My mother once said that when I was waxing nostalgic about US 66 and times past. So with that being said, I may have been better off being born back in the 40's. As I approach my later teens, I acquire an Edsel and begin to cruise US 66, staying primarily out of the LA area and running from the SoCal high desert to Amarillo, TX. I would be a Beatnik, waxing poetic about the endless ribbon of road cutting straight through the land as far as the eye can see (stretch of 66 in New Mexico between Cline's Corners and Santa Rosa).
In some ways, I wish I was born later, so my parents could post hilarious YouTube videos documenting my young life. On the other hand, most of the later decades were more fascist than the era when I was raised.
I wish I was born in 1980 and not 1986. Well one reason was most of my friends were like 3-4 years older than me though.
I've more than once considered what it would have been like to have been born in 60s England. I'm a huge fan of 80s British music (chiefly New Wave, which was more popular in the UK). A lot of the UK motorway network was built in the 70s and 80s too, so it would have been cool to watch them pop up.
To make it clear, I've only wondered. I'm rather happy having been born in '95. There's many things that I do from day to day that I take for granted, to say the least.
Short answer, yes.
My musical and television tastes are firmly rooted in the 70s and 80s so I would've probably done well to be born in the late 50s - early 60s.
Nope. Right on schedule.
If you were born earlier or later, that is probably going to dramatically affect what stuff you're into. The same things will hit your brain at a different times and shit you fell in love with at age 13 may be dismissed by you at age 20 or at age 10.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 19, 2017, 04:20:38 PM
Nope. Right on schedule.
If you were born earlier or later, that is probably going to dramatically affect what stuff you're into. The same things will hit your brain at a different times and shit you fell in love with at age 13 may be dismissed by you at age 20 or at age 10.
^ Pretty much this.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 19, 2017, 04:20:38 PM
If you were born earlier or later, that is probably going to dramatically affect what stuff you're into.
Well, duh. But that's not the point of the thread.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 19, 2017, 06:23:47 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 19, 2017, 04:20:38 PM
If you were born earlier or later, that is probably going to dramatically affect what stuff you're into.
Well, duh. But that's not the point of the thread.
So what is the point of the thread, since time travel hasn't been invented yet? If you feel out of place in this decade, you're certain to be "out in left field" in another.
Having the benefit of knowing what happened 10-20-30 years in the future might not necessarily make you famous or interesting, but...more likely, a dangerous kook.
Quote from: formulanone on September 19, 2017, 06:31:50 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 19, 2017, 06:23:47 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 19, 2017, 04:20:38 PM
If you were born earlier or later, that is probably going to dramatically affect what stuff you're into.
Well, duh. But that's not the point of the thread.
So what is the point of the thread, since time travel hasn't been invented yet? If you feel out of place in this decade, you're certain to be "out in left field" in another.
Having the benefit of knowing what happened 10-20-30 years in the future might not necessarily make you famous or interesting, but...more likely, a dangerous kook.
The point is to discuss whether or not we find previous generations more interesting than the current one. "Born in the wrong decade" is not meant to be taken literally.
It would be cool to be a kid in the 70s-80s, I really enjoy the music from those times. That and to see how differently people lived, to gain a perspective.
Not at all! Being born the year Rock and Roll began, now how does it get any cooler than that? Being able to see so much happen in so many areas of endeavor was great.
If I could pick another time to be born on this planet, it would be when humanity heads for the stars.
Rick
I was born in the early 1980s and definitely influenced the most by said decade. A lot of people that don't know me very well seem to think I'm a 1990s person for whatever reason. Really I'm not a big internet/social media/people oriented type of person like most 1990s people but rather introverted which was much more a trope of the 1980s. Really I still pretty much like everything I grew up with in the 80s like cars, music, movies, TV shows, etc.
I'm pretty much satisfied with my circumstances, being an early "baby boomer" (very late '40's). While occasionally prone to hindsight (especially about being an arrogant asshole in my early 20's and thus screwing up my first marriage!), at 68 I am, surprisingly, looking toward the future with several business and personal projects in progress -- and all is going reasonably well (that itself being unusual in my experience); glitches and "speedbumps" are minor in comparison with the overall picture. Put it this way -- I made most of my major mistakes in the first 60% of my life -- and acquiring the ability to weather life's storms, bounce back from the precipice, and acquire a modicum of experience/information during the process has been my best asset -- particularly in the ability to discern reality from perception. I don't think being born any other time would have allowed me to develop that skill set. I'm fine being just where I am!
The system is really unfair to young people currently. A lot of them have to live with their parents well into their 20's because wages are so low and housing is so expensive. And most parents these days are asses to their adult children, and try to continue to treat them as if they were still little kids, and all the young adults are trapped and forced to put up with their assholery.
Question for you older guys: Is it true that minimum wage in 1972 was the equivalent of $22/hr in today's money?
Quote from: capt.ron on September 19, 2017, 11:47:35 AM
My mother once said that when I was waxing nostalgic about US 66 and times past. So with that being said, I may have been better off being born back in the 40's. As I approach my later teens, I acquire an Edsel and begin to cruise US 66, staying primarily out of the LA area and running from the SoCal high desert to Amarillo, TX. I would be a Beatnik, waxing poetic about the endless ribbon of road cutting straight through the land as far as the eye can see (stretch of 66 in New Mexico between Cline's Corners and Santa Rosa).
I feel for you. I wish that I had been born in the same year that my father was (1946) so at least I could get the chance to ride on Route 66 as a continuous route that has no freeway alongside it. And I would probably drive it in a Corvette convertible, which is the same car that they drove in the road's namesake TV show. (Slightly off-topic: I guess this is what Chevy had in mind when they told us to "Find new roads"!)
Meh. I'd much rather be born in a range of the early 70s to the late 80s. According to my father, I'm lucky that I even got a decent job without a college education.
Quote from: Brian556 on September 20, 2017, 02:45:21 AM
Question for you older guys: Is it true that minimum wage in 1972 was the equivalent of $22/hr in today's money?
Yes.
