Sometimes progress does really surprise me

[Deimos Anomaly]

Not everywhere, some areas seem to drag and drag, but some things go beyond one's wildest imaginings.

One example that came to my mind recently was this:

11 years ago, about the time I was leaving high school, if you'd told me that within a decade (give or take a year) we'd have storage devices the size of a human finger nail with a capacity of 16 gigabytes, (yours for fifty quid!) I think I'd have been inclined to laugh and make a skeptical/sarcastic remark.

Yet here we are.

Anything like this ever take you by surprise?

 

[Pingfah]

Yes, I remember that one year music on credit cards that you inserted into a portable device was the april fools joke on Going Live! when I was a kid.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Yeah, the speed of progress and, especially, the commercial availability of digital technology-- from storage capacity to CGI-- sometimes does surprise. Unfortunately, this is offset by the disappoint that I feel with the slow pace of space travel technology.

 

[Amaris]

Yeah, the speed of progress and, especially, the commercial availability of digital technology-- from storage capacity to CGI-- sometimes does surprise. Unfortunately, this is offset by the disappoint that I feel with the slow pace of space travel technology.

Look at it this way: When we start to advance space technology, we will have a broad and well researched field from which to launch. This will mean an increase in development technologies for said spacecraft. We may travel farther and faster utilizing technologies so commonplace that at this current time we would consider them nothing short of miraculous.

J.

 

[jamestyler]

Yeah, the speed of progress and, especially, the commercial availability of digital technology-- from storage capacity to CGI-- sometimes does surprise. Unfortunately, this is offset by the disappoint that I feel with the slow pace of space travel technology.

This is pretty much how I feel... I remember being in awe and wonder at being able to upgrade my PC to 8G. My phone has more than that... and thats just a device I use to text/call.

There are days when I feel technology has passed me by completely and I have to stop and wonder how I came to own technology that was science fiction when I was growing up

 

[RobertVA]

I was once impressed with adding 16 Kilobytes of RAM to my Apple ][ computer in the form of eight loose fingernail size chips. Caution was required during installation because it was easy to bend the pins on the edges (the pins resembled centipede legs). A couple of years later 5 Megabyte hard drives sounded huge.+

In the eighties many computer magazines featured software in the form of BASIC* (Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code) source code the reader could type in using the keyboard. The process was complicated by the ability to completely disrupt the operation of the program with a few characters of mistyped code, sometimes a single keystroke. For a short while some magazines were publishing programs in the form of rectangular patches of dots that could be read by a special scanner (about 14"X2.5"X2.5") attached to the computer.

*BASIC installed in Read Only Memory (ROM) was included with most computers in the 1980 time frame. Since it was in ROM the BASIC interpreters were available as soon as the computers were turned on, although it was quite convenient to wait for a Disk Operating System (DOS) to load so the programs you typed could be preserved on a floppy disk. Many computer manufacturers at the time licensed their BASIC interpreters from a semi obscure supplier in Washington state called Microsoft.

 

[John Picard]

Progress?

Black and white television to color to a television that doesn't need to warm up or have adjustments for "Vertical Hold".

Cell phones going from a bag phone of barely 2 hours of talk time to something I can lose in my pocket and will be on standby for a week.

Debit cards.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I grew up with computers in the '80's. The first computer I ever touched was a TRS-80, which didn't even have a hard drive. Like RobertVA said, memory was measured in kilobytes. The first computer I got to spend a lot of time with was a 286 clone with a 12MB hard drive and 512KB of RAM. I learned how to program BASIC on it, and it started me on the path to where I am now--software engineer!

Really, the advance that amazes me the most is the Internet. A DARPA project used mostly by universities and other research institutions somehow wound up exploding into a global network used for commerce, communication, activism, porn, and damn near anything else you can think of. And it was one of those advances that just sort of popped up, emerging from relative obscurity to global awareness within a few years.

