Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday November 06 2015, @07:54AM   Printer-friendly
from the inventions dept.

Hearing from the leaders of the tech world is always revealing, and very often surprising. In our second annual Silicon Valley Insiders Poll, a panel of 101 executives, innovators, and thinkers weigh in on some of the biggest technological, political, and cultural questions of the moment.

So when we ran an unscientific poll of leaders and thinkers in tech, we had to ask: Which technology do you wish you could un-invent? What innovation do you think should go "back in the box" and be banished forever?

The two winning responses were: selfie sticks and nuclear weapons.

But let's go through some runners-up first.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/what-would-you-un-invent/413818/

Which inventions would Soylentils like to un-invent?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 06 2015, @04:13PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 06 2015, @04:13PM (#259506) Journal

    The Romans made much better concrete than we do. Some of their work has been exposed to and/or submerged in ocean water for two thousand years. And the Romans didn't use bulldozers, excavators, trucks, or any of the other crap our wimpy nation needs to make concrete.

    https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2013/06/04/roman-concrete/ [lbl.gov]

    Just one of many articles on Roman concrete.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2015, @08:08PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2015, @08:08PM (#260081)

    My guess -- the Romans used slaves. Is that better than "energy slaves" -- the crap you refer to?

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 08 2015, @02:46AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 08 2015, @02:46AM (#260218) Journal

      Better for the environment, yes. Better for the slave owners, maybe not. Better for the slaves, positively not.

      What, you thought there was only one point of view?