Ever since Leonardo Da Vinci and then Isaac Newton first came up with the idea of a car, man has had a love affair with it. We’ve built cars that are faster, bigger, cheaper, smarter and more economic ever since.
The first real cars were built at the end of the nineteenth century by classic car makers such as Daimler and Benz. There was a time when the top speed was 12mph ( ironically, these days the top speed in many of our congested cities is not far off that! ). But it wasn’t long before cars got faster. Between 1894 and 1914 a car’s top speed rose to 120 mph. And in the true spirit of adventure, as with scaling mountains, exploring space and diving down into the oceans, so too man has continued to advance his quest for greater speed. This ambition has been measured in various ways, and times, so to speak, have changed; It’s 4,500 miles from New York to Los Angeles, but whilst in 1903 it took a fast car 63 days to travel this distance, the current record time is just over 28 hours ( but don’t ask about speed limits ).
In the twentieth century one family dominated the ‘speed news’- Donald Campbell and his father Malcolm. Between them they achieved 10 land speed records. Donald also attempted to break speed records on water. Tragically he died during one of these attempts, with famous news footage of his craft – the ‘Bluebird’ ( as portrayed above) – bearing witness to the accident. At the time Bluebird was seen as a triumph of British engineering but ultimately it was beaten to its final record by an American car called ‘The Spirit of America.‘ There are all sorts of measures of speed – and cost. The fastest production car is said to be a Bugati which was featured in an episode of ‘Top Gear’, travelling at quite ludicrous speeds.
The car with the fastest acceleration takes 2.3 seconds to go from 0 – 60 mph. The world’s most expensive car, meanwhile, costs a staggering £ 4.8 million. The most recent ‘fast car’ is in fact a prototype for a jet plane. The ‘Bloodhound’ has been unveiled recently in Cornwall and put through its paces at a ‘cruising’ speed of 200 mph. It’s a cooperative venture between the UK, Germany, Italy and Spain and the idea is to prepare it to go much faster. It will soon be “unleashed” in South Africa, where it will attempt to break the current land speed record of 800 mph – And to go beyond that!
It would be good to think that projects The Bloodhound will help us continue international cooperation as well as to make progress with scientific, engineering and maybe even ecological research.
Radio 1 launched 50 years ago this week, at 7am on September 30, 1967. This new station followed hot on the heels of the implementation of The Marine Broadcasting Offences Act, which closed down pirate radio stations, such as Radio Caroline and Radio London, in August 1967.
Pirate radio sprang up because large sections of the younger audience had become frustrated by the BBC, who they saw (or heard) as not moving with the times- especially with the type of music they were playing. Unlicensed stations, the most famous being Radio Caroline, began illegally broadcasting on medium-wave frequencies from ships off the UK coast and disused seaports, to fill this gap in the listening market. The pop music played and conversation recorded on these pirate stations was unlike anything that had been heard on radio before. It immediately struck a chord with listeners, particularly those under thirty, and thousands of people were soon regular listeners to these illegal stations. David Clayton, former editor of BBC Radio Norfolk, who listened to Radio Caroline as a teenager said, “As listeners we didn’t care. They were playing our favourite records.”
As soon as these stations began running smoothly, attempts to disable them began; The government of Britain claimed the stations were blocking radio frequencies which would be required if the country was ever plunged into an emergency. By the time laws were passed to make the broadcasting of pirate radio illegal, however, over 22 million people were regular listeners. The BBC realised it needed to do something to accommodate this vast band of listeners, especially as the public outrage to the closing of the pirate stations was enormous. Their answer was to create Radio 1. Wisely, they invited many of the DJ’s from Radio London, Caroline and the other broadcasting ships, to join their presenting staff. Tony Blackburn, Johnnie Walker, Kenny Everett and John Peel were soon favourite Radio 1 stars, all moving onto Radio 2 (bar Kenny Everett, who died in 1995) in their later years.
Tony Blackburn was the first DJ to air on Radio 1, launching the station with his new programme Daily Disc Delivery with Robin Scott, then Controller of Radio 1, keeping watch to make sure he behaved. The first record played was Flowers in the Rain by The Move, followed by Massachusetts by the Bee Gees. In the Radio Times, Radio 1 was billed as ‘The Swinging New Radio Service’.
