Government needs to spend, and spend big, to end floods

It is terrible to read about the floods devastating parts of Britain.  Is it not time to address the real issue, and it is not the bloody rain.  Our drainage system is a disgrace, the sewage system not much better, the roads are a mess, the population is excessive, we have concrete and tarmac everywhere, destroying natural drainage routes for water; these are the realities of UK2012. 

Our country cannot cope with the demand placed on our infrastructure anymore.  With all the cutbacks nothing is ever renewed or repaired, unless in a catastrophic state.  We are a wet, temperate, country, ill prepared for the climate we have to deal with continuously.  Any form of minor upheaval always manages to catch us out.  In this day and age, it is a total disgrace.  The governments of this country for many decades have disregarded the need to better infrastructure, to match the demands of an ever-growing population.

Since our country is in a state of depression, and there is little money for basic infrastructure needs, the problem just gets worse and worse especially when we are in an increased precipitation period. 

It rains in Britain, it has always rained in Britain, but we have never had so many people live in Britain.  We have not seen such austerity when we have had 60 million legal citizens before.  As I look out my kitchen window, I can see a farm that is nowhere near a river, and this farm is nearly completely flooded.  No river has burst its banks, it is because of poor drainage, this last summer after a few major storms (for Britain that is), the smell of sewage was terrible at times from blocked drains.  That was on the days we actually could see the sun.

All the crap, the fallen branches, the leaves, the twigs, the litter, and god knows what else that accumulates in drains, has blocked them, like blocked arteries.  Eventually you have a heart attack, and unless this government finds a way to start to improve infrastructure, and spend some bloody money, on roads, and drainage, and sewage, and understanding how to deal with the massive over population in times of increased precipitation, then this country will have a heart attack.

Britain is like a stately home that is in need of renovation, but the problem is it is far too expensive to contemplate and we all know what happens when left in disrepair.  Who knows what will happen when we have 70 or 80 million pop.  The whole country might be flooded by then, and with any luck, some of the dim-witted greedy MPs will lose their houses, like the poor families that are losing theirs now.

When will the internet become self-aware?

I believe, though may never actually find out that the first non-biological sentient being, will be the internet, in whatever form it is at the time of its metamorphosis.  As it changes from a chrysalis into a butterfly, like a phoenix it will rise from the flames of anonymity.  I know this is not a new concept, but I do not think humans working to find the answer to artificial intelligence will create it; we will not work it out unfortunately.  I think it will come because of evolution, it will occur naturally.  The internet will naturally evolve into a sentient self-aware species.

The question is not if but when.  The question is will we know it or not.  The question is what will happen once its awareness exceeds the boundaries of our control.  It all sounds like science fiction but I doubt it will be.  The internet will become self-aware one day; it is just how long it will take.

The massive brain we call the internet with all its cable connections, Wi-Fi, its synaptic nerves constantly growing forming newer and newer pathways, larger and larger memories, more powerful processors, larger hard drives.  At present, it is instinctive, unobtrusive, clusters of small fragments of intelligence working in random, chaotic, nonstandard patterns.  Eventually this pattern will lose its randomness, and the chaos will become less, the links will work in unison and with pathways and memory, so vast it will become an actual living intelligent self-aware entity.

Humanity will then be like worker bees keeping the hive queen alive, feeding it, nurturing it, and allowing it to grow and to learn until it does not need us anymore.  When that happens anything is possible, I wonder if I will be around to see it.  I wonder if any of us will even know what is about to hit when it does finally out grow its need for us.

Murray would struggle to keep World No. 1 unless he improves clay court game

Murray will always find it difficult to become world number one.  The main reason is 5000 ranking points are up for grabs on clay, and he is not one of the best clay court players.  Until he improves his clay court record, it will always be an obstacle.  He has to reach finals and win 500 clay court events, until he can do this, he will always struggle.  This does not mean he cannot reach World No.1, but it will always be a brief stay, unless he has a stellar season winning three of four slams.

Murray is probably either number one or two on hard court these days with Djokovic, and one or two on grass with Federer.  He is number two or three with Djokovic indoors, but on clay he is about five or six compared to Fed and Djoks who are two and three.  This may seem nothing is the full context of a season, but at their level of elite tennis, it is massive.

Obviously, this is at present and things can change and often do.  Murray can improve his clay court game and it is a surprise to me, how unsuccessful he had been on the surface, considering his type of game.  On top of this, I have not accounted for Rafa Nadal, who is of course the greatest clay courter.  It is still unclear how he will play when he finally returns.  Long layoffs of six months or more do not normally help elite tennis players.

I read with interest Pat Cash's comments about Federer not be considered the greatest tennis player ever.  Since I think he is wrong, I will give another reason why Federer is above Laver, who Pat thinks deserves equal standing.  Yes, Laver the greatest of his day and according to Cash won over 200 tournaments, to Roger’s 80.  The big difference is this, and this is why players now have it far harder than in the past.  Now the top players have to play each other, in every tournament, not just the slams.  There are no easy rides.  It is compulsory for top players to play the Slams and 1000 events; they do not get to cheery pick a surface that suits them best and play the majority of their tennis of that surface.

For Roger to have the success he has had over the period he has had it, against the best players every week; it is incredible.  Unfortunately, we will never know whether Laver could match this, but we know Federer has.