phones at the conductor or scanning themselves in through security in airports. I realise they there was no need. So tried it a couple of times, got used to the BA or Trainline apps and now have no problem at all

In my working world I started in my profession in the pen and paper and typewriter era. Paper files, hundreds of dusty pages stacked up on cabinets or shelves. I remember handwriting my briefs to pass over to the typing pool in the world of carbon copies, telex and fax machines.  But again, I've had to adapt. I'm now in a world of e bundles, hyperlinking auto pagination, data transfer room,  electronic post, live captioning, video calls....

Is it easy to learn these things constantly - No.   But it's part of life.

16 minutes ago, melthebell said:

its America sadly theres lots of loose cannons given access freely to dangerous legal weaponary. hopefully now  Trumps been attacked (alledgedly) twice, by his own side, i wonder if the politicians will grow some balls and take on responsibility.

I'd like to think it, but past history says otherwise. 

Ultimately they cling on for dear life to their constitution. Their right to bear arms.

God help any politician who even dares to so much as suggest the idea of gun reform or control. They wouldn't get a look in. 

1 minute ago, melthebell said:

they are in the minority, i never said they wern't, just they  exist. this whole arguement is whether society should be held back in technological change just for the minority, the answer is no.

But then why are you saying in your earlier post that MOST older people will not be able to learn how to use the apps or have online banking or have smartphones....

If they are in the minority then clearly that's not the case then. Plenty of older people have all those facilities and are perfectly capable of using them. Have done for years.

1 minute ago, melthebell said:

theres also plenty that dont, my mum doesnt text, shes only just got facebook as mi sister set it up for her, who gets annoyed when she "breaks it", she prefers to talk on the house phone rather than her mobile. also the old bloke Rob i worked with, he's a volunteer on the ship i worked on, he doesnt own a smartphone, its an older phone with bigger buttons. he has to go into a bank to sort things out, they do exist.

They might do but the question will be whether THEY are in the minority.  

If they are, then the world doesn't stop progressing. Technology doesn't stop evolving just because some people choose not to keep up. We all used to go to the shops every Saturday, writing out our cheques to pay for our baskets full of groceries. Prior to that we all used to go to little grocery store, standing in the queue waiting for the man behind the counter to individually pick up each item we wanted before we got our cash purses counting out our coins. 

Things move on.

Payment cards are not a new item. They've been in existence for over 40 years. Electronic payments and online banking for nearly 30 years.  Even contactless is over 10 years old now.

Most elderly people have had several decades to adjust to these things. If they choose not to -  they need to accept the inconvenience they create to themselves.  

43 minutes ago, Slighty batty said:

Say for instance you’ve got an ex-soldier, fought in Afghanistan. Got PTSD, mental issues, now living on the street with his dog. He might still have a valid debit card and an account that’s in the black, then again he might not. People have given him a few coins, he wants to use that to buy food for the dog but the shop will only accept cards. Isn’t that policy going to make him even more marginalized? 
 

Or say someone is in financial difficulties. Their bank account is overdrawn up to the limit, so they can’t use their debit card, but they’ve still got a little bit of cash left in their purse. Why should the supermarket dictate that they aren’t allowed to use it? 

Because it's their private business.  They have a right to decide what methods of payment they will accept. 

Quite frankly, if your ex-soldier that you example is in such dire straits, they should have bigger fish to fry than worry about a supermarket not accepting cash.   They need to be getting proper help from a proper government social service, homeless refuge, soup, kitchen, community food Bank. 

Not the job of private business.

1 hour ago, melthebell said:

your phone needs setting up to be able to do that though, most older ones wont be able to, wont have online banking and/or wont actually have a "smart" phone

I am not buying that. The same old tired arguement keeps coming out. 

It's 2024. I know plenty of "older ones" who have had online banking for many years. This is not new fangled technology anymore. Smartphones are not a great mystery. 

For the next generation of retirees, the use of online ..... and smart enabled ...... will be absolute second nature. 