The popularity of Radio 1 was demonstrated in the year following its launch, when record sales increased by 10%. It wasn’t just Radio 1 that was created after the fall of the pirate radio stations, either. The network radio changed almost entirely on the morning of Saturday, September 30th 1967 with the birth of Radio 2, which took over from the previously known “Light Programme”. The classical “Third Programme” was renamed Radio 3, and the speech based Home Service became Radio 4.
Fifty years on, radio is a popular as ever, with Radio 1-4 pulling in tens of millions of listeners every year.
On the 15th September 2017, a twenty year long mission by the NASA Cassini space probe came to an end when it plunged into Saturn’s upper atmosphere.
Launching in 1997, and planned for years beforehand, Cassini was intended to study as many moons as possible, in particular, those surrounding Jupiter and Saturn. One of the objects of the mission was also to learn more about the possible existence and availability of water in on the astral bodies it passed. In this regard alone, the many pictures taken by Cassini produced much revealing and exciting information.
Thanks to Cassini’s observations of Saturn’s largest moon, Titan, scientists have discovered that it possesses lakes, rivers, channels, dunes, rain, clouds, mountains and possibly volcanoes, just like Earth. Another of Saturn’s moons, Enceladus, revealed sprays of icy particles erupting from its surface; jets of ice-water three times taller than the width of Enceladus itself. Further, Cassini was able to get as close as 15 miles from this moon’s surface and determine that there was a global subsurface ocean, which might have the conditions suitable for sustaining life.
One of Jupiter’s moons, Europa, also shows extensive evidence of water. Its surface is covered with a layer of frozen ice, which scientists again believe hides an ocean beneath. As a consequence, Europa is often touted as a possible abode for life. Cynthia Phillips, a Europa project scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, believes there is a lot of indirect evidence for a liquid ocean, “We’re almost certain one is there…” she told Space.com “… the mass of Europa, combined with its density… gives a figure close to one [gram per cubic centimetre] …water is the only material like that.”
The question of the amount (or existence) of water in space has long been debated, often with a view to it sustaining mankind in the future. Mars in particular has attracted a lot of speculation of this nature. Images from the so-called Red Planet have shown dried up riverbeds, lakes, and coastlines across its surface. Recent satellite images from the Aeolis Dorsa region of Mars have uncovered new evidence of the densest river deposits recorded to date. These deposits are believed to date from water that flowed on the surface over 3.5 billion years ago. The channels and ridges formed by these ancient rivers are being studied in the hope that we can better understand the two evolutionary cycles of Mars and Earth, to see if links can be made.
With Cassini’s mission generating a colossal amount of data, scientists now have the opportunity to learn more about the environment of space, the evolution of numerous planetary moons, and the amount of water those moons and their commanding planets could hold now, or may have done in the past.
Will this information lead to mankind ultimately growing food- or even living- in Space? Only time will tell.
Is the current education system eliminating imagination and artistic potential from our future society?
In recent years the British government has been accused of trying to marginalise the Arts subjects, in favour of Core subjects such as Science, Languages and Maths. The value placed on Art, Music and Drama appears to have decreased, with even the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) having dropped all Arts subjects, bar English, from its list of requirements.
Commenting on his post The Seven Deadly Sins that Prevent Creative Thinking, Psychology Today blogger Michael Michalko said, “Unfortunately, I’ve come to believe that education is a great inhibitor of our natural creativity… To me it seems that in the real world those who know more, create less; and those who know less create more.”
Michalko echoes the opinion that Sir Ken Robinson made in his 2006 TED talk, when he spoke passionately on why we need to create an educational system that nurtures, rather than undermines, creativity ( https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity ).
It could be said that in a modern world, full of technology and instant request filling opportunities, children don’t need to be as imaginative or creative as they have been in the past. In truth, many would argue that the opposite is the case. While the demands of the technology that runs our world means an understanding of science and maths is more vital than ever, the stresses that accompany such ambitions mean that the ability to escape into our imaginations has become just as important.
Creativity, be it through drama, song, playing of a musical instrument, drawing a picture or telling a story, provides a much needed dimension to our personalities, culture, and well-being; In its most extreme case scenario, the sidelining of the Arts would ultimately mean less books to read, less films to see, less songs to sing, and less artwork to enjoy.
