|
Post by beth on Feb 22, 2010 21:06:45 GMT
That surprises me, but I was not in a rural area, growing up in the late 50s and 60s, so for all I know, that is what made the difference. We lived in a 2 story house with a phone in the living room and an extension phone in the upstairs foyer. The extension had a very long cord that allowed it to be taken into each bedroom from the hallway jack. The phones weren't very expensive, but the jacks/plug-ins were. I think the improvements in communication and transportation were the main things that allowed us to advance so much during the past century. duh I guess that's obvious.
Another thing I find a bit daunting is the idea of traveling by ship. So scratch what I said about travel . . . can't think of many things more miserable than weeks on the water.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 22, 2010 22:18:57 GMT
It depends on how you mean that. True, must people did not have personal or portable phones and cells weren't an option, but - at least in the U. S. - the huge majority of people had home phones (land lines) and I think that would go all the back into the '40s. not in the uk they didnt...not even landlines..there were only three houses in the village who had their own black bakerlite phones....we were one..the vicarage and our local doctor we were forever taking messages..peeps used to knock on the door to use our phone but only on important matters ie some body was in hospital or what ever or could we tell mrs x that she was now a grandma etc etc,,in fact our number began with a four there were only 400 plus phones in the area Even in the 60s people used to share a 'party line'. You couldn't buy a telephone until the early 80s. They were the property of the Post Office and later British Telecom - they had to be rented.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 23, 2010 0:15:41 GMT
not in the uk they didnt...not even landlines..there were only three houses in the village who had their own black bakerlite phones....we were one..the vicarage and our local doctor we were forever taking messages..peeps used to knock on the door to use our phone but only on important matters ie some body was in hospital or what ever or could we tell mrs x that she was now a grandma etc etc,,in fact our number began with a four there were only 400 plus phones in the area Even in the 60s people used to share a 'party line'. You couldn't buy a telephone until the early 80s. They were the property of the Post Office and later British Telecom - they had to be rented. That's why the phones were cheap. There was a rental change, but it was incorporated into the monthly service bill. My grandparents lived in a rural area and had a party line in the 60s, but I don't know of anyone else I knew that did. Didn't that have something to do with the amount of line available in particular areas? I think it must have been difficult with no phone. Once friends and family moved away, there was only snail mail to use to keep in touch. Could we survive a year in past times before - oh, say - 1900? Could we ENJOY a year before 1900?
|
|
|
Post by chefmate on Feb 23, 2010 3:13:35 GMT
most peeps didnt have phones in the 1950,s or the 1960,s.... It depends on how you mean that. True, must people did not have personal or portable phones and cells weren't an option, but - at least in the U. S. - the huge majority of people had home phones (land lines) and I think that would go all the back into the '40s. We didn't have a phone until I was eleven years old [1962] and then it was a party line; we only had one tv channel, finally got three in 1968 plus color tv; didn't have a bathtub until 1959 and used a outhouse until 1955 so I guess we were kinda hillbillies but happy ones.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 23, 2010 9:50:41 GMT
[ I think it must have been difficult with no phone. Once friends and family moved away, there was only snail mail to use to keep in touch. Could we survive a year in past times before - oh, say - 1900? Could we ENJOY a year before 1900? it wasn't difficult at all..we wrote letters to those who had no phone...and some times i switch the phone off so i can have some peace..especially if theres some thing i want to watch on telly or have bought a CD film yes we would all survive without the phone...and journeys and holidays would be much improved by silence...which in form all and sundry of the minutiae of some one elses sad life....
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 24, 2010 0:16:55 GMT
I know what you're saying about quiet time, but instead of turning off the phone, I turn off the TV. Thinking about surviving life 100 or more years ago - it would be pretty difficult for me. I've never had to deal with day-to-day life without electricity and all the related conveniences. Maybe it would be a relief, but I can't see that from here. I could face - even enjoy - summer with no AC, but it would be tough without electric fans.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 24, 2010 9:42:25 GMT
well i have always had a phone..bathroom..electricity..but could live without them although i dont think i would be happy to be without my washing machine though or lawn mower ...
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 24, 2010 14:34:34 GMT
oh jeez . . . I forgot about the bathrooms (or lack of same). I know this isn't romantic or PC, but I have to wonder if 200 year ago and beyond smelled like the international waiting room at the airport - world wide. I'd have to readjust my expectations and standards. Must have a short think about this.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 25, 2010 1:18:07 GMT
OK, thought about it. One week orientation and all would doubtless be well. Hopefully. So . . . again, I'll take 1902.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 25, 2010 8:55:36 GMT
OK, thought about it. One week orientation and all would doubtless be well. Hopefully. So . . . again, I'll take 1902. well if you do go to 1902 go and my grandmother and her mother they are very much into rights-vote and equality for women ..the buzz word is universal suffrage but dont forget your visiting card or you wont get across the door step
|
|
|
Post by gabriel on Feb 25, 2010 10:01:00 GMT
I don't want a year, just 24 hours will do. The bridge of the Titanic, from 2.30pm April 14 to 2.30am April 15 1912.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Feb 25, 2010 18:44:58 GMT
The White House, January 21st 2009, believing that the world had finally changed to the extent that the USA could have a black President.
