There are still some seats left to declare, but it is certain now that we have the first hung parliament since 1974.
The polls closed at 10pm last night and immediately the results and analysis coverage started on the BBC and other channels. I have been awake all night taking in the results as they happened; following the television coverage, forum discussion on DigitalSpy and glancing at Twitter comments on the #ge2010 hashtag.
Before any results were announced, the obligatory Exit Poll commissioned for the BBC, Sky and ITV was released giving the Conservatives 307 seats, Labour 255, Lib Dems 59 and other parties 29. The poll was treated with some skepticism by many as the Liberal Democrats performance was expected to be much better following the positive results for Nick Clegg in the three leaders debates.
The first results were announced before 11pm in Sunderland where the staff their were racing against the clock to get the first result announced as soon as possible. Aside from their speed, the interesting early result was the degree of swing to the Conservatives - an average of 9.9% over the first two results - despite these seats being safe Labour constituencies.
As can be expected, initial declarations were few and far between but by 1am the pace did start to pick up, and the estimated swing to the Conservatives dropped to 5.1% leading to seat predictions in line with the Exit Poll. The poll was further supported by repeated Liberal failures including the dramatic loss of Montgomeryshire for which the member of parliament was Lembit Opik - the MP who famously had a relationship with one of the Cheeky Girls.
It became clear quite soon that the Labour Party was not going to win this election. Their woes were compounded by the loss of high profile MPs Jacquie Smith and Charles Clarke. Good news did come for them though when Ed Balls managed to win his seat in the Morley and Outwood constituency.
By 4:15am, over half of the available seats had been declared. 161 seats had been won by the Conservatives, 126 by Labour, 24 to the Lib Dems and 25 to others. At this point, only 1 seat had been lost by the Conservatives. By 7.30am, only a further 2 seats had been lost.
The announcement of results slowed down dramatically come 8am when 51 seats were still undeclared. Now, at 9:41 there are still 36 seats remaining. What has changed now though is the certainty over a hung parliament. It is now impossible for any party to obtain a majority with the Conservatives at 290, Labour 246, Lib Dems 51 and others 27. The target for a majority is 326 and the most the Conservatives can now gain is 325.
Aside from the statistics and on a personal note, I have quite mixed feelings on this result. I've never experienced a hung parliament so from that point of view it is interesting but I am disappointed that my chosen party did not obtain an outright win. I do hope though that the Conservative Party see this is a very positive election for them. The party has obtained a huge number of seats - 91 at the time of writing - and that is a superb achievement.
What happens now is up in the air. Will Gordon Brown try to hang on to power? Will a coalition be formed and if so, who with? Will the Conservatives come to power with a minority government?
Aside from a couple of short naps yesterday afternoon, I've been awake since 7am yesterday - I estimate in total just under 24 hours. I don't want to miss any announcements about what may happen so it looks like for the time being at least, I'll be hitting that caffeine and staying awake for a number of hours more.
The polls closed at 10pm last night and immediately the results and analysis coverage started on the BBC and other channels. I have been awake all night taking in the results as they happened; following the television coverage, forum discussion on DigitalSpy and glancing at Twitter comments on the #ge2010 hashtag.
Before any results were announced, the obligatory Exit Poll commissioned for the BBC, Sky and ITV was released giving the Conservatives 307 seats, Labour 255, Lib Dems 59 and other parties 29. The poll was treated with some skepticism by many as the Liberal Democrats performance was expected to be much better following the positive results for Nick Clegg in the three leaders debates.
The first results were announced before 11pm in Sunderland where the staff their were racing against the clock to get the first result announced as soon as possible. Aside from their speed, the interesting early result was the degree of swing to the Conservatives - an average of 9.9% over the first two results - despite these seats being safe Labour constituencies.
As can be expected, initial declarations were few and far between but by 1am the pace did start to pick up, and the estimated swing to the Conservatives dropped to 5.1% leading to seat predictions in line with the Exit Poll. The poll was further supported by repeated Liberal failures including the dramatic loss of Montgomeryshire for which the member of parliament was Lembit Opik - the MP who famously had a relationship with one of the Cheeky Girls.
It became clear quite soon that the Labour Party was not going to win this election. Their woes were compounded by the loss of high profile MPs Jacquie Smith and Charles Clarke. Good news did come for them though when Ed Balls managed to win his seat in the Morley and Outwood constituency.