In a recent article in the Times Educational Supplement, ‘Too many schools have forgotten that fun is crucially important’, Colin Harris asks if primary schools have become so concerned with meeting the standards of Ofsted and ensuring all government guidelines are met, that there is little time left for children to have fun or learn through creativity.
Mr Harris warns that, “Many of the problems that manifest themselves later at late junior and early secondary phases are due to the insufficient opportunities we have given our children to develop their emotional intelligence through play and creative opportunities when younger… Play and creativity need to permeate all levels of our system. Surely if learning is memorable and inventive then our children will certainly think and behave differently.”
Most teachers would rightly deny that they work hard merely to instil a feeling of dull mediocrity among their pupils. Yet with English teachers having little choice but to teach us what we are supposed to think about the books we read rather than allowing us the freedom to make up our own minds, and decreasing educational budgets meaning that even if a school wanted to stage a play or buy instruments to form an orchestra they can’t afford to, it is easy to see why the lack of creativity argument continues to rage. After all, any school that was seen to put the desire to buy dancing shoes ahead of purchasing new science equipment would lose its reputation fast.
It is fair to say that, on an individual level, the majority of teachers do their best to introduce as much creativity as they can to their daily lessons; but they are up against a system that is, at this current time, discouraging rather than encouraging that angle of education.
Yesterday I ran an article on the history of tea in the UK and the US, the first of two to try and determine which of these drinks is the more popular in Britain today: traditional tea or the seemingly more modern coffee. Today we’re talking coffee.
With the rising popularity of coffee shop chains such as Costa, Starbucks, Cafe Nero and more, you might wonder: can the UK today even be considered as much a coffee drinking country as America, its long-associated home?
Believe it or not, coffee became a popular drink in the UK before tea did. The first coffee house opened in England in 1651, and they quickly became the most popular places to be seen in society. These coffee houses multiplied into chains of cafes, and become forums for discussion to the extent that they were dubbed “penny universities” (one penny was the price of a cup of coffee). At this same time, in a young and growing America, coffee was also gaining a strong commercial foothold. By 1668, coffee had replaced beer as New York City’s favourite breakfast drink, while in Britain, gin houses were beginning to suffer from lower sales thanks to the popularity of their coffee-serving competitors. Yet whilst it would remain most popular on the west side of the Atlantic, in Britain there would be a decline – see my previous article for more on that story.
Fast forward to today and The UK Tea and Infusion Association argue that, despite a huge surge in the popularity of drinking coffee in the last decade, the number of cups drunk in Britain every day is estimated at a mere 70 million, as opposed to 165 million cups of tea. However, coffee remains the most popular drink worldwide, with around two billion cups consumed every day. And despite the lesser actual consumption statistics, The British Coffee Association documents that in the UK alone, 80% of households buy instant coffee. The renaissance of coffee shop culture has seen s massive rise in consumption, with 80% of people who visit coffee shops doing so at least once a week, and 16% of us going on a daily basis.
Coffee grows in more than 50 countries and is the second largest export in the world after oil. Central and South America produce approximately two thirds of the world’s coffee supply, with Brazil contributing about 30% of the world’s total bean supply.
Putting our own coffee habit aside, you might be surprised to hear a few more statistics relating to America’s affection for it; Whilst the US has been linked to coffee drinking for hundreds of years, is it really as obsessed with it as we think? Research done by The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/here-are-the-countries-that-drink-the-most-coffee-the-us-isnt-in-the-top-10/283100/) online newspaper in 2014 found that compared with Scandinavia and The Netherlands’ the US hardly drinks coffee at all! That year, the The Netherlands were drinking per-capita 2.4 cups a day, almost the same as the US, UK, Spain, and France combined.
It is hard to imagine Americans not drinking coffee, however. Such is the nation’s dedication to the drink that, also in 2014, their astronauts in the International Space Station were given their first espresso machine in space, meaning they could have a decent cup of coffee, even in space. And unlike here, over there you often get refills.
So overall the stats say tea is still our favourite drink. But as you often hear said, sometimes statistics don’t tell the whole story. It may be that one day coffee takes its place. As I hope I’ve shown, tastes and times change.
