StringJunky

I said to myself "Bah, humbug" to TV 10 years ago and haven't had one since. You could rig a 4K HDMI TV to your computer and use it as a monitor.

You perhaps remember a time when MS-DOS diehards thought Windows98 was a gimmick or even Linux nerds that worked the same sort of command line interface.

There is another specific condition to do with this called 'dysgraphia'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgraphia

Aye. There'll come a point where I start fossilising into certain routines. In 15 years I'll be 70.

I speculate that nothing of mine will be kept or done in the cloud but it will be a massive thing, yes. I'm wedded to the idea of possessing my information in my own containers. The cloud is a dream for a big brother state.. We are digressing, I've just realised. One of the reasons for long term deterioration is repeated thermal fluctuations of the components being turned on and off.

Who knows? There might be 3D holographic projections which you touch or wave your arms about in utilities to do stuff and that may require power that's not available yet. We are probably good for 10 years.

Where do the forum experts seem themselves?

What constitutes 'reality' is the result of intersubjective consensus and those that have a different internal mental construct from that consensus are considered to be outliers.

Do you mean you read them in the wrong place. I suppose it's possible, if your pupil is covered enough by your eyelid then there might be two different 'letters' getting sent to your brain and it gets confused.

They might last longer now but it's certainly been the case since mass computing started to date. Your doubling the RAM is a case in point: to cope with the increasing demands of modern software and internet.

That's the one. Only in some people and they are the ones likely to fall to confirmation bias. Obviously, there is a desire but good scientists are acutely aware of stuff like this. That's why peer review is such a good mechanism and those scientists in the Opera experiment are fine examples of this using it and clearly negate your hypothesis that it is a ubiquitous trait. A lot of the regulars here know that facts can change with new evidence and only defend a stance in the face of current evidence.

This is exemplified by the other GW experiment, who's name escapes me, when they put out their results for external examination and an electrical fault was discovered.

I was on on about the latest software working with old machines and security vulnerasbilities associated with being forced to use older, insecure versions.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/KKmoon-Multi-functional-Transistor-Maintenance-Transistors/dp/B01K4M1D9K/ref=sr_1_2/259-5516002-1095854?ie=UTF8&qid=1499768051&sr=8-2&keywords=ic+tester

With Linux, one has to sign in as admin every time one wants to go under the bonnet, that's it's main strength isn't it? I'm a standard user that has to sign for admin privileges in my Windows setup. I'm not interested in have 'the most' secure system just for the sake of it I have sufficient nous to avoid anything serious and am backed up if it does happen.. As far as the two systems go, i prefer to just use the system with the most minimal learning curve and the widest user base, since if something goes wrong, someone's got the solution.

I appreciate that financial means can dictate what one can have but, after that time, as software keeps getting written for the newer, more powerful hardware it means you can't run that software after a certain iteration because it's under powered and/or new protocols have been written that makes the OS on the old machine incompatible, thus severely weakening security. .

Definitely. it would be useful to you as well in consolidating what you've learnt in communication terms as well as the physics. i think it would be good if you aim for the same sort of audience and in the spirit that Sean did in that video but in written form. I'm sure you are quite capable of writing for a mathematically-capable audience as well but I think they are probably well catered for.

Perhaps you might write something in durable form, some time, so that others may appreciate your clarity. All other other treatments of this subject I've seen require quite extensive prior knowledge. You and Sean Carroll's video have made it a lot easier for us neophytes. I would call it "The Neophytes Guide to Fields". Put me down for a copy. Volume with nothing in it is nothing. It is defined by what's in it or the space it occupies. You can't have 'length' without something having length. It's a property of things. 'Space' has something in it, be it only fields.

Volume is defined by whatever occupies it. Whatever occupies it defines the boundary. It is a parameter and does not exist by itself.

It's all good. You do a fine job introducing people to the idea of fields in an accessible way.

Yes, I understand that not all extend, potentially, infinitely.

Up to now, space has not been quantised so we can only assume it's volume. Scientists did an experiment that went on the basis that if space was granular, red frequencies would travel faster than blue ones since their velocity might be impeded less because of the granularity. The distances required went to billions of light years but both ends of the spectrum arrived, effectively, at the same time.

But - I assert - fields permeate the whole universe; gravity/spacetime extends everywhere.

This is how I think. The existence of space - which is just volume - is dependent on the existence of fields. On that line of thinking, empty spaces full of nothing (?) can''t exist.

Like all politicians, he was selling a dream. It doesn't matter if it never materialises, what matters is that they are seen to share a common goal with their voters.