By 4:15am, over half of the available seats had been declared. 161 seats had been won by the Conservatives, 126 by Labour, 24 to the Lib Dems and 25 to others. At this point, only 1 seat had been lost by the Conservatives. By 7.30am, only a further 2 seats had been lost.
The announcement of results slowed down dramatically come 8am when 51 seats were still undeclared. Now, at 9:41 there are still 36 seats remaining. What has changed now though is the certainty over a hung parliament. It is now impossible for any party to obtain a majority with the Conservatives at 290, Labour 246, Lib Dems 51 and others 27. The target for a majority is 326 and the most the Conservatives can now gain is 325.
Aside from the statistics and on a personal note, I have quite mixed feelings on this result. I've never experienced a hung parliament so from that point of view it is interesting but I am disappointed that my chosen party did not obtain an outright win. I do hope though that the Conservative Party see this is a very positive election for them. The party has obtained a huge number of seats - 91 at the time of writing - and that is a superb achievement.
What happens now is up in the air. Will Gordon Brown try to hang on to power? Will a coalition be formed and if so, who with? Will the Conservatives come to power with a minority government?
Aside from a couple of short naps yesterday afternoon, I've been awake since 7am yesterday - I estimate in total just under 24 hours. I don't want to miss any announcements about what may happen so it looks like for the time being at least, I'll be hitting that caffeine and staying awake for a number of hours more.
Today is polling day for what is being described as a historic general election.
For the last month, the media has been dominated by campaign events, opinion polls, talk of a hung parliament and - for the first time ever - televised debates between the leaders.
I love all this. I genuinely find politics fascinating and interesting and I like knowing that I have paid close attention and feel that I will be using my vote wisely. The debates have been an interesting addition to the campaigns giving us the viewers a chance to see what our prospective leaders are like when put on the spot, allowing us to find out more about what they stand for and (importantly) to see how they treat the opposing parties.
As always, there have been rehearsed lines and soundbites planned by PR people behind the scenes. This is the one thing that turns me off campaign events. Nick Clegg has been particularly bad with this trying to position his party as better than the other two. That his party is new politics and they are old. If I'm being picky, the Liberal party has roots going back far further than than Labour so I don't really understand where he is coming from.
That's not to say that the other parties haven't been guilty of soundbites. The buzzword this time seems to be 'fairness'. 'Change' crops up often as well particularly from the Conservatives. I understand where parties are coming from - they need short succinct words to grab the attention of the electorate and it was fine for the first week, perhaps two. Now I'm sick of hearing them and almost want someone to say 'screw fairness and change'. I don't really believe that though. Of course our country should be fair and I want something new.
I made my decision about who would get my vote a long time ago and make no secret of it. In the 2005 election, the Liberal Democrats were my party of choice. Now I've moved to the Conservatives. Their policies on a smaller government, greater individual responsibility, giving communities more power and plans to reduce wasteful spending in the public sector all resonate.
What I'm not going to do is preach to others to do the same. The party campaign machine does enough of that, and the internet is awash with blogs, microblogs and forum posts telling readers who to vote for. Of course I hope my choice is successful and wins enough seats to form a government but if that is not the will of the majority then so be it.
What I think is important is that people vote. Whether it be Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Labour or Monster Raving Loony; this is our chance to have our say on the way the country is run. We should all grab that opportunity and place our mark wisely at the Polling Booth.
And why is this election historic? Well for the first time in years nobody is able to predict the outcome. Opinion polls have been consistently close and if they are accurate then we could have a hung parliament for the first time in over 35 years. Thanks to the televised debates, the Liberal Democrats appear to have support equaling that of Labour (depending on which poll you look at). The result truly is up in the air and it will only start to come down when the winners start being announced overnight tonight.
For the last month, the media has been dominated by campaign events, opinion polls, talk of a hung parliament and - for the first time ever - televised debates between the leaders.
I love all this. I genuinely find politics fascinating and interesting and I like knowing that I have paid close attention and feel that I will be using my vote wisely. The debates have been an interesting addition to the campaigns giving us the viewers a chance to see what our prospective leaders are like when put on the spot, allowing us to find out more about what they stand for and (importantly) to see how they treat the opposing parties.
As always, there have been rehearsed lines and soundbites planned by PR people behind the scenes. This is the one thing that turns me off campaign events. Nick Clegg has been particularly bad with this trying to position his party as better than the other two. That his party is new politics and they are old. If I'm being picky, the Liberal party has roots going back far further than than Labour so I don't really understand where he is coming from.