The top two bestselling hot beverages in the UK and America are tea and coffee. But does the quintessentially English association with the cup of tea still hold true? And do Americans, usually associated with coffee, ever drink tea? I’m going to have a look at the history of each drink in each country to try and get an answer. I’ll talk about coffee in a second article soon, but first, it’s time for Tea…
The cup of tea was something of a latecomer to the shores of Britain. The custom of drinking tea dates back to the third millennium BC in China, but it was not until Portuguese and Dutch traders first imported tea to Europe in the 17th century that it appeared in England. And it wasn’t for another century that the biggest tea trading organization of the Industrial Revolution, the East India Company, began to make money out of tea’s rising popularity. Somewhat ironically, it was the London coffee houses that were responsible for introducing tea to England. Coffee house merchant Thomas Garway sold both liquid and dry tea to the public as early as 1657. Three years later he issued a broadsheet advertising tea as “making the body active and lusty”, and “preserving perfect health until extreme old age.”
By 1700 over 500 UK coffee houses were selling tea as well as coffee. By 1750 tea was outselling coffee and had become the lower classes’ most popular drink, being cheap and easily available.
According to the UK Tea and Infusions Association (https://www.tea.co.uk/tea-faqs), the British drink 165 million cups daily, amounting to 60.2 billion per year. Although China, India and Kenya produce the most tea in the world (China produced 2, 230,000 tonnes in 2015), it is the Republic of Ireland that drinks the most tea per head of population, followed by Britain. Of all the tea drunk in Britain, 96% is brewed by using a tea bag rather than tea leaves, and 98% of all tea made is served with milk rather than black with lemon, honey or single infusion.
In America, it is coffee that is considered the national beverage. It poses the question, why haven’t they embraced tea in the same way as the UK? America was introduced to tea at the same time as the British discovered the country, after all. However, the War of Independence between Britain and America that erupted shortly afterwards meant that trade routes providing tea were restricted. Britain controlled the shipping routes to and from America and so very little tea reached the US, making it hard to get, and therefore expensive. As a result, during this time a lot of Americans switched over to drinking liberty tea, which is mainly made from a goldenrod plant. When the American Revolution was over, the shipping lines did return, and Americans did go back to drinking tea, but a new war broke out in 1812 and the lines closed again. It meant that the next generation of Americans had grown up during the American Revolution and spent a lot of their formative years not drinking tea. And because they’d grown up without much of the drink, they didn’t consider it as important as the British did.
Today, tea is a popular drink in the US, especially in the American South, but they usually drink it iced rather than hot. Although cold or iced tea is drunk in the UK, it has had little impact on the traditional hot cuppa, whether served in a cup and saucer, a mug, or a takeaway beaker.
At the present time, one of the worst storms in American history, Tropical Storm Harvey (seen below at full strength), is laying waste to east Texas. It also generated the worst hurricane to hit Texas in fifty years and is causing unprecedented flooding in the city of Houston. The neighbouring state of Louisiana is also beginning to feel its effects. Harvey, which made first landfall as a category 4 hurricane, has brought flash floods and extreme winds across the land; claiming lives, destroying the environment, and damaging the long term economy. Tropical storms can include hurricanes as was originally the case here, or cyclones and typhoons, or a combination of all three. With them comes heavy rainfall, mudslides, and floods.
As tropical storms need intense heat in which to form, they only occur either just to the north or south of the equator, where the sea temperatures can reach up to 27ºC. Generating where the air above a warm sea rises, it is this combination of temperature between the water and the sky that causes the sort of atmospheric low pressure which can spark a tropical storm.
When superheated air rises, it begins to spin, forming the eye of a forthcoming storm. Once that air has risen it cools rapidly, condensing into massive clouds. Compacted air within these clouds creates areas of intense low pressure. In turn, that low pressure sucks at the air around it, creating incredibly strong winds. Only when the storm blows inland, where the air and ground cover are cooler still, do these major weather events begin to blow themselves out.
To make storm weather data easier to track and record accurately for future meteorologists and historians, tropical storms are given names. These names are alphabetical and alternate between male and female. It means that the next tropical storm in America will be given a female name beginning with the letter ‘I’.
Due to the erratic nature of the air pressure near the equator, it is very difficult to accurately predict the path a tropical storm will take. This means that evacuating people and livestock from a threatened area is not easy. For example, when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in August 2005, over 1,800 people died and 300,000 homes were destroyed before the area could be completely evacuated.