And labor unions were much stronger then.
I very much hate the decade I was born into (born in '99). I wish things were different, but every time I here people say "things were different back then!" How different? I know this generation is narcissistic and I personally don't have to luxary of having a phone upto par with others, but I am realizing that for sometime, everything revolved around me, my dad now doesn't pay for some of the things I would perfer to have. But, I am working to find employment.
Quote from: bandit957 on September 20, 2017, 12:24:32 PM
Quote from: Brian556 on September 20, 2017, 02:45:21 AM
Question for you older guys: Is it true that minimum wage in 1972 was the equivalent of $22/hr in today's money?
Yes.
And labor unions were much stronger then.
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/21/adjusted-for-inflation-the-federal-minimum-wage-is-worth-less-than-50-years-ago.html
Umm, nope, about half that.
QuoteWere you born in the wrong decade?
I can't really say. I think that no matter what time I could ever be born in, I would still be a roadgeek. That is how strongly the interest is embedded in my soul. I could probably manage if I was born in most of any of the time periods in very recent history. There would be pros and cons of each and every one. If I was born in the mid-1910's like, say, my great-grandmother, I would grow up to see the exciting development of the US Highway system, but my early life would also be plagued by the Great Depression and both World Wars. Also, I would be, at least at first, living in a time when healthcare and mental health treatment would be very sub-par, compared to now. If I was born not long before or right around 1940, like most of my grandparents, the very beginning of my life would be a rough spot due to WWII, but being so young, I thankfully wouldn't have much memory of it. I would progress into my teenage years during the exciting time of rock-and-roll, and the very exciting creation of the Interstate Highway system. The 1960's would be a life-changing decade. There'd be the chance I would be forced to serve in the Vietnam War, or if not I would witness major, centuries-due social and civil rights changes in the home front. There would also be a huge boom in innovation in the music scene with acts such as The Beatles. Depending on what hemisphere of the world I would be in (fighting for my country and my life, or fighting for social reforms in my home country), life in the 1960's for me could either be really bad or really good. If I was born in the 1960's like my parents, life growing up would be quite nice. Many, many interstates would have been built and popping up by the time I was really growing up in the 1970's, and many wars and social changes will have already been fought (for the most part). I have many personal cultural roots in the 1970's. Also, the 1970's hairstyle (long hair, muttonchops/sideburns, mustache, etc.) has got to be my all-time favorite in world history. My hair mildly resembles that. If I reached adulthood in the 1980's (like my parents), that would also have been an exciting time to complete growing up, as would the 1990's, with both of those decades marking the amazing rise of video games as we know them today. My cousin was born in the early 1990's, and because of him, I have been able to experience the joys of playing video games on an N64 as if that is what I had grown up on myself.
In the end, I was born in late 1999. I don't think I'd change it, even though I think I could enjoy the positives of other decades if I was born in them. Today's world has many pros and many cons, but we can all agree that quality of life for all people on earth, even in the developing countries, is miles better than it was a few centuries ago. For us roadgeeks, this is a special age. We are able to all come together, by way of this forum, our wonderful websites that some of you have made, road videos, road pictures, etc., all falling under the umbrella of technological internet communication of the modern day. We live, now, in an age, where us roadgeeks can use our provided technology to do amazing things and express our interests in ways such as making unbelieveably realistic signs using software, making driving simulators on video games, and sharing our road photos and videos on the internet for all to see!!! And due to this forum and such, we can meet up with eachother in real life by way of roadmeets and such. So basically, I personally wouldn't change what decade I was born. Today's era in 2017 has very good quality of life, ever-improving healthcare (both mental and physical), technological advancements and incredibly fun things such as video games, and the world is a much "smaller" place - we, on the globe, are very interconnected these days, and we can easily reach other people in real life, and especially online. From a roadgeek perspective, each of these time periods has their own sweet spot. In the early 20th Century, you'd see the US Highway system come to life, and especially see it before many of the US Highways got tragically decommissioned later on. In the mid-to-late 20th Century, you'd see the Interstate Highway system come to life. Also, if you've lived for a long time before today, you've had the privilege to get to see so many truss (and other kinds of) bridges before so many of them are taken down and simply replaced by regular bridges, and in many of those situations, the deed has already been long done, before mine and many others' lifetimes even began. Today, we have, among other good road-related things, the livelihood of the roadgeek community (which it was hard for us to know the rest of us existed before the internet), and we are all interconnected now. 2017 has some really good things, and it sure has some bad things as well, but at least we got the rest of us to ride it out with, no matter what happens. :nod:
I was born in 1961. Upon reflection, I''m satisfied that I was born in the right decade. As a kid, TV programs were engaging but still relatively tame (no profanity), commercials were very minimal (2 minutes per half-hour), Saturday morning cartoons didn't start to get really "preachy" until I mostly outgrew them, and independent UHF stations still showed reruns of decent - by kid standards- programs (like Three Stooges, F Troop, and Addams Family among others) in the afternoons. The majority of toys I had were still of good quality and had lasting play value as compared to most of the toys my nieces and nephews had in later years.
As I went from elementary school into junior high (please don't call it "middle school") and high school, I entered in the era of early to mid 1970s folk and rock (IMO some of the best music ever recorded), much of which I still have in my collection today. In my late high school and college years, I developed an appreciation for quality stereo equipment - much of which was readily available on the used market and, with rare exceptions (and unlike today), was easily repairable by those of us with average mechanical/electrical skills.
When learning to drive, and for several years thereafter, the cars I relied on (my parents' cars) were a 1975 Buick Century wagon and a 1977 Chevy Impala sedan. Although the cars I've driven since have been much smaller, and more responsive, I maintain to this day that these types of cars are still the best cars for a novice driver to learn on and to use for the first two or three years. The principle is simple - if you can handle big American road behemoths, you should have no problem with nearly any other car out there.