That's not to say that the other parties haven't been guilty of soundbites. The buzzword this time seems to be 'fairness'. 'Change' crops up often as well particularly from the Conservatives. I understand where parties are coming from - they need short succinct words to grab the attention of the electorate and it was fine for the first week, perhaps two. Now I'm sick of hearing them and almost want someone to say 'screw fairness and change'. I don't really believe that though. Of course our country should be fair and I want something new.
I made my decision about who would get my vote a long time ago and make no secret of it. In the 2005 election, the Liberal Democrats were my party of choice. Now I've moved to the Conservatives. Their policies on a smaller government, greater individual responsibility, giving communities more power and plans to reduce wasteful spending in the public sector all resonate.
What I'm not going to do is preach to others to do the same. The party campaign machine does enough of that, and the internet is awash with blogs, microblogs and forum posts telling readers who to vote for. Of course I hope my choice is successful and wins enough seats to form a government but if that is not the will of the majority then so be it.
What I think is important is that people vote. Whether it be Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Labour or Monster Raving Loony; this is our chance to have our say on the way the country is run. We should all grab that opportunity and place our mark wisely at the Polling Booth.
And why is this election historic? Well for the first time in years nobody is able to predict the outcome. Opinion polls have been consistently close and if they are accurate then we could have a hung parliament for the first time in over 35 years. Thanks to the televised debates, the Liberal Democrats appear to have support equaling that of Labour (depending on which poll you look at). The result truly is up in the air and it will only start to come down when the winners start being announced overnight tonight.
I'm really quite disappointed. President Obama has scuppered plans to send people back to the moon.
George Bush announced the idea back in 2004 that NASA would return man to our nearest celestial neighbour before aiming for Mars. If all had gone to plan, humans could have made the first return journey by 2020.
Unfortunately it doesn't look like that will happen. Owing to budget shortages, and what Obama calls a lack in innovation, he has recommended in the 2011 budget that the Constellation vehicle be abandoned.
A White House spokesperson says this isn't a step back, and that the ambition is still there but I can't help treating the comment with a little scepticism.
My view is that returning people to the moon is important and not just for the excitement for all of us who get to observe. I thought this time it could lead to a more permanent space presence. This would provide opportunities for science of course; a launch pad for vehicles to move further out into the solar system and also as a mining base. It's fairly well known that the element Helium-3 is present on the Moon but rare on Earth. This element could prove vital in providing power from Nuclear Fusion. Solving the world's energy problem seems a pretty good reason to go, and I'd have thought the sooner this happens the better.
Of course, money at the moment is a big problem and there are always other projects and needs which require funding. I've questioned before why there isn't greater international co-operation in space ventures. It doesn't need to be America that returns to the moon. Lets get space agencies from around the world all involved in a common goal and sharing the cost.
George Bush announced the idea back in 2004 that NASA would return man to our nearest celestial neighbour before aiming for Mars. If all had gone to plan, humans could have made the first return journey by 2020.
Unfortunately it doesn't look like that will happen. Owing to budget shortages, and what Obama calls a lack in innovation, he has recommended in the 2011 budget that the Constellation vehicle be abandoned.
A White House spokesperson says this isn't a step back, and that the ambition is still there but I can't help treating the comment with a little scepticism.
My view is that returning people to the moon is important and not just for the excitement for all of us who get to observe. I thought this time it could lead to a more permanent space presence. This would provide opportunities for science of course; a launch pad for vehicles to move further out into the solar system and also as a mining base. It's fairly well known that the element Helium-3 is present on the Moon but rare on Earth. This element could prove vital in providing power from Nuclear Fusion. Solving the world's energy problem seems a pretty good reason to go, and I'd have thought the sooner this happens the better.
Of course, money at the moment is a big problem and there are always other projects and needs which require funding. I've questioned before why there isn't greater international co-operation in space ventures. It doesn't need to be America that returns to the moon. Lets get space agencies from around the world all involved in a common goal and sharing the cost.
As is tradition, here is my final blog entry for the year - and this time, the final one for the decade.
Blogs all over the internet seem to be doing it, so I thought I'd jump on the bandwagon and take a look back over the last ten years, from a personal point of view, on how things have changed.