The social impact on an area hit by a tropical storm can often be major and long term. Power is often cut, with vast populations being left without electricity for many weeks, if not months after the storm has passed. Homes have to be abandoned and many will be destroyed entirely. Mass migration from the affected area leaves entire communities temporarily, or permanently, homeless. Neither is it certain that affected communities will return entirely. In fact it is more probable that a significant number will not. It is estimated that around 50,000 of the population left or did not return to New Orleans after Katrina. What will happen to Houston remains to be seen.
As well as homes, businesses, towns, farms and power stations are all vulnerable to destruction. The looting of abandoned homes and shops can also come from criminal and desperate locals alike. On a national level, resources such as petrol can’t be taken safely into a hurricane hot spot, which means fuel prices rise, as does the cost of food and clean water. Houston will be a prime example, as it produces a great quantity of the oil America runs on, let alone exports. Tourists also stop coming to the area, and as most places on the equator rely heavily on tourists from countries with cooler climates, the economic impact can be extreme. An industrial city like Houston might not feel this, but New Orleans certainly did.
If a tropical storm burns itself out quickly, then the environmental, social and economic costs can be quickly mitigated. When storms of the ferocity of Hurricanes Katrina and Harvey hit, however, the costs are far higher- and can take decades to overcome.
The development of the beach-side town as a popular leisure resort began in the 18th century when members of the aristocracy were encouraged by doctors to visit the seaside often for restful recreation and for the benefits that sea air gave to their general health.
One of the earliest of these resorts was Scarborough in Yorkshire. Although it had been a popular spa town for some time, where the wealthy had “taken the waters,” in 1720 the beach also started to become a popular location for seaside visitors. And in 1735 its sands became the site of one of the first bathing machines (large machines on wheels in which the wealthy could sit and bath in the seawater in safety and privacy).
It was with the dedicated opening of a seaside resort at Brighton, under the patronage of King George IV, that the seaside stopped being a place just to improve health but also a destination to escape daily worries and enjoy a holiday. It wasn’t just King George who endorsed the seaside resort, either; Queen Victoria also established the Isle of Wight as a popular holiday destination during her lifetime.
The development of the railways in the 1840’s meant the seaside holiday industry grew further, and this time they were within the means of the middle classes. Cheap and affordable rail fares alongside low cost guest houses meant more people could escape to the beach for a few days a year. This development saw Blackpool’s rise, becoming one of the fastest growing resorts in Britain. As more visitors arrived by rail each year, so too did a huge demand for new accommodation and entertainments on the beachfront. By the 1850’s, a multi-million pound holiday industry was born. Hence came the statement from writer John K. Walton in his paper The Seaside resort: a British cultural export, that “The seaside resort became the fastest-growing kind of British town in the first half of the nineteenth century…”
After the development of the seaside resort came the rise of the holiday camp. The first holiday camp had in fact been built back in 1894, on the Isle of Man. Called the Cunningham Camp, it only allowed men to stay and offered merely basic tent accommodation with a little food. Not something which would have much to recommend it, you might think. However, in the years after the Second World War, people craved open spaces and the freedom to travel wherever they liked, so the affordable and now much improved holiday camp idea gained popularity; it bridged the gap between the resort holidays the wealthy and middle classes could afford and what the working class could afford. The new camp’s prices were reasonable, food was good, and entertainment was provided, even when it rained.
Billy Butlin, possibly the name most associated with holiday camps, opened his first camp at Skegness in 1936. Unlike the popular seaside boarding and guest houses, where visitors had to stay out of their accommodation during the day whatever the weather, he built camps where people could come and go. Far bigger than any holiday camps that had come before, he could accommodate up to two thousand guests at a time; not only providing holiday locations, but a huge number of job opportunities for those in the area as well.
Over eighty years later, the British still enjoy a seaside holiday, even with our highly erratic weather. And despite the easy availability of flights abroad, camps such as Butlin’s remain very popular.
August in the UK doesn’t just mean a month of school holidays for many school and college pupils; for those who have sat their GCSE, A level, Standards, Highers, BTEC and equivalent exams, it brings to an end a long wait to see if those exams have been passed, and if so, how well.