Now for some road-related comments:
Often took family trips from Massachusetts to Annapolis and, in later years, Williamsburg, between the late 1960s and the mid-1970s - this during the era of much highway construction and expansion along the East Coast such as the expansion of the New Jersey Turnpike, the opening of the second span of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, and the complete reconstruction of the Wilbur Cross Highway among many memories I have.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, I also recall seeing the local news coverage of the Boston area highway expansion plans, protests, and ultimate cancellation (my parents always encouraged us, even as children, to watch the news - something I doubt many people do today). While I was too young to fully understand and appreciate the politics behind the various decisions, it nevertheless gave me a good grounding in the history of Boston highway development - which has served me in good stead on many an occasion.
Looking back, it hasn't been a perfect ride (as I'm sure few people's life experiences have been), but overall I consider myself both fortunate and happy to have grown up in the era I did.
Quote from: roadman on September 20, 2017, 07:09:31 PM
As I went from elementary school into junior high (please don't call it "middle school")
My understanding is that middle schools and junior highs encompass different grade divisions. I'm not sure what the breakdown is for each specific term, but in one of those categories, ninth graders (freshmen) go to that school and not the high school, which is for the top three grades. The other doesn't contain ninth graders, and all four years go to high school.
I went to something called an "upper elementary," which was some sort of newfangled term used in the early 70s for a school encompassing sixth through eighth grades.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 20, 2017, 08:59:34 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 20, 2017, 07:09:31 PM
As I went from elementary school into junior high (please don't call it "middle school")
My understanding is that middle schools and junior highs encompass different grade divisions. I'm not sure what the breakdown is for each specific term, but in one of those categories, ninth graders (freshmen) go to that school and not the high school, which is for the top three grades. The other doesn't contain ninth graders, and all four years go to high school.
I went to something called an "upper elementary," which was some sort of newfangled term used in the early 70s for a school encompassing sixth through eighth grades.
I thought middle school and junior high school were the same thing: 6th to 8th grade. I went to Cline Middle School (a public school) in the mid-'80s, which included 6th to 8th. Then I went to a Catholic school that had 1st to 8th, but they kept insisting middle school only included 7th to 8th. (That's not surprising, since I learned some coursework in public school in 6th grade that the Catholic high school taught again when I was a sophomore, since the parochial schools are so far behind.) I don't remember whether this school called it middle school or junior high.
I was born in the right time, but somtimes I feel like I should be born from 1995- 1999.
Quote from: bandit957 on September 20, 2017, 10:22:30 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 20, 2017, 08:59:34 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 20, 2017, 07:09:31 PM
As I went from elementary school into junior high (please don't call it "middle school")
My understanding is that middle schools and junior highs encompass different grade divisions. I'm not sure what the breakdown is for each specific term, but in one of those categories, ninth graders (freshmen) go to that school and not the high school, which is for the top three grades. The other doesn't contain ninth graders, and all four years go to high school.
I went to something called an "upper elementary," which was some sort of newfangled term used in the early 70s for a school encompassing sixth through eighth grades.
I thought middle school and junior high school were the same thing: 6th to 8th grade. I went to Cline Middle School (a public school) in the mid-'80s, which included 6th to 8th. Then I went to a Catholic school that had 1st to 8th, but they kept insisting middle school only included 7th to 8th. (That's not surprising, since I learned some coursework in public school in 6th grade that the Catholic high school taught again when I was a sophomore, since the parochial schools are so far behind.) I don't remember whether this school called it middle school or junior high.
In my area (Western Washington), the junior highs are 7-9, and the middle schools are 6-8. I went to a "junior high" but often refer to it as "middle school" when speaking retrospectively, since most districts around me used the term "middle school".
There are also some primary schools and intermediate schools. I'm not sure which grades these encompass, but I believe primary is K-3, and intermediate is 4-6. These districts seem to use junior highs (7-9). There is also at least one "secondary" school, but I can't remember where.
British Columbia uses primary/elementary, middle, and
secondary (not "high school"). Fun fact: Seth Rogen and best-bud Evan Goldberg attended Point Grey
Secondary (south of Vancouver).
Quote from: hbelkins on September 20, 2017, 08:59:34 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 20, 2017, 07:09:31 PM
As I went from elementary school into junior high (please don't call it "middle school")
My understanding is that middle schools and junior highs encompass different grade divisions. I'm not sure what the breakdown is for each specific term, but in one of those categories, ninth graders (freshmen) go to that school and not the high school, which is for the top three grades. The other doesn't contain ninth graders, and all four years go to high school.
I went to something called an "upper elementary," which was some sort of newfangled term used in the early 70s for a school encompassing sixth through eighth grades.
Middle schools are grades 6-8, Junior High grades 7-9
STV100-2
The only reason I would wish I were born in a different time was so I'd be closer in age with the Mrs. She's 15 years my junior.
STV100-2
Quote from: Otto Yamamoto on September 21, 2017, 06:50:53 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 20, 2017, 08:59:34 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 20, 2017, 07:09:31 PM
As I went from elementary school into junior high (please don't call it "middle school")
My understanding is that middle schools and junior highs encompass different grade divisions. I'm not sure what the breakdown is for each specific term, but in one of those categories, ninth graders (freshmen) go to that school and not the high school, which is for the top three grades. The other doesn't contain ninth graders, and all four years go to high school.
I went to something called an "upper elementary," which was some sort of newfangled term used in the early 70s for a school encompassing sixth through eighth grades.
Middle schools are grades 6-8, Junior High grades 7-9
STV100-2
For me, elementary school was 1st to 6th grade, and junior high was only 7th and 8th grades. High school started with 9th grade.
And I'm still trying to figure out how changing the grade limits and the designations (i.e. "middle school" instead of "junior high") has actually improved education for our children.
Quote from: Otto Yamamoto on September 21, 2017, 06:54:07 AM
The only reason I would wish I were born in a different time was so I'd be closer in age with the Mrs. She's 15 years my junior.
What a player.
Quote from: Otto Yamamoto on September 21, 2017, 06:50:53 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 20, 2017, 08:59:34 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 20, 2017, 07:09:31 PM
As I went from elementary school into junior high (please don't call it "middle school")
My understanding is that middle schools and junior highs encompass different grade divisions. I'm not sure what the breakdown is for each specific term, but in one of those categories, ninth graders (freshmen) go to that school and not the high school, which is for the top three grades. The other doesn't contain ninth graders, and all four years go to high school.