Back in December 1999, I was just 17 years old and awaiting the turn of the the popular millennium. (Of course this didn't really happen until 2001 but why let technicalities get in the way of a good party? The roll-over of 4 figures seems much more significant anyway). I remember all the comments: where's our flying cars, jet packs and silver suits so often dipicted in futuristic novels and films. Of course none of these came about, but a lot has developed in technology. Things that may have been unthinkable at the time.
I'm looking around my living room at the tech that sits in front of me. Computers, digital photography, a big screen High Definition television, blu-ray, Sky+HD ... Really all amazing things that probably most people would take for granted nowaday.
The Computer
Ten years ago, I didn't have my own PC - the most powerful computer system I owned was a Sony Playstation. The desktop machine was a shared family machine running Windows 98. I don't know what it's spec was but obviously it was nothing compared to now. Internet connectivity was via dialup modem - the cheapest way to get online was via congested 0800 services such as IC24. No networking, multimedia consisted of poor quality video and 128kbps MP3s.
It wasn't until 2001 that I could afford to build my first desktop computer - a measly 1GHz Intel Duron machine running Windows ME before changing to Windows 2000. There was still no networking so I had my own modem in order to get online.
2002 was the year I first became connected to broadband at the seamingly blisteringly fast speeds of 512kbps down/256kbps up. Of course nowadays these speeds can be achieved by mobile phone and the thought of speeds like this on a fixed line would be sneered at. It was 2002 that the connected world meant I could start properly developing my website.
From then it's been more computers, the addition of wired and then wireless networks leading to the sitation now where I operate a home server, a desktop machine used as a media centre, a desktop machine used for amateur radio and general use, the laptop computer and a 3G/WiFi connected mobile phone.
Gaming
I've always been a bit behind the times when it's come to computer games. I've never had a machine of high enough specification to seriously consider PC gaming bar the odd game here and there, so it's been left to the games console. In 1999 I'd saved up enough to buy my own Playstation and I remember being amazed at the visuals of games like Tomb Raider, Resident Evil and Final Fantasy VII. Of course by now this machine was already aging - the Playstation 2 was only two years away.
The later machine I didn't purchase until 2006 and it is this machine that sits under my TV. As of now, I'm still working my way through Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Even comparing the PS2 to the original machine though, the visuals are vastly superior and the games more immersive. I know the Xbox 360 and PS3 will be a huge leap again but I don't intend to get the latest Microsoft console until later in 2010 - 5 years after it was originally released.
Talking of the players in gaming ten years ago, the likes of Sony, Sega and Nintendo where the big three. Since then Sega has dropped out of manufacturing, and Microsoft came onto the Scene with the original XBox machine. Nintendo looked shaky with it's first machine of the noughties (Game Cube) but was now stormed ahead with the Wii - the first mainstream machine to feature motion control.
Multimedia
The CRT was king for television back in 1999. I had my own personal 14" TV/VHS combi and the family unit was a 28" (I think) beast. Over the air signals were mainly analogue with me not experiencing Freeview until 2002.
Now, my screen is a 32" LCD and I like the idea of upping the size to 42". Such screen sizes would not be possible ten years ago - imagine how much room a CRT of such a size would be!
Of course VHS just didn't cut it anymore. The DVD was released in 1999 and I got my first disk in 2002 which I played through my first computer - not a dedicated player. Now I barely touch the old tapes. I have however bought myself a Video Recorder for the pricely sum of £2 in order to dub some old cassettes.
Now I'm again experiencing a format change with the move from DVD to Blu-ray. Okay it's not as dramatic since I can still play my older DVD collection, but the appeal of High Definition video is too great to resist. Sky HD provides superb broadcast picture quality compared to the often poor standard definition equivalent.
Whilst broadcast picture quality may have decreased with the introduction of digital to terrestrial broadcast and Sky; the number of channels available now is staggering. Compare Freeview today to analogue television a liittle over 10 years ago, featuring just 4-5 stations. For better or worse, no-one can argue that today we are all spoilt for choice.
Photography
Taking photographs has had such a radical change over the last decade. Ten years ago the idea of having a digital camera was completely unrealistic - much too expensive. I had a compact Praktica camera taking 35mm film allowing for 24 or 36 exposures per film. Photography was not a cheap hobby for the casual photographer. The cost of film and development had to be considered each time that shutter was clicked. I like to think that this forced me to consider each shot more carefully but I don't really think this is true - I didn't know what made a good picture so just took the snaps that appealed to me.