6 minutes ago, DopiazaDon said:

I hear you ECCO. I'm a car driver too. 30mph isn't slow and we are in town in defence and not a country road or motorway but the main reason is that it is an incredibly busy part of that road with schoolkids and public using that section (high pedestrian turnover). Let's keep it 40mph entrance and exit but 30mpg coming up to the crossing. Is that a good compromise?

 

@DADDY. Apologies. I've been meaning to join for ages. I guess something like this spurs one to action yes? Yes a different topic for first post would have been lovely.

 

Also - reminder that life is precious to all. Enjoy the best time you have.

There's no need to compromise. The pedestrians who use that area have got ample crossing provisions. They have traffic light crossings and they have an underpass nearby. 

30 mile an hour is a slow speed. It is why it's used for built-up and residential areas not normally for dual carriageways, particularly around arterial routes in and out of major cities.  This is not some twee county lane with houses and schools alongside, lots of dog walkers and groups of young kids.  It's a major trunk road with several multi cross junctions and between 4 and 6 lanes wide at a time. 

The victim of this accident, based on your own description, only has themselves to blame. They fail to use the crossing facility provided. They put themselves at risk. They suffered the consequences. 

Nothing to do with the drivers. Nothing to do with the road being unsafe. They created their own liability. 

I am sorry for them. I hope they are well and recover but that's where my sympathies end.

It's a tragic incident and condolences to the person injured and their family. But why the knee jerk reaction and suggestions for reduction in traffic speed.

Crossings are provided. It's a dual carriageway road. If someone chooses to take a risk and don't use the crossing, why do you think car drivers should be penalised for that.  It's a primary road being used for the purpose it was designed to be.

35 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

This might be more suited to this thread?

 

Gunshots fired in Trump’s vicinity at golf course

It is understood the gunshot exchange happened near a golf course on which the former president was playing

Gun shots have been fired in Donald Trump’s vicinity, his campaign said.

 

“President Trump is safe following gunshots in his vicinity. No further details at this time,”Steven Cheung, his campaign spokesman said.

 

According to the New York Post, two people exchanged gunfire outside the former president’s golf club in West Palm Beach, Florida.

 

The outlet reported the gunfine was not “targeting Trump”.

 

Trump, 78, was golfing at the resort today, which is a short distance from his main residence, Mar-a-Lago, according to US media outlets.

 

It comes just two months after an assassination attempt on the Republican presidential candidate.

 

Gunman Thomas Matthew Crooks fired multiple shots at Trump at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania on July 13. One bullet grazed the ex-president’s ear.

 

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/09/15/gunshots-fired-in-trump-vicinity/

Convenient.  

Trump loses his debate, runs away like a chicken from a further debate. So let's go for the sympathy. Let's cry another assassination attempt......   Even though the article states that the shooters were not targeting Trump and it happened outside the golf course between two persons.

I am no conspiracy theorist but all seems very fortuitous timing.  

1 hour ago, The_DADDY said:

Where to start..

1, I never mentioned British Leyland. 

2. I never mentioned the 70's or 80's.

3. I never mentioned classic Jags

4. I never mentioned the Austin Alegro.

5. I never mentioned the Princess.

6. I never mentioned the Lada Riva.

Nice rant though.

 

I know you specifically didn't mention those. You were making comparisons on build quality and made the comment "modern cars are crap"  

Well I am giving you a counterpoint of how plenty of older cars had low build quality and would be argued as crap.  

I mentioned the Jags because that's often a car used to sample quality build from yesteryear. I also mentioned other luxury types of car in reply to the picture of an mg posted earlier.  I make the point that you can get gooey eyed about certain classic cars but there was plenty of other 'classic' cars which were ugly dross for which most people wouldn't get so fond about. It's not all about you and your posts love.  

That is quite a list. 

My lawyer head is churning away and I'm just thinking out loud but it is making me wonder how many potential loopholes and disputes are going to come from this. 