I went to something called an "upper elementary," which was some sort of newfangled term used in the early 70s for a school encompassing sixth through eighth grades.
Middle schools are grades 6-8, Junior High grades 7-9
Differs by school district. Ours are called "junior high", but have grades 6-8. Others do the same, yet call them "middle school". Still yet another has both a "middle school" for grades 5-6 and a "junior high" for grades 7-8.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 21, 2017, 12:44:08 PM
Quote from: Otto Yamamoto on September 21, 2017, 06:54:07 AM
The only reason I would wish I were born in a different time was so I'd be closer in age with the Mrs. She's 15 years my junior.
What a player.
Yeah, I'm a smooth operator [emoji13]
STV100-2
My district was primary K-2, elementary 3-5, middle 6-8, and high 9-12.
I'm glad I was a kid when I was (born in the early 1970s). Didn't have helicopter parents monitoring our every move and we were allowed to go all sorts of places on our own (including riding the subway by ourselves in New York). I'm also glad I grew up prior to smartphones, Facebook, Twitter, etc., because while kids have always found ways to be nasty to each other, my perception is that technology makes it that much more pervasive and easy to humiliate someone school-wide, whereas when I was a kid if you did something embarrassing or whatever the whole school didn't usually find out.
For us, elementary school was K—6, junior high (also called "intermediate") was 7—8, and high school was 9—12. I'm not sure whether they changed that when they rebranded junior high as "middle school"–I'd have to ask my mom since she taught eighth grade–but I do know high school is still 9—12 (other than two "secondary schools" that have been 7—12 since before I was of junior high age). I believe in Fairfax County "middle school" had more to do with how they structure kids' schedules to have a particular "team" of teachers who collaborate than it did with which grades attend the school.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 21, 2017, 02:55:14 PM...when I was a kid if you did something embarrassing or whatever the whole school didn't usually find out.
You could also wait until another kid did something stupid/heroic. I learned to wear faults like medals, that way you couldn't be made fun of (d/b/a Rubber U. R. Glue) for long, it could defuse hostility and get laughter moving in another direction.
We have the Middle School (grades 6-8) and Junior High (7-9) scenario in some area schools, but it depends on the school district. In other places I'd gone to school, the terms were used synonymous to one another, except in the titles of the schools.
Born in 1995, I'm a 90's baby through and through. The only time I ever really have the "I was born in the wrong decade" thoughts running through my head is when I think about seeing all of our country's interstates being built. I think it would've been cool to see their construction in person, and I would've loved to have document of all the now obsolete signage (button copy, '61 spec shields, cutouts, you name it). Seeing the Grateful Dead also would've been cool too...
With that being said, I'm pretty happy to be born in the time I was. It's very nice being a college student when Google exists!
Quote from: bandit957 on September 20, 2017, 12:24:32 PM
Quote from: Brian556 on September 20, 2017, 02:45:21 AM
Question for you older guys: Is it true that minimum wage in 1972 was the equivalent of $22/hr in today's money?
Yes.
And labor unions were much stronger then.
(sarcasm) What a coincidence! (/sarcasm)
I was born in 1974...2 months before Nixon resigned. That makes me a child of the 80s & I love it! I got to use all methods of listening to music (vinyl, 8-tracks, cassette, CDs, and everything else). Like 1995hoo said above, I too am glad cell phones were not part of my growing up (my first one came along when I got married the first time).
Would I love to see my hometown pre-interstate? You bet! There were 6 filling stations on US 80 here in town. Only 1 remains.
Quote from: Brandon on September 21, 2017, 12:52:49 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 20, 2017, 08:59:34 PM
My understanding is that middle schools and junior highs encompass different grade divisions.
Differs by school district. Ours are called "junior high", but have grades 6-8. Others do the same, yet call them "middle school". Still yet another has both a "middle school" for grades 5-6 and a "junior high" for grades 7-8.
Yeah every district is different. Where I went to school it was "middle school" - the official name of the school even contained those words. And it was grades 6-8.
I was aware from a fairly young age, thanks to the TV show
Doug, of the existence of middle (or "junior high") schools in other places and/or times starting at grade 7, possibly being only grades 7-8.
Meanwhile I have a couple cousins who started middle school at grade 5. The district they grew up in was small enough that it only had one school in each tier, so to keep the population roughly balanced between the three buildings they had K-4 in elementary, 5-8 in middle, and 9-12 in high.
Quote from: Ian on September 21, 2017, 04:07:17 PM
Born in 1995, I'm a 90's baby through and through. The only time I ever really have the "I was born in the wrong decade" thoughts running through my head is when I think about seeing all of our country's interstates being built. I think it would've been cool to see their construction in person, and I would've loved to have document of all the now obsolete signage (button copy, '61 spec shields, cutouts, you name it). Seeing the Grateful Dead also would've been cool too...
With that being said, I'm pretty happy to be born in the time I was. It's very nice being a college student when Google exists!
You are a 2000s kid.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 22, 2017, 11:16:12 PM
Quote from: Ian on September 21, 2017, 04:07:17 PM
Born in 1995, I'm a 90's baby through and through. The only time I ever really have the "I was born in the wrong decade" thoughts running through my head is when I think about seeing all of our country's interstates being built. I think it would've been cool to see their construction in person, and I would've loved to have document of all the now obsolete signage (button copy, '61 spec shields, cutouts, you name it). Seeing the Grateful Dead also would've been cool too...
With that being said, I'm pretty happy to be born in the time I was. It's very nice being a college student when Google exists!
You are a 2000s kid.