Medical technology is another good one. The ultrasounds from when my mother was pregnant with me 28 years ago are damn near impossible to make out. Just fuzzy, noisy nonsense. Now, you can see your baby in full 3D. It's really incredible, the diagnostic technology we have now, almost all of which was developed in the last 10 or 20 years.

 

[Mr. B]

I'm not exactly shocked by capacity/space advancements... but I am impressed at how cheap such technology now is.

If only optical glass was advancing similarly, might make that photography habit a lot less painful.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Yeah, the speed of progress and, especially, the commercial availability of digital technology-- from storage capacity to CGI-- sometimes does surprise. Unfortunately, this is offset by the disappoint that I feel with the slow pace of space travel technology.

Look at it this way: When we start to advance space technology, we will have a broad and well researched field from which to launch. This will mean an increase in development technologies for said spacecraft. We may travel farther and faster utilizing technologies so commonplace that at this current time we would consider them nothing short of miraculous.

That's pretty much what I think will happen. Advances in various fields will reach critical mass and suddenly it will be possible to assemble advanced spacecraft from more-or-less off-the-shelf technology. I actually think that's not too far away....

 

[Pegaritaville]

Cell phones going from a bag phone of barely 2 hours of talk time to something I can lose in my pocket and will be on standby for a week.

I got my first cell phone in 1986: It was the size of a shoe. I got it because I was traveling a lot between MN and TX at the time, but I can count on one hand the number of cities in which I could actually get service.

I'm kind of amazed by GPS. When I was going to grad school for Resource Analysis, we had to manually digitize maps. What took me weeks to do now appears whenever I turn on my car (I'll be more impressed when I get my flying car, though).

 

[Jadzia]

Improvements in technology haven't really taken my by surprise. I've always been aware of what is possible and how things will improve over time, so short of any innovative inventions, it's all fairly predictable. Perhaps the most impressive was the ipod when it came out.

Our technology is almost all computerised now. And to be honest, I'm not massively impressed with modern designs. It has problems:

1. More prone to breakdown or lose it's "mind". I don't want a toaster with a microcontroller in it, because it will go wrong and refuse to toast my bread. I want one with a simple analogue timing circuit.

2. Too fragile. Most stuff made today is far too cheaply made for my liking. I want things to be over engineered, and last me my whole life, should I want it to. Some of the things I have from the 1970s/80s (family handdowns) are well made and I can tell that they will last me my whole life.

3. Poor backwards compatibility. New technology evolves in such a way that older versions of the same technology are not compatible. It leaves you with useless stuff, trying to force you to buy new, which will suffer from the same problem. Digital television falls into this category. The transmissions get more complex, and the older decoders cannot handle it.

4. Under specified. Computer technology has become victim to a "as long as it looks like it works" design mentality. Most standard parts of modern computers have been cut down to save money but have become unreliable and often don't work as a result. You'll discover that if you try to be something other than mainstream. The 486 was the last computer which followed established standards to the letter. This situation has gotten worse as time has passed.


The modern world is driven by a "how can we do it cheaper" approach. It wasn't always that way. I'll be glad when the world has moved beyond this mentality.

 

[John Picard]

Improvements in technology haven't really taken my by surprise. I've always been aware of what is possible and how things will improve over time, so short of any innovative inventions, it's all fairly predictable. Perhaps the most impressive was the ipod when it came out.

Our technology is almost all computerised now. And to be honest, I'm not massively impressed with modern designs. It has problems:

1. More prone to breakdown or lose it's "mind". I don't want a toaster with a microcontroller in it, because it will go wrong and refuse to toast my bread. I want one with a simple analogue timing circuit.

2. Too fragile. Most stuff made today is far too cheaply made for my liking. I want things to be over engineered, and last me my whole life, should I want it to. Some of the things I have from the 1970s/80s (family handdowns) are well made and I can tell that they will last me my whole life.