Take for example. Coca-Cola.  Obviously promoting the drink that we all know and love along with its many other soft drinks would be banned under the rules. But the Coca-Cola company has a thousand one brands under its possession. Some of those include bottled water which can't be argued isn't healthy as long as you don't have any additives  - it's just water.  So would they be able to advertise with its logo and its brand but only show pictures of water or no pictures of any products at all. 

Similarly, about say, Mars corporation. Obviously the first thing that springs to mind is chocolate products, but Mars also owns things as far-reaching as pet foods to rice.  Again, if they were smart and didn't show any unhealthy products, would they be able to splash their logo all around.  Every time they ran a whiskers advert flash up a massive Mars logo. Just to remind people.  Is that breaking the rules....

The more I'm reading about this, the more I'm starting to think this is going to tie up the courts and the government. Really really interested to see what impact this actually will have and how strictly the government will get away with holding the rules. 

1 hour ago, The_DADDY said:

Too much technology  

Not enough build quality. Modern cars are crap in my opinion. 

Ha.  You joking right.

You want to refresh your memory about most of the crap that came out of Leyland Motors particularly during the late '70s and '80s.  You'd be sometimes lucky if you got one with the engine wired up or all the door fittings in place. 

Some of the early generation of budget hatchbacks were appalling. Something as basic as an ashtray was deemed an optional extra and built so poorly that if you slammed the door too hard the whole car would shake.  

These days, dependant on the brand, even a entry-level model hatchback can be found with power steering, Bluetooth, electric windows, climate control, reverse camera as standard with at least some faith that the gear lever won't come away in your hand every time you go into fourth.

Think some people are getting a bit of rose tinted nostalgia.  Of course, a classic Jag or some other type of historic luxury car in well preserved condition is something to admire, but let's not get too hung up on it. There was plenty of dross out there. I'll be surprised if as many people would be going gooey over a  'classic' Austin Allegro, Princess or Lada Riva. 

2 minutes ago, Prettytom said:

That’s an absolutely bonkers way to load your car boot. Even ignoring the fact that your trolley will partially obstruct the road in front of your car, why on earth would you want to do shuttle runs from the front to the back of your car?

 

Its no more difficult to reverse out of a space than it is to reverse into one. Reversing into one, makes it much more difficult to load your shopping. 

Shuttle runs? I'm loading a car not an 18-wheeler. It's barely a few feet. The shopping trolley doesn't block anything just like it wouldn't if it was alongside the boot of my car. I'm not leaving it in the middle of the carriageway. 

It really isn't a big deal.  It's a three or four bags.  

25 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

Our lads got one with an electric  button for the handbrake .  Give me a good old handbrake any day 

I am curious as to why. Is it a tactile physical thing, somehow you feel more assured by a manual lever rather than pushing a button?  After all, the way the car is held is pretty much the same, whichever the method. 

I do wonder if some of this is all about the lack of physical actions, physical buttons, physical switches that people default to somehow a lack of trust in technology. 

However, I bet most people on here here wouldn't be wanting to go back to the days before power steering, ABS, starting our vehicles with the starter handle, manual choke etc...

37 minutes ago, Resident said:

As someone who likes the act of driving, rather than just being a steering wheel attendant, I'd take the old Fiesta all day long. 

I believe that there is a correlation between the rise of technology, with particular reference to screens in cars, especially digital dashboards, and the descent of driving standards

1980s Audi dashboard: Simple, necessary info only. Speed, fuel level, Engine RPM.

2020 Audi Dashboard: Cluttered, overcomplicated map display, radio station, range, speed, gear, driving mode, door status. Lots to take focus off actual driving

 

If you are attempting to drive with a vehicle door open I would think that essential information a driver should know not a distraction. 

Personally, I would also consider range, speed, driving mode, gear , navigation to  be all useful information which thanks to modern tech can is now displayed all within a driver's glance - each to our own i suppose.

32 minutes ago, crisispoint said:

And loading your car boot?