Born in 1975. I saw The Grateful Dead 16 times between 1988 and 1995 (today is my 29th "Deadiversary"; 9/23/88 at MSG was my first show), and several solo project shows. At least I got to see many of the bands that I enjoy live (Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Rush, Tom Petty, Bob Dylan, CSN with and without Y), but I would've loved to have been born about 15 years earlier to enjoy the full experience, as well as to witness the Interstate Highway System being built. Who knows, maybe I could've swayed a few politicians to have gotten the full I-291 built, CT 11 completed, CT 72 extended west to CT 8, and I-84 built to Providence.
Quote from: Ian on September 21, 2017, 04:07:17 PM
Born in 1995, I'm a 90's baby through and through. The only time I ever really have the "I was born in the wrong decade" thoughts running through my head is when I think about seeing all of our country's interstates being built. I think it would've been cool to see their construction in person, and I would've loved to have document of all the now obsolete signage (button copy, '61 spec shields, cutouts, you name it). Seeing the Grateful Dead also would've been cool too...
With that being said, I'm pretty happy to be born in the time I was. It's very nice being a college student when Google exists!
Being born in 1978, I got to see a whole two stretches of I-93 built in the upper reaches of New Hampshire in the mid-80's. That's about all I got to see.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 23, 2017, 01:15:55 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 22, 2017, 11:16:12 PM
Quote from: Ian on September 21, 2017, 04:07:17 PM
Born in 1995, I'm a 90's baby through and through. The only time I ever really have the "I was born in the wrong decade" thoughts running through my head is when I think about seeing all of our country's interstates being built. I think it would've been cool to see their construction in person, and I would've loved to have document of all the now obsolete signage (button copy, '61 spec shields, cutouts, you name it). Seeing the Grateful Dead also would've been cool too...
With that being said, I'm pretty happy to be born in the time I was. It's very nice being a college student when Google exists!
You are a 2000s kid.
Born in 1975. I saw The Grateful Dead 16 times between 1988 and 1995 (today is my 29th "Deadiversary"; 9/23/88 at MSG was my first show), and several solo project shows. At least I got to see many of the bands that I enjoy live (Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Rush, Tom Petty, Bob Dylan, CSN with and without Y), but I would've loved to have been born about 15 years earlier to enjoy the full experience, as well as to witness the Interstate Highway System being built. Who knows, maybe I could've swayed a few politicians to have gotten the full I-291 built, CT 11 completed, CT 72 extended west to CT 8, and I-84 built to Providence.
I doubt a little kid would have any sway.
When I was younger, I thought it was cool to have been born at the dawn of the "space age." Back then I thought we would have more space stations, missions to Mars, etc.
If, in human history, we ever become space-faring as a society - well, that will be the decade I would wish to have been born at.
Quote from: US 81 on September 23, 2017, 04:18:00 PM
When I was younger, I thought it was cool to have been born at the dawn of the "space age." Back then I thought we would have more space stations, missions to Mars, etc.
If, in human history, we ever become space-faring as a society - well, that will be the decade I would wish to have been born at.
Humans will go to mars by 2040.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 21, 2017, 02:55:14 PM
....
For us, elementary school was K—6, junior high (also called "intermediate") was 7—8, and high school was 9—12. I'm not sure whether they changed that when they rebranded junior high as "middle school"–I'd have to ask my mom since she taught eighth grade–but I do know high school is still 9—12 (other than two "secondary schools" that have been 7—12 since before I was of junior high age). I believe in Fairfax County "middle school" had more to do with how they structure kids' schedules to have a particular "team" of teachers who collaborate than it did with which grades attend the school.
I asked my mom about this last night when they were over here for dinner and she thought the whole "middle school" thing is mostly a branding exercise because it was the current naming fad some 20 years ago. She said the "team" model wound up not working as well as the county had hoped because kids' math abilities differ so much that it was impractical not to split up the kids into different math classes.
Apparently the new fad calls for the teachers to film themselves giving their lectures and for the kids to watch those as homework, then use class time to practice what they learned and ask questions and such–essentially, reversing what they would do as homework and what they would do in school. The theory is that watching a recorded video lets them rewind or rewatch things they missed or didn't understand. Seems kind of absurd to me. Most kids found ways not to do homework before. Why would this be any different?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 23, 2017, 11:47:22 PM
Quote from: US 81 on September 23, 2017, 04:18:00 PM
When I was younger, I thought it was cool to have been born at the dawn of the "space age." Back then I thought we would have more space stations, missions to Mars, etc.
If, in human history, we ever become space-faring as a society - well, that will be the decade I would wish to have been born at.
Humans will go to mars by 2040.
Humans could go to Mars now if we wanted to, at least to visit (colonization is not ready yet). The reason why we aren't going is because there is no reason for humans to go there, as robots are more useful than humans there (no temperature/atmosphere problems, no emotions, and other reasons). It's the lack of demand, not the lack of technology.
Interestingly, if you are on the equator of Mars, the temperature will be a near-constant 70°F during the daytime. Unfortunately, it drops by several hundred degrees at night, and the lack of atmosphere is still a problem. (One day on Mars is almost equal to one day on Earth, to within 3%.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 24, 2017, 09:23:19 AM
Apparently the new fad calls for the teachers to film themselves giving their lectures and for the kids to watch those as homework, then use class time to practice what they learned and ask questions and such–essentially, reversing what they would do as homework and what they would do in school. The theory is that watching a recorded video lets them rewind or rewatch things they missed or didn't understand. Seems kind of absurd to me. Most kids found ways not to do homework before. Why would this be any different?
Well, it would be evident if someone showed up to class not knowing the material. Not sure if it's right or not; on the one hand, I pay attention better to a lecture in person than through a video, but that way does have the virtue of making it so kids can get help if they have a question on the assignment. With homework, if your parents don't have the answer and the teacher can't reply to your email in time, you're basically screwed.
Quote from: 1 on September 24, 2017, 09:32:41 AM
Humans could go to Mars now if we wanted to, at least to visit (colonization is not ready yet).
Only if you want to die of radiation poisoning. There's also the challenge of making a return trip. Fuel is heavy. Colonization will probably happen
before a visit for that reason.
Quote from: 1 on September 24, 2017, 09:32:41 AMIt's the lack of demand funding, not the lack of technology.