Nowadays, there is little if any choice in film cameras for the casual photographer. Many compact cameras now are digital, small and cheap. Where the digital cameras of ten years ago featured perhaps a maximum of 2mp, todays cameras range from 8mp upwards. We are in the situation where those who don't know just believe more megapixels equals better quality photographs. The camera in the mobile phone has now reached 8mp and more despite not having the optics to support it.
My first digital camera was the Sony DSC-P200 - a high end (at the time) 7mp camera. This suited me until 2008 when I bought a Casio Exilim EX1080 10mp compact camera. It features little in the way of manual control, but is good for quick snaps. It was also in 2008 that I bought my first DSLR - the Nikon D80, and started taking photography much more seriously than before. I'm sure I've got a long way to go but my picture taking is vastly better than pre-2008 and a world away from 1999.
Digital photographs have also led to the reduction of printing (for me anyway). Most of my pictures are on my server's hard drive and are shown in a slide show on my general computer screen. One of my presents to my partner Kate was a digital photo frame. Ten years ago, I never would have thought that by the end of the noughties a device would exist that allows easy viewing of those files - a complete album or more on show on a bookshelf with pictures changing every 15 minutes. That's so much better than a static printed picture in a frame.
The Mobile Phone
I don't know if there is another device that has changed so much in ten years that it is almost unrecongisable compared to the earlier devices.
Ten years ago, my experience of the mobile was a device with a monochrome screen, simple games like snake and the best ways of communicating with it were by voice call on the 2G GSM mobile network or by SMS text message which became popular in the late 90's.
Within a year I had experienced the first stage of mobile internet connectivity via WAP. Looking back, this was pretty pointless but at the time I thought it was amazing. I could get online and look at websites designed solely for the mobile phone. I remember speaking to a work colleague in the early 2000s who simply did not believe that getting online via a mobile phone was possible. Yes it was crude and slow but it did work. Of course HTML browsing didn't exist on the mobile for a few more years, but by using a PDA such as a Psion Revo to connect via the mobile using it's infra-red connection did allow access to the full interent (albeit in low resolution monochrome).
Nowaday's my mobile has an always on internet connection either over the 3G mobile network or via WiFi. The phone (HTC T-Mobile G1) features a full colour touchscreen display, can play high quality audio files, play certain video files, take photographs and low quality video, automatically poll my Google account for emails, calendar updates and RSS reader updates and automatically receives updates to Twitter and Identi.ca. In short, the full internet is accessible via the built in browser with very few exceptions. Nowadays, a significant percentage of my internet time is via mobile phone.
Honourable Mentions
Obviously I can't talk in-depth about every technological development, so just to mention other things that have developed in the last decade:
Music downloads; online on-demand media (BBC iPlayer, ITV Player, 4OD etc., spotify, last fm and others.); worldwide internet gaming via consoles; casual online games such as flash games; the portable media player (NOT just the iPod, but all of the others); eBooks; and presumably many other things that have slipped my mind
Technology - Where next?
I'm not going to fall in to the trap of trying to predict what technology and the 21st century lifestyle will be like in another 10 years. I think the last decade has proven how difficult that would be. We'll likely see new technologies that very few of us can imagine. Existing technologies will be developed further. I can say with some confidence that computers will continue to become more powerful and mobile phones will do more further decreasing the need to sit at a desk to be connected to the online world.
Personally, I don't know where technology will be for me more than 2 years into the future. I'll likely obtain a surround sound amp and speakers to go with it before 2012 and also upgrade from a PS2 to Xbox 360. More than that though, I just don't know.
The last ten years personally
Outside of technology, the noughties has been very interesting for me. I started working in telesales before quickly starting work in an off-licence in April 2000. 3 1/2 years later, I found myself working for the local council via a temping agency and then in 2005 I became a permanent member of staff at my current job.
I passed my driving test in 2003 and have since bought and disposed of two cars - the first a Ford Fiesta which almost literally fell apart, and the second a Peaugot 405 which I sold for scrap when I no longer needed it or had anywhere to keep it. Now I'm back to not owning a vehicle although I do still drive.
I have moved home three times with Kate, in all cases moving into rented accomodation, before settling into our current flat which has for the most part served us well since 2007.
After a number of years listening to and using CB radio, I obtained my first amateur radio licence on 2001 before obtaining my full licence in 2007.
Happy New Year...Happy New Decade
So with that, what has become quite an essay for me, I'll sign-off with a Happy New Year for 2010 and a Happy New Decade for the Tens. Oh, and for the record I'll be saying twenty-ten.