Never had a problem opening and loading a boot.  Just need to leave enough space back and sides.   In the supermarket I take the trolley up nearby the car front and then take the bags out the short distance between front and open boot.   I can cope without having to push the trolley right up to the boot edge most of the time. 

5 hours ago, hackey lad said:

Something I never do . Much easier and quicker to drive in and reverse out . 

Couldn't agree less.

To me, I find it much easier and safer to reverse into a space. When you have immovable parked cars either side, solid white lines, a wall or garage to keep an eye on.  Plus I find once you start reversing in, vehicles and other hazards stop because you are blocking their path.

That's surely better than driving in and then have to try and reverse out into a busy carriageway or main road with cars, pedestrians the goodness knows what else getting in the way and who may not even see you until you are at least halfway or so into the manoeuvre.  

There must be some science to it, because I have been to car parks and even work places where there's mandatory rules to reverse in to parking spaces. 

I admit it takes a bit of practice but so does any manoeuvre being done correctly. But once it's tried it should become almost second nature.

4 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

I thought we already had a ban on junk food ads years ago before 21:00.

 

Presumably this means on ITV?  It was only a couple of months ago that a report was put out that most pre-teens & above don't watch mainstream tv so how effective is a ban when it won't apply to streamed media content? 

 

The best way to stop children eating junk food is simply for their parents to say "NO!" 

 

I do seem to recall some discussion about it a long time ago.

To be honest, another point that just come to my mind (which shows how useless this government initiative is going to be), is the fact that the majority of the younger folk don't even watch linear television anyway. What about all the junk food adverts all over YouTube, TikTok, Twitch, Facebook and all the other social media which the young people spend their hours watching far more than television. I'd like to see how the government proposal will work with that considering lots of these social media companies aren't even based in the UK and the algorithm technology makes it very difficult to control exactly what and when adverts are going to be put with which video.

As I say earlier, a pointless gesture just to be seen to be doing something rather than actual practical reasons.  

1 minute ago, hackey lad said:

I bet you’re fun at parties. 

Extremely.  I have a sense of humour, quite a few tales to tell and liven up debates because I'm more than prepared to call people out when I see nonsense and have the knowledge to generally back things up with some solid counterpoints.

4 hours ago, lavery549@yahoo said:

Only in this day & age , do we find this happening . I despair , I really do 

What the hell are you talking about?   

Just how many census questions do you think might have been misinterpreted or misunderstood back in the day.

If it wasn't for the "trans" angle, which seems to be catnip to journalists (and certain people on this very forum) looking to make a meal out of something - this shouldn't even be a discussion point. 

What exactly is the big story here. They found some potential anomaly in the collected data.  They have corrected it and redefined the wording in their results summary.  End of story.  

My thoughts are you seem to be making assumptions and appear to know very little about the technology you declare "OTT". 

Firstly, not all of these systems and gadgets are supposed to be used directly by the driver or whilst driving. 

Other parts of technology, auto braking, cruise control, speed limiters, hill holds, park assists, reverse cameras, collision radar detection systems are all contributing in making cars increasingly safe.  

The more premium cars now is all linked with voice technology. So again, not necessarily distracting or having to take hands off the wheel as people would assumed.  I would rather talk to my GPS and get audio instructions than back in the day when trying to drive, look out for junctions and half read a map at the same time.

Having driven both old bangers from back in the day and modern cars, I can tell you which one I prefer and you certainly isn't my old original fiesta with no power steering, crap breaking and very little in the way of tech.  

1 hour ago, El Cid said:

 

It's a start, lets hope they do more. Can they make us all healthy eaters, probably not.

But surely the Government can make things better.

The sugar tax on fizzy drinks reduced the sugar content, it worked in a small way.

But if they do that with other foods, companies will use sweeteners.

They already do use sweetners and 101 other chemicals to make up for the lack of sugar which some would argue have potential health concerns just a much (if not worse) than natural sugar, 

"it worked" is debatable in my opinion.  