After the A level results were released in England and Wales this year it was widely reported that, for the first time in many years, boys had fractionally higher grade marks than girls. A number of reasons have been put forward for what seems to be perceived as a sea-change, including the structure of this year’s exams. However, this may not necessarily be true. For instance, The Guardian also quotes a research group called Education Datalab which comments: “Their [boys] performance has improved relative to girls’ this year, but this might have been as much to do with the academic ability of the boys and girls who chose these subjects this year as it is to the changes to A level structure.”
In other words, the differences between boys and girls grades can depend on so many different factors that stating that boys are cleverer than girls this year, or vice versa, is a bold statement. There are so many variables to take into consideration; geographical differences, the subjects chosen (if more boys than girls do chemistry, then they are bound to have the higher percentage of good grades).
It is understandable that newspapers and the media in general feel duty-bound to report on the annual exam results. After all, those pupils are the very people who will steer our country through the next eighty or ninety years. There is a tendency however, when there is no real news to report about the annual results, to focus in on tiny differences in gender achievements or a tiny rise or fall in the overall grades received overall. More or less A grades than average can make a good newspaper headline- and good headlines sell papers.
In reality, despite what reporters say on the television, radio, in the newspapers or on social media platforms, the students that achieve the best exam results are the ones who have worked the hardest. It is those pupils who will go on to get the university places, apprenticeships, and the careers they hoped for- whether they are boys or girls.
The so called Cold War was a state of dangerous tension between the USA and the Soviet Union (USSR) that lasted from 1945 until 1991. Distrust and suspicion were at the root of the Cold War. The political and economic systems of the capitalist USA and communist USSR were incompatible. In a capitalist state, the economy is largely free from state control, while the government is democratically elected and freedom of speech is allowed. In contrast, a communist state government has complete control of its economy and society. Each side (the “superpowers”) in this ideological war wanted the other to conform to their own political system.
The Cold War began shortly after World War II ended in 1945. Although the Soviet Union was an important member of the Allied Powers during the war, there was great distrust between them and the rest of the Allies. Britain, France and the USA were particularly concerned about the brutal leadership of the USSR’s Joseph Stalin. The Allies were always unsure of Stalin’s loyalty as he had previously allied himself with Hitler in 1939, through the Nazi-Soviet Pact. There was also a growing concern about how fast communism was spreading. This mistrust was a great source of anger to Stalin because, since the British retreat at Dunkirk, the Soviets had been left fighting the German Army single-handed. It was only on D-Day in 1944 that the British and Americans went to help the Soviets; by then thousands and thousands of Russians had been killed.
Although it is called The Cold War, no direct warfare took place between America and the USSR. However, they did fight each other in proxy wars. These were wars fought between other countries, but with each side getting support from either Russia or America, such as in the Korean War and the Vietnam War. The scars of Vietnam, to which the US deployed their own troops, are still felt in America today, whilst the legacy of the Korean war left open wounds to fester until they became dangerously significant, as any current news report will testify.
As well as fighting these proxy wars and maintaining an uneasy disapproval of each other’s way of life, the Cold War was fought out in the arena of power and technology. Each country wanted to prove that they were the most technologically advanced and held the most powerful weapons. This led to both the Arms Race and the Space Race.
The Arms Race saw each side try to possess the best weapons – and the most nuclear bombs. The theory was that a large stockpile of weapons would deter the other side from ever attacking them. Although some have been destroyed since the end of the Cold War, both America and Russia still have a huge arsenal of them as a result.
As well as the Arms race, the USA and USSR competed in the Space Race. Each side tried to show that it had the better scientists and technology by accomplishing certain space missions first. Both countries wanted to be the first to get a rocket into space and to get a man on the moon. Russia achieved the former, with the first man in space Yuri Gagarin. However, it was the US who succeeded in getting the first man on the moon. Interestingly, in terms of the amount of money put into the American Lunar Space Programme, it is unlikely NASA would receive enough from its government to repeat the feat today. It would not now be regarded as important enough to warrant the still huge expense.
It wasn’t until the economic and subsequent border collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 that the Cold War officially came to an end. Today, as the issue of state-authorised cyber-hacking becomes increasingly prevalent, and when words and treaties become ever more difficult to be agreed on with Russia, some people are suggesting we are entering a new type of “phoney” cold war, one for the digital age. If that is true, judging by the first, it is not an appealing prospect.