Blogs all over the internet seem to be doing it, so I thought I'd jump on the bandwagon and take a look back over the last ten years, from a personal point of view, on how things have changed.
Back in December 1999, I was just 17 years old and awaiting the turn of the the popular millennium. (Of course this didn't really happen until 2001 but why let technicalities get in the way of a good party? The roll-over of 4 figures seems much more significant anyway). I remember all the comments: where's our flying cars, jet packs and silver suits so often dipicted in futuristic novels and films. Of course none of these came about, but a lot has developed in technology. Things that may have been unthinkable at the time.
I'm looking around my living room at the tech that sits in front of me. Computers, digital photography, a big screen High Definition television, blu-ray, Sky+HD ... Really all amazing things that probably most people would take for granted nowaday.
The Computer
Ten years ago, I didn't have my own PC - the most powerful computer system I owned was a Sony Playstation. The desktop machine was a shared family machine running Windows 98. I don't know what it's spec was but obviously it was nothing compared to now. Internet connectivity was via dialup modem - the cheapest way to get online was via congested 0800 services such as IC24. No networking, multimedia consisted of poor quality video and 128kbps MP3s.
It wasn't until 2001 that I could afford to build my first desktop computer - a measly 1GHz Intel Duron machine running Windows ME before changing to Windows 2000. There was still no networking so I had my own modem in order to get online.
2002 was the year I first became connected to broadband at the seamingly blisteringly fast speeds of 512kbps down/256kbps up. Of course nowadays these speeds can be achieved by mobile phone and the thought of speeds like this on a fixed line would be sneered at. It was 2002 that the connected world meant I could start properly developing my website.
From then it's been more computers, the addition of wired and then wireless networks leading to the sitation now where I operate a home server, a desktop machine used as a media centre, a desktop machine used for amateur radio and general use, the laptop computer and a 3G/WiFi connected mobile phone.
Gaming
I've always been a bit behind the times when it's come to computer games. I've never had a machine of high enough specification to seriously consider PC gaming bar the odd game here and there, so it's been left to the games console. In 1999 I'd saved up enough to buy my own Playstation and I remember being amazed at the visuals of games like Tomb Raider, Resident Evil and Final Fantasy VII. Of course by now this machine was already aging - the Playstation 2 was only two years away.
The later machine I didn't purchase until 2006 and it is this machine that sits under my TV. As of now, I'm still working my way through Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Even comparing the PS2 to the original machine though, the visuals are vastly superior and the games more immersive. I know the Xbox 360 and PS3 will be a huge leap again but I don't intend to get the latest Microsoft console until later in 2010 - 5 years after it was originally released.
Talking of the players in gaming ten years ago, the likes of Sony, Sega and Nintendo where the big three. Since then Sega has dropped out of manufacturing, and Microsoft came onto the Scene with the original XBox machine. Nintendo looked shaky with it's first machine of the noughties (Game Cube) but was now stormed ahead with the Wii - the first mainstream machine to feature motion control.
Multimedia
The CRT was king for television back in 1999. I had my own personal 14" TV/VHS combi and the family unit was a 28" (I think) beast. Over the air signals were mainly analogue with me not experiencing Freeview until 2002.
Now, my screen is a 32" LCD and I like the idea of upping the size to 42". Such screen sizes would not be possible ten years ago - imagine how much room a CRT of such a size would be!
Of course VHS just didn't cut it anymore. The DVD was released in 1999 and I got my first disk in 2002 which I played through my first computer - not a dedicated player. Now I barely touch the old tapes. I have however bought myself a Video Recorder for the pricely sum of £2 in order to dub some old cassettes.
Now I'm again experiencing a format change with the move from DVD to Blu-ray. Okay it's not as dramatic since I can still play my older DVD collection, but the appeal of High Definition video is too great to resist. Sky HD provides superb broadcast picture quality compared to the often poor standard definition equivalent.
Whilst broadcast picture quality may have decreased with the introduction of digital to terrestrial broadcast and Sky; the number of channels available now is staggering. Compare Freeview today to analogue television a liittle over 10 years ago, featuring just 4-5 stations. For better or worse, no-one can argue that today we are all spoilt for choice.
Photography
Taking photographs has had such a radical change over the last decade. Ten years ago the idea of having a digital camera was completely unrealistic - much too expensive. I had a compact Praktica camera taking 35mm film allowing for 24 or 36 exposures per film. Photography was not a cheap hobby for the casual photographer. The cost of film and development had to be considered each time that shutter was clicked. I like to think that this forced me to consider each shot more carefully but I don't really think this is true - I didn't know what made a good picture so just took the snaps that appealed to me.
