SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From the RooshV Forum:
I constantly get the vibe from people that they think our technology is skyrocketing, that we're living in a new tech age, "where was all this ten years ago?!" etc.
But I disagree with this assessment of our technology. It has made steady improvements in one specific space: software and electronic hardware. That is all. On top of that, the improvements on the hardware have not even been ground breaking. GPS is a ground-breaking invention. Smaller screens are not: they are just an incremental improvement.
Smartphones are merely the result of incremental improvements in the size and quality of electronic components. The only breakthroughs involved are ages old. The invention of the transistor, the laser, etc. The existence of google, facebook, uber, and so on, are merely inevitable "new applications" stemming from these improvements. They are not breakthroughs, they are merely improvements and combinations upon the telephone, the directory, and the taxi.
In my opinion, technology as a whole is borderline stagnant.
A list of why technology is still shit:
The posting goes on to list examples of incremental, rather than breakthrough, changes in the areas of:
- Electronics & Machines
- Energy
- Medicine
- Clothes
- Food
- Finance
Have we really stagnated? Have we already found all of the "low-hanging fruit", so new breakthroughs are harder to find? Maybe there is greater emphasis on changes that are immediately able to be commercialized and less emphasis on basic research?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kaszz on Monday May 29 2017, @05:27AM (5 children)
The example of smartphones, which really are dumb as a rock of silicon. They are computer enabled cell phones. Anyway.. The radio authority in many countries had for a long time very hard restrictions on unattended usage etc, so no standby for you. Then telecom corporations also tried for a long time to deter anyone that wanted unapproved in 10 copies anything software on their hardware. Processors were to slow and power hungry for a long time. Batteries outright sucked. People were dead set on Microsoft rubbish. Flash memories had small capacity and a large price tag. So the computerphone could not realistically happen.
Then sometime after year 2000 when iPAQ [wikipedia.org] (RAM 16 MB, ROM 16 MB, CPU SA-1110 ARMv4 206 MHz, 240x320 4-bpp 163 gram) came to existance and the GSM was already established. Mobile data usage could be made into a reality. The catch was a really stubborn industry with vested interests.
What was needed was to add a GSM "modem" builtin into the computer platform. There were a few models with these properties but usually without the option to compile and run your own software and usually with a CEO price tag. Eventually someone saw the light and had the leverage to get one cellular operator to allow it. And the rest is history. But it could have happened at least 7 years earlier.
Now why won't exciting things happen? Because it usually ends in stubborn minds. The majority power players are happy with status quo. Death by political cat fight and death by MBA. Let researchers get the time and equipment. And throw out all managerial and executive people to get stuff done. The moon landing is one example.
On the upside the resources needed to get started is getting lower with time and access to knowledge is getting better and easier.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday May 29 2017, @05:58AM (4 children)
I Am Absolutely Serious.
Kodak never took digital cameras seriously because the people at the top knew that Kodak made its money selling consumables.
Kodak finally participated in digital when it helped define the FlashPix image format. But Live Picture did a reverse 7 to 1 stock split, then cancelled its IPO then declared bankrupcy.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday May 29 2017, @09:03AM (3 children)
I have read that too. So incredible stupid at least in hindsight. But it ought to been obvious for people at the time too.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday May 29 2017, @04:11PM (2 children)
I'm not so sure. I mean yes the company basically died - but they were a film (and camera) company - their death was pretty much out of their hands. But a company is only a piece of paper - nobody mourns it's death. So the question is, do the actual people running it benefit more from running it as long as they can and then rebuilding from scratch/taking their money elsewhere, or trying to transform an existing business into something completely different?
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday May 29 2017, @06:57PM
They could have awaited the right time to release all digital solutions. Once those image sensors reached 1 Mpixel and the flash memories could hold it for a decent price tag. It should been obvious that it was time to act.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday May 31 2017, @02:10AM
The US kodak doesn't make any consumer products - mostly it focusses on motion picture film. But - I think - one of the two just resumed Ektachrome production, and is seriously entertaining Kodachrome.
I'm a Kodachrome photographer. Very specifically Kodachrome. My ex took my Kodachrome away by demanding I shoot for prints.
I once gave a slide show at a burning man party. The most beautiful woman to have ever walked the earth said "I like your images". At the next party I gave her a few cibachrome enlargements and she kissed me. Right on the lips. A boy like me doesn't get that kind of treatment very often.
I didn't pursue her as I thought she was dating some other guy. It turns out they'd just broken up. I'm actually still in touch with her but our lives are too different now.
Fujifilm still makes slide film; there's a shop here in Portland that sells it. There are two kinds whose brand names I don't recall. One of the two is a reasonable competitor for Kodachrome. I'll buy a roll Real Soon Now.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]