3. Poor backwards compatibility. New technology evolves in such a way that older versions of the same technology are not compatible. It leaves you with useless stuff, trying to force you to buy new, which will suffer from the same problem. Digital television falls into this category. The transmissions get more complex, and the older decoders cannot handle it.

4. Under specified. Computer technology has become victim to a "as long as it looks like it works" design mentality. Most standard parts of modern computers have been cut down to save money but have become unreliable and often don't work as a result. You'll discover that if you try to be something other than mainstream. The 486 was the last computer which followed established standards to the letter.


The modern world is driven by a "how can we do it cheaper" approach. It wasn't always that way. I'll be glad when the world has moved beyond this mentality.

A-MEN and don't get me started on the "cheaper" mentality. For that I blame the consumer for wanting everything cheap and adopting the "throw away" attitude.

I recently purchased an antique clock from an acquaintance who learned clock repair from an old school guy. This is an 8-day clock and is very accurate and must be key wound every 7-days. I love it because the tick-tock of the pendulum is nice background noise, it gongs on the half-hour, and when there's a power outage I don't lose track of time. I also bought an antique Cuckoo clock from him and have to set it up.

 

[MetalPants]

Today's commonplace technoledgy is yesterday's magic. Just imagine what tomorrow will bring.

 

[Zulu Romeo]

Today's commonplace technoledgy is yesterday's magic. Just imagine what tomorrow will bring.

Tomorrow's will of course be just as magical... if of course it is deemed sufficiently advanced.

 

[Holdfast]

Improvements in technology haven't really taken my by surprise. I've always been aware of what is possible and how things will improve over time, so short of any innovative inventions, it's all fairly predictable. Perhaps the most impressive was the ipod when it came out.

Our technology is almost all computerised now. And to be honest, I'm not massively impressed with modern designs. It has problems:

1. More prone to breakdown or lose it's "mind". I don't want a toaster with a microcontroller in it, because it will go wrong and refuse to toast my bread. I want one with a simple analogue timing circuit.

2. Too fragile. Most stuff made today is far too cheaply made for my liking. I want things to be over engineered, and last me my whole life, should I want it to. Some of the things I have from the 1970s/80s (family handdowns) are well made and I can tell that they will last me my whole life.

3. Poor backwards compatibility. New technology evolves in such a way that older versions of the same technology are not compatible. It leaves you with useless stuff, trying to force you to buy new, which will suffer from the same problem. Digital television falls into this category. The transmissions get more complex, and the older decoders cannot handle it.

4. Under specified. Computer technology has become victim to a "as long as it looks like it works" design mentality. Most standard parts of modern computers have been cut down to save money but have become unreliable and often don't work as a result. You'll discover that if you try to be something other than mainstream. The 486 was the last computer which followed established standards to the letter. This situation has gotten worse as time has passed.


The modern world is driven by a "how can we do it cheaper" approach. It wasn't always that way. I'll be glad when the world has moved beyond this mentality.

This is an interesting viewpoint, but for me misses an essential point - the speed of progress is often such that the points above don't actually matter for the vast majority of people. Built-in obsolence either done deliberately or through cost-cutting doesn't matter if you will replace the device before the time of the obsolence.

This is a natural corollary of "just in time" stock control used in businesses where you only hold just as much inventory as you need. Why build an item to last a lifetime, when most people will want a newer item in 3 years? Might as well only build it to last 4 years at most, and you'll cover most of the owners of the device, esp. if the rate of technological progress is fast enough to encourage upgrading. Of course, sometimes manufacturers get this wrong and the device has enough cumulative shortcuts that it conks out sooner than expected, but that doesn't negate the value of the principle.

It means the consumer has access to cheaper devices sooner, and that businesses are more efficient and profitable.

Now, it's true that this (and more broadly how this "just in time" principle is implemented across various fields, esp. logistics) means the world in general is becoming increasingly finely tuned with little slack in the system. That means that the old adage that anarchy is only 3 meals away probably has become 1 meal away nowadays (cf Katrina's aftermath for a recent demonstration). But in a modern, technologically-driven, aspirational, consumerist, and vaguely democratic society, it's difficult to see how the population's demands can be met cost-efficiently any other way.