Nowadays, there is little if any choice in film cameras for the casual photographer. Many compact cameras now are digital, small and cheap. Where the digital cameras of ten years ago featured perhaps a maximum of 2mp, todays cameras range from 8mp upwards. We are in the situation where those who don't know just believe more megapixels equals better quality photographs. The camera in the mobile phone has now reached 8mp and more despite not having the optics to support it.
My first digital camera was the Sony DSC-P200 - a high end (at the time) 7mp camera. This suited me until 2008 when I bought a Casio Exilim EX1080 10mp compact camera. It features little in the way of manual control, but is good for quick snaps. It was also in 2008 that I bought my first DSLR - the Nikon D80, and started taking photography much more seriously than before. I'm sure I've got a long way to go but my picture taking is vastly better than pre-2008 and a world away from 1999.
Digital photographs have also led to the reduction of printing (for me anyway). Most of my pictures are on my server's hard drive and are shown in a slide show on my general computer screen. One of my presents to my partner Kate was a digital photo frame. Ten years ago, I never would have thought that by the end of the noughties a device would exist that allows easy viewing of those files - a complete album or more on show on a bookshelf with pictures changing every 15 minutes. That's so much better than a static printed picture in a frame.
The Mobile Phone
I don't know if there is another device that has changed so much in ten years that it is almost unrecongisable compared to the earlier devices.
Ten years ago, my experience of the mobile was a device with a monochrome screen, simple games like snake and the best ways of communicating with it were by voice call on the 2G GSM mobile network or by SMS text message which became popular in the late 90's.
Within a year I had experienced the first stage of mobile internet connectivity via WAP. Looking back, this was pretty pointless but at the time I thought it was amazing. I could get online and look at websites designed solely for the mobile phone. I remember speaking to a work colleague in the early 2000s who simply did not believe that getting online via a mobile phone was possible. Yes it was crude and slow but it did work. Of course HTML browsing didn't exist on the mobile for a few more years, but by using a PDA such as a Psion Revo to connect via the mobile using it's infra-red connection did allow access to the full interent (albeit in low resolution monochrome).
Nowaday's my mobile has an always on internet connection either over the 3G mobile network or via WiFi. The phone (HTC T-Mobile G1) features a full colour touchscreen display, can play high quality audio files, play certain video files, take photographs and low quality video, automatically poll my Google account for emails, calendar updates and RSS reader updates and automatically receives updates to Twitter and Identi.ca. In short, the full internet is accessible via the built in browser with very few exceptions. Nowadays, a significant percentage of my internet time is via mobile phone.
Honourable Mentions
Obviously I can't talk in-depth about every technological development, so just to mention other things that have developed in the last decade:
Music downloads; online on-demand media (BBC iPlayer, ITV Player, 4OD etc., spotify, last fm and others.); worldwide internet gaming via consoles; casual online games such as flash games; the portable media player (NOT just the iPod, but all of the others); eBooks; and presumably many other things that have slipped my mind
Technology - Where next?
I'm not going to fall in to the trap of trying to predict what technology and the 21st century lifestyle will be like in another 10 years. I think the last decade has proven how difficult that would be. We'll likely see new technologies that very few of us can imagine. Existing technologies will be developed further. I can say with some confidence that computers will continue to become more powerful and mobile phones will do more further decreasing the need to sit at a desk to be connected to the online world.
Personally, I don't know where technology will be for me more than 2 years into the future. I'll likely obtain a surround sound amp and speakers to go with it before 2012 and also upgrade from a PS2 to Xbox 360. More than that though, I just don't know.
The last ten years personally
Outside of technology, the noughties has been very interesting for me. I started working in telesales before quickly starting work in an off-licence in April 2000. 3 1/2 years later, I found myself working for the local council via a temping agency and then in 2005 I became a permanent member of staff at my current job.
I passed my driving test in 2003 and have since bought and disposed of two cars - the first a Ford Fiesta which almost literally fell apart, and the second a Peaugot 405 which I sold for scrap when I no longer needed it or had anywhere to keep it. Now I'm back to not owning a vehicle although I do still drive.
I have moved home three times with Kate, in all cases moving into rented accomodation, before settling into our current flat which has for the most part served us well since 2007.