The desperation from the Trump fanboys....

Do they really think being proven liable for sexual assault by means of inserting fingers into a women's vagina without consent is seriously that much better than doing exactly the same act with a penis and thus falls into the narrow definition of rape under NY state law. 

It's pathetic.  Any act of committing a forced penetrative sexual act upon another person is colloquially called rape. As has been pointed out by several academics and judges, if it occurred in another state, it would likely be defined as rape. Regardless, the legal language technicalities are irrelevant in the bigger picture and view of the wider electorate.  Whichever way people try and spin it, Trump was liable for a multi-million civil assault and deformation action. One of many, many court actions he is going through and repeatedly losing. Lets also not forget he has now been found in guilty of criminal offences multiple times for his fraudulent behaviour. 

There is nothing to be proud of supporting such a person.  The fact that he can still be considered a credible candidate for presidency just boggles the mind 

8 minutes ago, pfifes said:

The ‘heavily manufactured ice cream slab made to look continental and exotic’ is bringing to mind a Vienetta 😂. The height of sophistication in the 80’s!

Bingo.  Or even something like Birds trifle mix. Oh look at mummy making her fruity dessert for the kids.    Yet, I bet there's just as much chemicals, sugar, fat in that 'homemade' dessert than any McDonalds milkshake. 

Funny how only one seems to get the constant stigma and criticism though. 

6 minutes ago, Mister M said:

To be honest I'm not sure the ban on junk food adverts will do much goo.

It was only last week I was in the city centre, and the amount of fast food takeaways on the High Street is shocking. 

 

I wouldn't say shocking. Just a sign of how the world is moved on. 

We are in the era of convenience. Everything instant this, instant that.   Why spend time slaving away in a kitchen when at the press of a few buttons someone can cook generally better and easier than one ever could. 

People always seem to tar all fast food as the unhealthy declining of society. But I'd argue that's not always the case. Some of these restaurant chains, particularly new wave of independents or premium bands or food court are dishes cooked to order using real ingredients and not particularly unhealthy compared to anything else someone will make at home.

Let's be frank here. Even mummy cooking away at home, even 40 years ago doesn't automatically mean healthy.  Plenty of mothers would be there cooking away their potato waffles and deep fried in lard chips with various slabs of processed meats accompanied with some sort of processed watery tinned vegetable.  That of course will be followed by some instant chemical filled whipped dessert. Or maybe a special treat some some heavily manufactured ice cream slab made to look continental and exotic. 

Unless you were very privileged, the majority of home cooking can hardly be deemed haute cuisine nor fit for the menu of a health club.  This whole home cooking is better. It's just a myth. 

Personally, I found the whole junk food thing, just some lazy political posturing. It's more about the government being seen to do something rather than actually tackle the main problem with the NHS, which is it's over funded, overstaffed, flabby, wasteful and expensive pit.  Too little of them work  their full capacity. Too much wastage, too  overused, too abused and too taken for granted.  

Forget all the nanny state like banning advertising and bringing increased sugar taxes, let's see some hard line approach to people failing self responsibility. If you can't control your diet and get too fat, the state won't treat you. If you are diagnosed with some condition like diabetes and fail to follow doctor's advice repeated times, that's it. The state stops your medication. That might soon get people to liven up their attitudes to their own welfare far more than shoving McDonald's ads till post 9pm.  

Most people already know that eating burgers five times a week, three times a day is not good for you. Most people know drinking gallons of pop is not going to keep your teeth healthy. Doesn't mean we don't like the occasional treat to ourselves. Doesn't mean that legitimate businesses shouldn't be able to advertise it.  For those exceptions who don't follow such basic common sense, that's their freedom of choice and their own problem to fix when it goes wrong.  

If people actually saw the real value of healthcare instead of it being handed to them on a plate to take for granted, then let's see how healthy they might start living 

Always the same with this stuff, everyone takes it for granted when spending other people's money. As soon as the burden is on themselves, you watch how quickly people's attitude changes.