FIFY.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 23, 2017, 11:47:22 PM
Quote from: US 81 on September 23, 2017, 04:18:00 PM
When I was younger, I thought it was cool to have been born at the dawn of the "space age." Back then I thought we would have more space stations, missions to Mars, etc.
If, in human history, we ever become space-faring as a society - well, that will be the decade I would wish to have been born at.
Humans will go to mars by 2040.
No way. The Moon was a walk in the backyard by comparison.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 24, 2017, 09:06:32 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 24, 2017, 09:32:41 AMIt's the lack of demand funding, not the lack of technology.
FIFY.
And also political will to increase funding.
For all of the negatives of the Cold War, it gave us boogeyman to compete against. People didn't want to lose to the Soviets so it was easier to convince Americans to fund things like space exploration.
Quote from: kkt on September 26, 2017, 07:41:29 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 23, 2017, 11:47:22 PM
Quote from: US 81 on September 23, 2017, 04:18:00 PM
When I was younger, I thought it was cool to have been born at the dawn of the "space age." Back then I thought we would have more space stations, missions to Mars, etc.
If, in human history, we ever become space-faring as a society - well, that will be the decade I would wish to have been born at.
Humans will go to mars by 2040.
No way. The Moon was a walk in the backyard by comparison.
Given the large investments by various private organisations over the last decade, I suspect it probably will happen by 2040. Probably sooner.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 20, 2017, 08:59:34 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 20, 2017, 07:09:31 PM
As I went from elementary school into junior high (please don't call it "middle school")
My understanding is that middle schools and junior highs encompass different grade divisions. I'm not sure what the breakdown is for each specific term, but in one of those categories, ninth graders (freshmen) go to that school and not the high school, which is for the top three grades. The other doesn't contain ninth graders, and all four years go to high school.
I went to something called an "upper elementary," which was some sort of newfangled term used in the early 70s for a school encompassing sixth through eighth grades.
Varies quite a bit from area to area.
In Brevard County, FL I attended grades 1 thru 10, elementary was 1-6, junior high was 7-9, and high school was 10-12. Today it is different, middle school is 7-8, and high school is 9-12.
In City of Alexandria, VA I took the last 2 years of high school. Elementary was 1-6, middle school was 7-8, and high school was 9-12. Today it is different, elementary is 1-5, middle school is 6-8, and high school is 9-12.
I was born in 1980 - not the best of years in US history (February, I missed one month of the 1980s). The stagflation, the malaise and the previous two decades of social turmoil left the US in a bad mood. I belong to Generation Y (or the first of Millennials from 1980-99, or 1984-2002), which are similar to X'ers (born from 1964/65-1973/74, plus the Y'ers from 1974/75-82/83). I feel I missed the peak (1941-61) of America and my home state California - someone in this forum described the US had a "Great disruption" from 1964-94, my state had its own from 1980-2010. My parents and grandparents described the US as the best nation on earth, and CA the best place to live. It's different to me and my generation, we don't know if we're still a "Land of opportunity" or the "Golden state". And finally, being young in the 2000s wasn't really fun, nor being a teenager in the 90s. Baby boomers appear more optimistic, successful and in charge of themselves, compared to the "defeated' Generation X/Y bracket. I'm 37 years old now, I noticed the Gen X are better established now, but what about the Millennials in their 20s now? It just "sucks".
Quote from: jakeroot on September 26, 2017, 08:03:11 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 26, 2017, 07:41:29 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 23, 2017, 11:47:22 PM
Quote from: US 81 on September 23, 2017, 04:18:00 PM
When I was younger, I thought it was cool to have been born at the dawn of the "space age." Back then I thought we would have more space stations, missions to Mars, etc.
If, in human history, we ever become space-faring as a society - well, that will be the decade I would wish to have been born at.
Humans will go to mars by 2040.
No way. The Moon was a walk in the backyard by comparison.
Given the large investments by various private organisations over the last decade, I suspect it probably will happen by 2040. Probably sooner.
NASA by 2040, private by 2030.
Quote from: Desert Man on September 27, 2017, 12:39:25 PM
I was born in 1980 - not the best of years in US history (February, I missed one month of the 1980s). The stagflation, the malaise and the previous two decades of social turmoil left the US in a bad mood. I belong to Generation Y (or the first of Millennials from 1980-99, or 1984-2002), which are similar to X'ers (born from 1964/65-1973/74, plus the Y'ers from 1974/75-82/83). I feel I missed the peak (1941-61) of America and my home state California - someone in this forum described the US had a "Great disruption" from 1964-94, my state had its own from 1980-2010. My parents and grandparents described the US as the best nation on earth, and CA the best place to live. It's different to me and my generation, we don't know if we're still a "Land of opportunity" or the "Golden state". And finally, being young in the 2000s wasn't really fun, nor being a teenager in the 90s. Baby boomers appear more optimistic, successful and in charge of themselves, compared to the "defeated' Generation X/Y bracket. I'm 37 years old now, I noticed the Gen X are better established now, but what about the Millennials in their 20s now? It just "sucks".
The "great disruption" was actually the best time in America's history.
Quote from: Beltway on September 26, 2017, 10:10:28 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 20, 2017, 08:59:34 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 20, 2017, 07:09:31 PM
As I went from elementary school into junior high (please don't call it "middle school")
My understanding is that middle schools and junior highs encompass different grade divisions. I'm not sure what the breakdown is for each specific term, but in one of those categories, ninth graders (freshmen) go to that school and not the high school, which is for the top three grades. The other doesn't contain ninth graders, and all four years go to high school.
I went to something called an "upper elementary," which was some sort of newfangled term used in the early 70s for a school encompassing sixth through eighth grades.
Varies quite a bit from area to area.
In Brevard County, FL I attended grades 1 thru 10, elementary was 1-6, junior high was 7-9, and high school was 10-12. Today it is different, middle school is 7-8, and high school is 9-12.
In City of Alexandria, VA I took the last 2 years of high school. Elementary was 1-6, middle school was 7-8, and high school was 9-12. Today it is different, elementary is 1-5, middle school is 6-8, and high school is 9-12.