After a number of years listening to and using CB radio, I obtained my first amateur radio licence on 2001 before obtaining my full licence in 2007.
Happy New Year...Happy New Decade
So with that, what has become quite an essay for me, I'll sign-off with a Happy New Year for 2010 and a Happy New Decade for the Tens. Oh, and for the record I'll be saying twenty-ten.
With the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11's moon landing only 3 days away, and as the Space Shuttle Endeavour (STS-127) rendezvouses with the International Space Station, my thoughts turned to the future of space exploration, and in particular, manned exploration.
Sadly I wasn't around to see any of the moon landing missions, but like many I am quite familiar with what happened in July 1969. When I think that it was 40 years since man traveled around 250,000 miles to step foot on another world, and then think of the technological advances made during that time; I wonder why we haven't progressed further. Why is man trapped in low Earth orbit?
The story is well told. People lost interest in Apollo after the first few moon landings. For the layman, the interest was getting man there and returning him safely. Scientific and technological interests did not play a part. And so, budgets were cut and the Apollo programme (after the 17th mission) was axed.
Now, as we approach the end of the first decade of the 21st century, the United States has a renewed drive to send man back to the Moon and then, just possibly, on to Mars. Finally it looks like my generation has an boundary-pushing event of it's own to awe and inspire. Only, is it that simple?
Once again finance is coming into play. It's not really unexpected. Here I can use the awful phrase; the "Credit Crunch". The global recession is undoubtedly making politicians rethink their priorities when it comes to funding. That's not to say that the trip to the Moon is under threat of being axed. However, a commission will look at NASAs plans to use an Ares 1 rocket. A rocket that, following technical problems, is now too expensive. Politicians favour the cargo ship Ares 5 to carry crew and cargo.
It's here that I had my epiphany. Why is the United States doing this? Why NASA? Since the 1970s, an increasing number of nations have either become space-faring or have ambition to. Russia is an obvious nation as a player in the space race, but now China, India, Japan and Europe. All have interests in space and have launched either manned or unmanned vehicles.
To me it seems space offers an opportunity. One that can bring nations and people together in a peaceful pursuit. So why not pool resources? Instead of the US going-it alone, why not get all interested nations together in one International Space Agency? All countries can contribute funding, technologies and personnel to make the next space adventure truly one for humanity - not one for a single nation.
The International Space Station is a visible sign of what can be achieved, but the principles should be extended to all of space exploration. The question is, can we as a people realise that, before the moon is divided up into territories for each nation that lands there?
Sadly I wasn't around to see any of the moon landing missions, but like many I am quite familiar with what happened in July 1969. When I think that it was 40 years since man traveled around 250,000 miles to step foot on another world, and then think of the technological advances made during that time; I wonder why we haven't progressed further. Why is man trapped in low Earth orbit?
The story is well told. People lost interest in Apollo after the first few moon landings. For the layman, the interest was getting man there and returning him safely. Scientific and technological interests did not play a part. And so, budgets were cut and the Apollo programme (after the 17th mission) was axed.
Now, as we approach the end of the first decade of the 21st century, the United States has a renewed drive to send man back to the Moon and then, just possibly, on to Mars. Finally it looks like my generation has an boundary-pushing event of it's own to awe and inspire. Only, is it that simple?
Once again finance is coming into play. It's not really unexpected. Here I can use the awful phrase; the "Credit Crunch". The global recession is undoubtedly making politicians rethink their priorities when it comes to funding. That's not to say that the trip to the Moon is under threat of being axed. However, a commission will look at NASAs plans to use an Ares 1 rocket. A rocket that, following technical problems, is now too expensive. Politicians favour the cargo ship Ares 5 to carry crew and cargo.
It's here that I had my epiphany. Why is the United States doing this? Why NASA? Since the 1970s, an increasing number of nations have either become space-faring or have ambition to. Russia is an obvious nation as a player in the space race, but now China, India, Japan and Europe. All have interests in space and have launched either manned or unmanned vehicles.
To me it seems space offers an opportunity. One that can bring nations and people together in a peaceful pursuit. So why not pool resources? Instead of the US going-it alone, why not get all interested nations together in one International Space Agency? All countries can contribute funding, technologies and personnel to make the next space adventure truly one for humanity - not one for a single nation.
The International Space Station is a visible sign of what can be achieved, but the principles should be extended to all of space exploration. The question is, can we as a people realise that, before the moon is divided up into territories for each nation that lands there?