 

[Jadzia]

This is an interesting viewpoint, but for me misses an essential point - the speed of progress is often such that the points above don't actually matter for the vast majority of people. Built-in obsolence either done deliberately or through cost-cutting doesn't matter if you will replace the device before the time of the obsolence.

I like good quality long lasting things. I like my property to be no more mortal than I am. Why should I have to suffer things being inadequately made and failing on me? Why should anyone?

Cutting corners and low longevity products is just a shameful way of engineering things. If the 21st century is to be anything to be proud of, then we should be looking towards ideals, and producing things of quality.

 

[Holdfast]

This is an interesting viewpoint, but for me misses an essential point - the speed of progress is often such that the points above don't actually matter for the vast majority of people. Built-in obsolence either done deliberately or through cost-cutting doesn't matter if you will replace the device before the time of the obsolence.

I like good quality long lasting things. I like my property to be no more mortal than I am. Why should I have to suffer things being inadequately made and failing on me? Why should anyone?

But if, say, 90% of people will replace the item anyway before it fails, then they haven't suffered it. This is the point I'm making - items that people are likely to keep ages still ARE made well. Think about cars - they're much, much more reliable than they used to be, esp. at the lower end of the market, and require much, much less maintenance. Why? Because people keep them for years and years and so their reliability is a major factor on purchase. So it's not as if we don't value reliability and quality in certain areas.

But with ephemera (and for most people, a computer, a phone, even a toaster, etc are ephemera), the long-term reliability isn't an issue on purchase because they're likely to buy an upgrade before long-term reliability comes into question. In that situation, ensuring long-term reliability becomes an expense the buyer has no interest in paying for, and rightly so.

Leaving aside business/profit concerns, even if one were to hypothetically mandate all items lasted 10 years, the effect would be that the cost of the items would increase, due to the need to improve component/build quality, and so the number of people that could afford them would drop.

This strikes me as unfair. I feel that the more people that can afford the latest trinket they can enjoy, the better. And this consumerist principle is greatly aided by cutting costs, lowering the unit price of an item. As long as the effect of cuts isn't perceived as deleterious by the vast majority of purchasers (either because they'll upgrade before failure, or the unit price is so low as to make replacement pain-free), in my book it counts as "no harm, no foul".

Where it goes wrong, and manufacturers overdo it, the negative publicity they suffer (leading eventually to revenue loss) should equilibrate the market, provided they're not indulging in anti-competitive/abusive practices to distort the marketplace of course.

I do appreciate that this is a fairly strong capitalist/consumerist/aspirational worldview though, so I don't actually expect you do agree with the principles herein, which clearly differ quite strongly from your own value system. Just thought I'd state my thoughts a bit more elaborately.

 

[John Picard]

^^ Holdfast makes an excellent point. I've been a hard core enthusiast of air-cooled Volkswagens since I was about 10 years old. Unfortunately, the hobby is being overrun with cheapskates who put price over quality. Why buy a good, well made windshield seal for $35 when company X sells something "similar" for $18? Too bad the $18 seal will last *maybe* six months before it cracks or bleeds black all over the car when you wash it. That's just one example. Because of this Wal Mart mentality, the cheap parts become prevalent, and the good stuff gets squeezed out. Does anyone bother to get a clue? Nope. Do they clue in that the low price equals ill-fitting parts? Nope.

So, after years and years of something I enjoyed, I've decided to walk out of the hobby and get rid of everything I have.

 

[Trekker4747]

Oh sure, they can do this but they can't make a printer-ink cartridge that doesn't cost more than a printer that comes with the ink.



Technology like his has long sense stopped amazing me. It's progress but at somepoint it has to reach its theoretical limits.

I do still chuckle about the time my dad expressed amazement that my mom and I had filled up the 10MB hard drive on our first computer.