In my town, k-5 is elementry school, 6th is at it's own school, 7-8 is middle school, 9-12 is high school.
Where I went to school, the term "middle school" was being phased out, not phased in. K-4 was lower school, 5-8 was "upper school" (everyone called it middle school though), and 9-12 was high school.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 27, 2017, 04:53:46 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 26, 2017, 08:03:11 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 26, 2017, 07:41:29 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 23, 2017, 11:47:22 PM
Quote from: US 81 on September 23, 2017, 04:18:00 PM
When I was younger, I thought it was cool to have been born at the dawn of the "space age." Back then I thought we would have more space stations, missions to Mars, etc.
If, in human history, we ever become space-faring as a society - well, that will be the decade I would wish to have been born at.
Humans will go to mars by 2040.
No way. The Moon was a walk in the backyard by comparison.
Given the large investments by various private organisations over the last decade, I suspect it probably will happen by 2040. Probably sooner.
NASA by 2040, private by 2030.
No way. It would take 8 years of high budgets just to get back to where the Apollo Project was in 1968. Remember, right now we can't even put an astronaut in low earth orbit without hitching a ride from the Russians.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1579/1
Project Mercury cost 1.6 billion, Gemini cost $7.3 billion, and Apollo $109 billion, all adjusted to 2010 $.
A Mars mission would need to sustain the same level of spending for many years, across changing congresses and administrations. SpaceX's work is impressive, but they are basically making cheaper low earth orbits, not risking their own venture capital on the unsolved problems of sending astronauts to Mars.
First, they'd need a much bigger vehicle, which implies much bigger lift capacity. Possibly assembly in orbit. (Too bad we didn't build that 2nd generation space shuttle.)
The vehicle would have to have some way for astronauts to get exercise. Sedentary during the mission worked okay for a week for Apollo but not for a year or so for Mars.
Then they'd need some cosmic ray shielding. More cosmic rays away from Earth, and a longer mission would make it an unacceptable radiation dose.
They'd need a gentler touchdown technology. Parachute works well for lunar rovers, but they take more of a shock than people do. And, they're just machines, losing one would be bad but not a catastrophe.
They'd need liftoff capability from Mars. Mars is much bigger than the moon, would require a lot more lift than the Apollo lunar module.
A bigger crew, given the longer mission. Probably two staying in Mars orbit while the lander is down, so they could work shifts.
All these things push this into a much much larger mission, and as I say we couldn't even go to the moon again in less than 8-10 years even if we had an Apollo sized budget.
I'd really like to see NASA work on capturing or redirecting an asteroid's orbit. We have all-sky surveys that would give us some advance warning if a large asteroid is on a collision course with Earth, but without something to do about it all that would let us do is say our prayers before the end came.
Quote from: kkt on September 27, 2017, 06:59:18 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 27, 2017, 04:53:46 PM
Given the large investments by various private organisations over the last decade, I suspect it probably will happen by 2040. Probably sooner.
NASA by 2040, private by 2030.
No way. It would take 8 years of high budgets just to get back to where the Apollo Project was in 1968. Remember, right now we can't even put an astronaut in low earth orbit without hitching a ride from the Russians.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1579/1
Project Mercury cost 1.6 billion, Gemini cost $7.3 billion, and Apollo $109 billion, all adjusted to 2010 $.
A Mars mission would need to sustain the same level of spending for many years, across changing congresses and administrations. SpaceX's work is impressive, but they are basically making cheaper low earth orbits, not risking their own venture capital on the unsolved problems of sending astronauts to Mars.
First, they'd need a much bigger vehicle, which implies much bigger lift capacity. Possibly assembly in orbit. (Too bad we didn't build that 2nd generation space shuttle.)
The vehicle would have to have some way for astronauts to get exercise. Sedentary during the mission worked okay for a week for Apollo but not for a year or so for Mars.
Then they'd need some cosmic ray shielding. More cosmic rays away from Earth, and a longer mission would make it an unacceptable radiation dose.
They'd need a gentler touchdown technology. Parachute works well for lunar rovers, but they take more of a shock than people do. And, they're just machines, losing one would be bad but not a catastrophe.
They'd need liftoff capability from Mars. Mars is much bigger than the moon, would require a lot more lift than the Apollo lunar module.
A bigger crew, given the longer mission. Probably two staying in Mars orbit while the lander is down, so they could work shifts.
All these things push this into a much much larger mission, and as I say we couldn't even go to the moon again in less than 8-10 years even if we had an Apollo sized budget.
I'd really like to see NASA work on capturing or redirecting an asteroid's orbit. We have all-sky surveys that would give us some advance warning if a large asteroid is on a collision course with Earth, but without something to do about it all that would let us do is say our prayers before the end came.
Mars is on average 50 times farther from the Earth compared to the Moon. A trip of up to 3 weeks is one thing, a trip of 2 years is entirely another thing. You need to carry enough oxygen and food to last for the whole trip.
The Mars atmosphere is substantial and greatly complicates the landing of a spacecraft, and would greatly complicate the launch to orbit of a spacecraft. Compared to the Moon which has no atmosphere.
There is no human breathable air on Mars, and no food. Atmospheric pressure is 1% that of Earth, so a spacesuit with cosmic ray shielding would be needed to walk on Mars.
With so many successful missions to Mars, it's easy to forget that getting there has never been easy. In fact, more missions have failed than not: 28 failures compared to 19 successes. And none involved any return trip to Earth, let alone carrying humans.
Quote from: Brian556 on September 20, 2017, 02:45:21 AM
The system is really unfair to young people currently. A lot of them have to live with their parents well into their 20's because wages are so low and housing is so expensive. And most parents these days are asses to their adult children, and try to continue to treat them as if they were still little kids, and all the young adults are trapped and forced to put up with their assholery.
As a result, social scientists have falsely decided that people don't mature when they turn 18.
As far as the question in the original post, more often than not I'd have to say the answer is yes. I'll add more details to this some other time.