|
|
|
Post by june on Feb 25, 2010 19:56:25 GMT
I love to go back to the twenties but only as an idle rich please.
although my boobies and those flapper dresses would not mix
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 26, 2010 4:23:40 GMT
I like the idea of one day (Gabe, Riot Girl). Hard choice to make. My first thought is to be there with information that would stop a tragedy, but then, there IS the theory that tampering with the space time continuum (really?) would have disastrous repercussions - so, no, I wouldn't want to take that kind of risk. Maybe have a chance to attend a concert by Mozart or Chopin. What a thrill that would be.
|
|
|
Post by gabriel on Feb 26, 2010 7:18:13 GMT
That wasn't my intention beth. I've seen too many Star Trek eps not to know the dangers inherent in changing the past. I want to know who did what, who said what, how were they acting, reacting or why were they doing nothing at all. If it weren't so cold in the Atlantic at that time of the year, I'd be a fly on the wall. Probably frozen to the bulkhead but there you go.
|
|
|
Post by june on Feb 26, 2010 20:22:16 GMT
I would of course change the past - I'd save my mother's life.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 27, 2010 0:10:15 GMT
No Gabe, I didn't think you meant that. I thought you would want to go, observe and get outta there, but the idea crossed my mind that it would be tempting to just drop a hint. June, I can imagine, if that were possible, it would be so absolutely vital to you it would become a need. I lost both my parents in ways that could not have been averted - at least not by me. That's one reason I didn't choose the 1960s. Going back there, knowing what I know now, would be great fun in many ways, but I'd have to visit my family. Better keep the memories I have than mess with fate.
|
|
|
Post by gabriel on Feb 27, 2010 6:09:15 GMT
No Gabe, I didn't think you meant that. I thought you would want to go, observe and get outta there, but the idea crossed my mind that it would be tempting to just drop a hint. Sure it would be tempting. 'There's an iceberg dead ahead!' I grab the wheel, swing her to starboard, then the ship sinks in less than 2 and a half hours. No, I wouldn't do anything. Just make sure I got to the side of the boat where Murdoch was so I could get in a lifeboat.
|
|
|
Post by june on Feb 27, 2010 14:47:21 GMT
I am interested in this idea that you can mess up the future by messing with the past when travelling through time.
So, do we know that time is linear?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 27, 2010 15:00:16 GMT
I am interested in this idea that you can mess up the future by messing with the past when travelling through time. So, do we know that time is linear? Heloise despises her paternal grandfather. Heloise is homicidal and has been trained in various lethal combat techniques. Despite her relish at the thought of murdering her grandfather, time has conspired against her, for her grandfather has been dead for 30 years. As a crime investigator might say, she has motive and means, but lacks the opportunity; that is, until she fortuitously comes into the possession of a time machine. Now Heloise has the opportunity to fulfill her desire. She makes the necessary settings on the machine and plunges back into time 80 years. She emerges from the machine and begins to stalk her grandfather. He suspects nothing. She waits for the perfect moment and place to strike so that she can enjoy the full satisfaction of her hatred. At this point, we might pause to observe: “If Heloise murders her grandfather, she will have prevented him from fathering any children. That means that Heloise’s own father will not be born. And that means that Heloise will not be born. But if she never comes into existence, then how is she able to return…?” And so we have the infamous grandfather paradox. Before we examine what happens next, let’s consider the possible outcomes of her impending action. First, let’s assume that the many-worlds hypothesis correctly describes the universe. If so, then we avoid the paradox. If Heloise succeeds in killing her grandfather before her father is conceived, then the state of the world includes quantum entanglement of the events involved in Heloise’s mind, body, surrounding objects, etc., such that when she succeeds in killing her grandfather (or willing his death just prior to the physical accomplishment of it), the universe at that moment divides into one universe in which she succeeded and a second universe in which she did not. So the paradox of causal continuity in external time does not arise; causation presumably connects events in the different universes without any inconsistency. But as we shall see in the next section this quantum interpretation trades-off a causation paradox for a personal identity paradox. Next, let’s assume that we do not have the many-worlds quantum interpretation available to us, nor for that matter, any theory of different worlds. Can Heloise murder her grandfather? As David Lewis famously remarked, in one sense she can, and in another sense she can’t. The sense in which she can murder her grandfather refers to her ability, her willingness, and her opportunity to do so. But the sense in which she cannot murder her grandfather trumps the sense in which she can. In fact, she does not murder her grandfather because the moments of external time that have already passed are no longer separable. Assuming that events 80 years ago did not include Heloise murdering her grandfather, she cannot create another moment 80 years ago that does. A set of facts is arranged such that it is perfectly appropriate to say that, in one sense, Heloise can murder her grandfather. However, this set of facts is enclosed by the larger set of facts that include the survival of her grandfather. Were Heloise to actually succeed in carrying out her murderous desire, this larger set of facts would contain a contradiction (that her grandfather both is murdered and is not murdered 80 years ago), which is impossible. History remains consistent. Clear now
|
|