I don't think so.
Adding to Brian's post about 20-somethings being forced to live with their parents, the insurance companies keep charging them an arm and a leg to insure their cars, to the point where they can't afford basic maintenance, thereby causing them to wind up in accidents they would've otherwise avoided. That's another expense that keeps the kids from getting ahead in life. And they say this crap all ends when you turn 25? Not if you live with younger siblings who drive, it doesn't. You still pay the same high rates you paid before you turn 26 because you have younger brothers and/or sisters who are driving and are just as trapped at home as you.
Truth is that most of them aren't very good drivers. Driving is the one aspect of life that I am great at, so it always pissed me off that I had to be punished for the ineptitude of others in my age group.
This brings up another point. Age discrimination is the only kind of discrimination that is still legal. When I was younger, I always felt that the system is very unfair to young people. Now that I am 37, I still feel the exact same way.
Quote from: Brian556 on September 30, 2017, 02:35:30 AM
Truth is that most of them aren't very good drivers. Driving is the one aspect of life that I am great at, so it always pissed me off that I had to be punished for the ineptitude of others in my age group.
This brings up another point. Age discrimination is the only kind of discrimination that is still legal. When I was younger, I always felt that the system is very unfair to young people. Now that I am 37, I still feel the exact same way.
The crappy thing is if that system of risk assessment by age didn't exist then it would just mean higher premiums for all age groups to to offset the potential losses. On the flip side your risk assessment for health insurance only increases as you get older, it more or less offsets given a long enough time. But to your point, I pay the same premium roughly today for a Dodge Challenger and a Chevy Sonic at 35 as I did for just a 1992 Pontiac Sun Bird when I was in high school almost 20 years ago.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on September 29, 2017, 05:57:52 PM
Adding to Brian's post about 20-somethings being forced to live with their parents, the insurance companies keep charging them an arm and a leg to insure their cars, to the point where they can't afford basic maintenance, thereby causing them to wind up in accidents they would've otherwise avoided. That's another expense that keeps the kids from getting ahead in life. And they say this crap all ends when you turn 25? Not if you live with younger siblings who drive, it doesn't. You still pay the same high rates you paid before you turn 26 because you have younger brothers and/or sisters who are driving and are just as trapped at home as you.
One of the universal truths in property/casualty insurance: young drivers, especially young males, have more/worse accidents than any other group.
Next worst are the elderly, who can be worse drivers, but offset that somewhat by driving in less-risky circumstances. And, at least among the elderly, there is some tolerance for giving up one's drivers license, whereas that doesn't work so well for young drivers.
The good news is that with today's graduated licensing requirements, and young people waiting longer to get their licenses, the spike for young drivers isn't as bad as it once was.
Trivia: if it didn't cost so much to collect the data, and if there weren't privacy concerns, telematics data continuously collected from cars would negate most of the need for operator-age based rating.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on September 30, 2017, 11:26:24 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on September 29, 2017, 05:57:52 PM
Adding to Brian's post about 20-somethings being forced to live with their parents, the insurance companies keep charging them an arm and a leg to insure their cars, to the point where they can't afford basic maintenance, thereby causing them to wind up in accidents they would've otherwise avoided. That's another expense that keeps the kids from getting ahead in life. And they say this crap all ends when you turn 25? Not if you live with younger siblings who drive, it doesn't. You still pay the same high rates you paid before you turn 26 because you have younger brothers and/or sisters who are driving and are just as trapped at home as you.
One of the universal truths in property/casualty insurance: young drivers, especially young males, have more/worse accidents than any other group.
Next worst are the elderly, who can be worse drivers, but offset that somewhat by driving in less-risky circumstances. And, at least among the elderly, there is some tolerance for giving up one's drivers license, whereas that doesn't work so well for young drivers.
The good news is that with today's graduated licensing requirements, and young people waiting longer to get their licenses, the spike for young drivers isn't as bad as it once was.
Trivia: if it didn't cost so much to collect the data, and if there weren't privacy concerns, telematics data continuously collected from cars would negate most of the need for operator-age based rating.
I would not be surprised if insurance companies have a way to get that data and use it , along with things such as credit score, as part of their algorithms to determine rates
Z981
Quote from: jwolfer on September 30, 2017, 01:55:18 PMI would not be surprised if insurance companies have a way to get that data and use it , along with things such as credit score, as part of their algorithms to determine rates
Credit score, yes, for the past 25 years or so. I built a couple of the models.
Telematics...insurers can only get the data if the customer collaborates, of if it's subpoenaed as part of legal action after a loss. The data is great and negates the predictive power of more problematic variables....but it's still too danged expensive or unreliable to get data in any really meaningful volume.
Race plays a factor in car insurance too. If you're black, you'll pay more, especially if you're a black male under age 25.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on September 30, 2017, 02:22:57 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on September 30, 2017, 01:55:18 PMI would not be surprised if insurance companies have a way to get that data and use it , along with things such as credit score, as part of their algorithms to determine rates
Credit score, yes, for the past 25 years or so. I built a couple of the models.
Telematics...insurers can only get the data if the customer collaborates, of if it's subpoenaed as part of legal action after a loss. The data is great and negates the predictive power of more problematic variables....but it's still too danged expensive or unreliable to get data in any really meaningful volume.
I saw an article about one of the big insurance companies was trying to use data without customers concent
Z981
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 30, 2017, 09:08:43 PM
Race plays a factor in car insurance too.
Is that a fact or...?
Quote from: jakeroot on October 01, 2017, 12:01:24 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 30, 2017, 09:08:43 PM
Race plays a factor in car insurance too.
Is that a fact or...?
Not directly. Goes by ZIP code and which ZIP codes have more claims paid, so draw your own conclusions.
Marital status definitely does, though.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 01, 2017, 01:16:46 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 01, 2017, 12:01:24 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 30, 2017, 09:08:43 PM
Race plays a factor in car insurance too.
Is that a fact or...?
Not directly. Goes by ZIP code and which ZIP codes have more claims paid, so draw your own conclusions.
I'd rather not.